"It elevates the seen over the unseen, can easily portray a struggle for justice, focuses on the anecdote, and encourages us to judge social institutions by the intentions of the people who work in them, rather than looking at their deeper and longer-term outcomes."
ADDED: And this is why those lefty teachers are so keen on getting kids to read fiction stories and not nonfiction as they learn to read. (Remember the great children-reading-nonfiction blog vortex of 2007?)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
91 comments:
Symbolism over substance, as El Rushbo likes to say - check.
Good intentions mean more than real accomplishment - check.
Yep, he nails it.
WV "acksmas" When we celebrate the Birth of Acks.
That is a great summary of liberal philosophy. Liberalism is generally not principled and heedless of consequences except for the "principle" that "something should be done" to alleviate the suffering of the subject of the story. That is opposed to the sort of conservatism that worships traditions, antebellum slavery for example, that cause immense suffering.
Consider the excellent HBO series, "The Wire".
Despite being created by a liberal writer and with the intent of sending a liberal message, the end result is libertarian -- even conservative.
The government is corrupt and indifferent. Public schools are just interested in pushing people through the system, not in educating them. The police department is more interested in appearing to fight crime than in actually fighting it. Crime is shown as a product not of poverty, but of the culture the criminals are raised in.
The intent, I think, was to argue that these are problems we need to fix. But the show serves to illustrate the small-government argument that governments are composed of *people*, and people are too flawed to be given that much authority over one another.
Leftards constantly and consistently confuse Justice for revenge.
If government looks at cutting back spending, the story is ALWAYS about the most sympathetic victim of the cutbacks. Is this because the story is liberal or because the storytellers are liberal? Yes!
When we watch the Olympics, my wife wants to know about the spouses, the children, the struggle, etc. Same for a football game -- is the QB married, etc?
The story that grabs the attention of the average person is that of the people involved. Numbers are too abstract. Tax policy, economics, law -- just words on the page.
This gets to one of the silliest arguments we have heard from some liberal pundits -- that liberalism is hard to understand. BS! Liberalism is about the symbolism of passing a law. You are suffering? OK, we passed a law to fix your problem. {But what if the law has unintended long term consequences? See e.g. welfare. -- That's what conservatives have to explain. Much harder.}
...a struggle for justice...
Translation: circling the wagons around protected classes.
The rest of Jaltcoh's post is worth reading -- because it presents the counterargument. The story, by focusing on the individual, and by trading on conflict, supports an inherently right-wing view of the universe.
BaseballCrank makes these points and more in his long essay Bruce Springsteen and the Right. Here's a sample:
So much of the lyrics and imagery of rock and post-rock pop is about one form or another of hedonism, the ancient Dionysian lure of indulging today without thought of tomorrow. But while the characters in Bruce's songs may be no saints, the world they inhabit is as relentless in tracing the consequences of their sins as anything sketched by Dostoevsky, Victor Hugo or Cormac McCarthy.
...a struggle for justice...
Translation: destroying white ethnics.
...a struggle for justice...
Translation: forcing acquiescence in the monstrous lie that the Wookie is beautiful.
Leftism is all about bumper-sticker mentality, e.g., "War on Poverty," "Bush lied, People died" etc. The Devil is ALWAYS in the details--LOTS of them--and a dumbed-down society with the attention-span of a gnat will ALWAYS gravitate to the simplistic, sound-bite "what-have-you-done-for-me-lately" solution..
For the left it's ALWAYS about the narrative--the narrative of "good intentions." And that with enough good-will and application of government programs/intervention all evils/problems can be set right. Facts?" "Unintended consequences?" Consideration of second and third-order effects? How quaint..
Collective guilt seems to be a common theme of left-wing literature. I suppose that they learned this from the Bible.
Unlike the Gospels, lefties offer little inspirational hope of individual triumph and salvation because they just can't seem to get over the notion of collective equality as a necessary end result.
Lefties need to re-embrace notions of good and bad and not be afraid to discriminate.
I don't have anything to say here. I just find the subject (leftism v. rightism) fascinating, and I enjoyed the comments above. The main reason I'm posting is the word verification I've got here:
wv: dernut
Mmmmmm. Dernuts.
A commenter over there mentions Wrapes of Wrath as the iconic leftist novel.... Is that really so? If the novel is that important, I'll try to read it.
Henry, thanks for that link! An excellent article about Springsteen and why he's got broad appeal.
P.S. Sometimes novels that are 'left-wing' are strangely right wing, at least to a conservative (thinking about East of Eden, where the leftist characters seemed such darned fools.)
An excellent article about Springsteen and why he's got broad appeal.
It's also an interesting bit of apologia.
Atlas Shrugged isn't exactly right wing to need a left wing counterpart.
Anyhow, how about Charles Dickens?
Not sure about "leftist" novels (Steinbeck was an economic realist...not some cute, PC liberal)--but garbage novels--that'd be anything that came of Ayn Rand's garbage c*nt. Garlic aroma that could level Tacoma, yall
Anyhow, how about Charles Dickens?
I think a Chinese Charles Dickens might find a broad audience. One based in Wisconsin (especially Madison) just lacks something.
"A commenter over there mentions Wrapes of Wrath as the iconic leftist novel.... "
Wrapes of Wrath? How wude!
Professor...
Hey! I said hey! (*grumbles*)
I make those mistakes all the time....
BaseballCrank makes these points and more in his long essay Bruce Springsteen and the Right.
There's another 'singer' that jostles for top ranking along with Dylan as having a voice that can curdle fresh milk.
This is nonsense. The "struggle for justice" is not left-wing, and I can't believe conservatives would cede that to liberals.
Is Genesis really left-wing? That's a story/literature.
Mr. Cowen is confusing what fiction has too often become with what it is capable of.
As for Dickens, back when George Orwell was still a socialist, he wrote an essay attacking Dickens for not seeing that the problems he kept writing about needed to be solved -- with redistribution!
Wrapes of Wrath? How wude!
It was also a telling confusion of wrong and wright.
More thoughts: what about Saul Bellow? Orwell? Koestler? Jonathan Swift? Evelyn Waugh?
How is an emphasis on the individual over the group, or numbers/statistics, left-wing?
As a fiction writer, I suspect that "the story" has not evolved from antiquity to the present, oral myth to short novel, for the sole purpose of flattering the egos of modern progressives. Undoubtedly I think most people who venture to write stories have a liberal temperament--as I often say I do despite being politically conservative--,and often this temperament manifests itself by producing what is easily identifiable as "left-wing stories" to people who cannot distinguish social critique from social prescription (Dickens wrote critique; Sinclair wrote prescription). But take an inventory of, say, 20 stories most people would readily call a classic and you will not find an inherent left-wing political bias in most of them. It is a modern conceit from people who read too many contemporary--which is to say, capital-l Liberal--novelists to say "the story" is "left-wing." It is absurd.
John Derbyshire said, "Wherever there's a jackboot stomping on a human face, somewhere else there's a well-heeled Western liberal eager to point out that the face does, after all, enjoy free health care and 100% literacy."
Which is the group that cares about "data" and "numbers," and which is the group that cares about the unquantifiable, anecdotal individual?
What's the point of caring about freedom if you don't care about the anecdotal, the individual?
Two things, reading the comments at Marginal Revolution:
1) Tyler Cowen alludes to the essay
Whas is Seen and What is not Seen; now, that's conservative reading.
2) Dostoevsky is a better example of a conservative author than Rand is.
Stories in general?
I'd say that's pretty much not the case. Stories are shaped by the storytellers. Who can be expressing stories from all kinds of directions.
Mostly, though, I think that when we try to imbue stories with a political slant we're attaching our contemporary and personal assessments on them. Indeed, even trying to pick characteristics, rather than just politics, that are "right wing" or "left wing" is pretty dangerous.
Because I'm pretty sure that something like Uncle Tom's Cabin, one of the key texts of the early Republican party that helped sweep Lincoln into power, isn't something that those on the Left would want to give to present day Republicans.
The very strong (and war-mongering) Lord of the Rings trilogy also is pretty right wing, with its emphasis on personal choice, good versus evil, and suspicion of an all-encompassing government.
There's the other danger of trying to come up with what was left wing and right wing in particular moments of history and what is leftwing and right wing now. There's not a predictable consistency.
I certainly reject the notion that "The Story" as a concept has a political bias of some sort. It's far to broad a concept for that. That's almost like saying communication has a political bias.
wv: whooring
Love me some Tyler Cowen. In this Blogging Heads, Will Wilkinson interviews him about his book, 'Create Your Own Economy.'
The biggest take away for me was Tyler's notion that the average person is often carried away by an attachment to an emotional narrative, which is what he seems to be saying in the quoted piece.
I read almost exclusively fiction (mostly scifish stuff) and I'm a teabagging, rightwing, archconservative extremist.
If Leftists think that fiction is inherently Left-wing or that it has the power to turn people into Leftists...well, then I guess they're just about as right about that as they are about everything else.
A commenter over there mentions Wrapes of Wrath as the iconic leftist novel.... Is that really so? If the novel is that important, I'll try to read it.
What is that awful novel about some women being forced to have babies for other women because they were sterile and abortion was outlawed? Absolute dreck.
I think good novels are going to have broad appeal and not be able to be pigeon holed into left or right.
An excellent article about Springsteen and why he's got broad appeal.
Oprah's book club had broad appeal.
*ducks*
What is that awful novel about some women being forced to have babies for other women because they were sterile and abortion was outlawed?
The Handmaid's Tale. I thought the movie was pretty good; never read the book.
Men are more inclined to wax poetic about Angelina Jolie than Madame Albright. In like way, artists are more apt to feel the pain and sing the joys of egoists and rebels than their more dutiful peers. Homer nods respectfully to Hector, but Achilles is the real star of the Iliad. Shakespeare writes of the tragedy of Caesar, but who writes of Cincinattus. Wellington was a demonstrably greater general than Napoleon and a far wiser statesman. But except for the Bronte sisters, he never excited the imagination of his age. Beethoven wrote the Eroica symphony for Napoleon and some now forgotten piece for Wellington. Until very recently, Hollywood bought into the myth of plumed Cavaliers when they made movies about the Confederacy. With similar insight. they have now glommed onto Che Guevara.....From the very beginning, artists have been glamourizing assholes. That's just the way they are.
"Leftards constantly and consistently confuse Justice for revenge."
As opposed to right thinking, uh, "rightards," who contantly and consistently confuse revenge for justice?
Walden Two
"If Leftists think that fiction is inherently Left-wing or that it has the power to turn people into Leftists...well, then I guess they're just about as right about that as they are about everything else."
Who ever said "leftists" proposed this argument?
Well, critical theory in narrative posits that narrative itself is right wing: a story starts when some rupture in the social order occurs, and then is resolved. So admitting of a social norm at all, of wrong and right, is inherently right wing to theorists. That's why their novels and films make no sense--they're subverting the morality of story itself.
This is the most inane thing I've ever read on The Althouse Blog.
Greek Myths? Grimm's Fairy Tales? Beowulf? Are these left-wing...??? How could they possibly be so, since they're not even American?
"That is opposed to the sort of conservatism that worships traditions, antebellum slavery for example, that cause immense suffering."
I find this to be a curious comment, and don't want to initiate a threadjack (maybe GWTW can be invoked here), but I don't know anyone who worships antebellum slavery. Have never heard of anyone who does. I do know people that "worship" the Confederacy, but if doing so necessarily equates to worshiping slavery, then what are we to do about the much-celebrated Egyptian culture with its artifacts proudly on display around the world? Is there a time limit, beyond which we ignore the transgressions of a civilization? If so, what is the limit?
Currently for my kids' bedtime I'm reading from Italo Calvino's Italian Folktales.
A folktale almost perfectly fits the definition of "story."
And the message is clear. Youngest children are the luckiest. Jealousy and envy are profound motivators. The world is terrifying and wonderful. Don't be a witch.
More accurately, the modern American story is usually left wing.
Accuracy isn't very interesting.
Stories can support pretty much anything you want. Cf: Goebbels and fiction in Nazi Germany.
But its much easier to write mass quantities of mediocre fiction from a left-wing standpoint. A lot of Left-wing fiction is just:
-Isn't it sad that person X is unemployed while Fatcat Y is eating Cavier?
-If it feels good why can't we just do it? The Man's always raining on my parade.
-Isn't sad that two beautiful people are kept apart because of those boring old marriage vows.
-Isn't it awful men have to join the armed forces and kill people and get bossed around? War, what is it good for?
-Who wants to work and spend their lives making money? Lets be artists and find ourselves.
-So what if he stole money, committed a (small) crime, or got a girl pregnant? He's an OK guy and better than all those Fat cat, Psalm singing hypocrites!
- Why are discriminating against X or Y based on their skin color or religion? Its just so unfair.
Wow. It must be easy to be a modern liberal.
Never having to make any choices.
"Now, what I want is facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but facts. Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else, and root out everything else."
Mr. Gradgrind
Certain narrative themes (i.e. the struggle of the "little guy", the privileges and abuses of power) resonate deeply with Americans. It's easy to plug them into liberal (not in the classic sense) story-lines (i.e. the evil corporation, the labor Union fighting for a "decent wage")
Its not too difficult to plug those same themes into conservative storylines (i.e. fighting against the bureacracy, the small business man thwarted by collusion between the big businesses and the government)
I think the hardest conservative theme to portray in a story is "unintended consequences" (i.e. doing something to make things better may make things worse).
I also haven't seen much regarding entitlement of the working class/middle class.
Now as I write this I'm thinking of the movie Brazil. I bet leftists can see a lot to like in that movie even though at its core its about an oppressive , entrenched bureacracy. And the hero just simply wants freedom for himself (and his "girlfriend")
Is "Its a Wonderful Life" left or right.
Note the bad guy is a power and money hungry banker.
Note the good guy is a hardworking small business owner dedicated to family.
I think that a lot of left wing writers/directors/etc end up producing right wing friendly entertainment simply because they don't know what actual right wing beliefs are. When you get your understanding of conservatism from Media Matters, it can be understandable you don't know what to avoid having your good liberal characters doing.
If you want the quintessential left wing story, just watch Law and Order, especially anything with Sam Waterston in it, or the later Criminal Intent crap.
You can always guess who done it by their skin color and job.
Hint: It wasn't the Muslim dude.
Crimso said....
I find this to be a curious comment, and don't want to initiate a threadjack (maybe GWTW can be invoked here), but I don't know anyone who worships antebellum slavery."
That's true but you have to admit that "Mandingo" was a pretty cool flick. Just sayn'
Mandingo - even the name is cool. I wanted to change my name to "Mandingo" but my Mom objected.
Stupid Mom.
OT, but a really good lefty read nonetheless.
President Obama Signs Order Resuming Gitmo Trials
Revenant said...
Consider the excellent HBO series, "The Wire".
Despite being created by a liberal writer and with the intent of sending a liberal message, the end result is libertarian -- even conservative'
"The Wire" is without question the finest series ever broadcast on television. The co-creators were ex-cops and newspaper men who know the score. They were more interested in truth than making political points. They gave the best depiction of "journalists" every portrayed on television where they showed how they just make shit up and are never called on it but just get promoted.
You have to watch it from the begining because it is dense and complicated but it is very much worth the effort. There is nothing else like it on TV.
The other thing about the creators and show runners was that they are generous and very smart. They used some of the greatest crime novelists working today to script some of their episodes. Such great talent as Dennis Lehane, Richard Price and Geroge Pelocano's give an infusion of talent not seen anywhere else on TV.
Get the original version on Net Flicks and you will be very glad you did.
Regarding the "Wire". Does it have any T&A? Or Jimmy Walker (Dyn-o-mite)?
It sounds pretty grim.
The Handmaids Tale. Thanks Revenant. The movie may be awesome, I just couldn't deal with the book. Although I guess it was good enough to read the whole way through, but it was just so...forced? I don't know. I was very unsatisifed when I finished it.
Don't be a witch.
Heh. I have a book on the psychology of fairy tales called "The Witch Must Die". It's all about how fairy tales are all about the good mother figure and the bad mother figure (witch/fairy godmother, etc..). Pretty interesting actually.
If you want the quintessential left wing story, just watch Law and Order, especially anything with Sam Waterston in it, or the later Criminal Intent crap. You can always guess who done it by their skin color and job.
Hint: It wasn't the Muslim dude.
Usually I enjoy the show Castle as light fluffy entertainment with charming Nathan Fillion. But the last two part episode was [SPOILER] two Muslim dudes who were framed on a dirty bomb by some ex marine's, because they were mad about something or other. And the whole time Castle kept saying things like "don't pick the obvious choice of the Muslim dudes!" It was so forced that it took me out of the show.
The idea that storytelling could be inherently 'left-wing' could only make sense if you assume that creativity by its very nature is somehow 'left-wing' or, in any event, absolutely set against everything that stands. Which would make Homer, the Aeneid, or "Pride and Prejudice" very hard to explain.
But I have to respectfully digress into the old 'vortex'. Does Ann think there should be no fiction *at all* in education? And where are all these accessible, well-written, scrupulously accurate history texts that she would have comprise the backbone, if not the entirety, of the syllabus?
--To say nothing of "science" books. Any "science" that can present itself as a layperson's "book" is pretty much, by definition, a mere lay popularization.
Would young people be better equipped to lead meaningful lives by reading "The Story of Mankind", Bob Wright and "A Brief History of Time"?
For that matter (vis-a-vis the "Et tu, Brute" protester from way back) is Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" some kind of sissy, left-tard distortion of history? It makes *factual* distortions, sure; but so too, no doubt, do the Gallic Commentaries.
Allan Bloom: "It is not evident to me that someone whose regular reading consists of 'Time,' 'Playboy,' and 'Scientific American' has any profounder wisdom about the world than the rural schoolboy of yore with his McGuffey's reader." (The Closing of the American Mind, 59)
Fiction follows the design of the author. Think of Robert Heinlein. None of his stories are liberal-progressive or collectivist. They are individualistic and aggressively anti-collectivist.
rcocean said...
Regarding the "Wire". Does it have any T&A? Or Jimmy Walker (Dyn-o-mite)?
It sounds pretty grim."
It has lots of scenes in titty bars with naked chicks and mean lesbians who carry a gun. Sort of like Beth's NOLA only with a Baltimore accent.
Omar the rip off artist is one of the coolest characters you are ever gonna see on TV. Very unusual in unexpected ways. Just sayn'
Shanna said, "Although I guess [The Handmaid's Tale] was good enough to read the whole way through, but it was just so...forced? I don't know. I was very unsatisifed when I finished it.
My recollection is that the main character solved her problem in the end by running off with a hot guy named Nick. As a feminist novel, it was a fraud.
Is "Its a Wonderful Life" left or right.
Note the bad guy is a power and money hungry banker.
Note the good guy is a hardworking small business owner dedicated to family.
~~~~~
Even if one buys into the inane generalization premise: all conservatives think the same and all liberals think the same, you could not answer the question as again, life is not as black and white as AA or Hollywood wants to portray it.
And films/books w/grey area are a lot more interesting/intriguing anyways as absolutes are boring.
One of the reasons GWTW was such a good movie, Rhett and Scarlett didn't ride off into the sunset ie no Hollywood ending lol. Same w/Casablanca ...
I digress.
I began reading fiction at the age of 9. Mostly they were cowboy novels. I subscribed to Argosy Magazine when I was that age. I remember reading "Shane" in a serialized version there five years before I saw the movie when I was in 8th grade.
I still read Tom Clancy and WEB Griffin but, if you want classics, Alexander Dumas is still available in the original translations. I read Watership Down and Lord of the Rings to my kids when they were little. Remember that Tolkein was writing in the late 30s when England was living the story.
One of the greatest conservative fiction writers, all of whose books are not only in print but in Kindle editions, is Neville Shute. Many of his stories, like "A Town Like Alice" are about starting a business and how helpful that is to the local society. "Round the Bend" is his story about starting a cargo airline in the Middle East just after WWII. Almost all his stories have business people as heroes.
elcrain said...
My recollection is that the main character solved her problem in the end by running off with a hot guy named Nick. As a feminist novel, it was a fraud.
Pfft. Deux ex machina.
Blogger Lucius quotes Allan Bloom:
It is not evident to me that someone whose regular reading consists of 'Time,' 'Playboy,' and 'Scientific American' has any profounder wisdom about the world than the rural schoolboy of yore with his McGuffey's reader.
That's because Allan Bloom only read Playboy for the articles. Ya want profound wisdom, ya gotta look at the pictures. That's why they're there.
Going back to the claim that modern art is right wing:
Modern art is progressive; it is not right wing. The practitioners of both modern art and modern architecture (as opposed to traditional, classical architecture) aim to confuse and confound the bourgeoisie.
For example, look at the Seattle Central Library designed by Rem Koolhaas. The inside of the building actually does confuse the general public... it almost holds them in contempt. And look at the design of the building itself - it imposes itself on the street in a fascist manner.
Similarly, modern art rejects tradition. It also rejects beauty as a universal value, and instead seeks to shock the audience (see the countless examples of crosses in urine, or pictures of Christ defecated upon). In the words of Roger Scruton, modern art rejects beauty because it is afraid of love.
I think that we're being to direct in our application. I don't think that the original fellow meant that *literature* is left-wing in the same way that, for example, boring people insist that truth has a liberal slant.
Story as a proper noun, an abstract concept, rather than story as "this is a story."
One way that *story* might seem to be liberal (or progressive, if you prefer) is that we understand story to require an engagement of the emotions.
Little Red Riding Hood may have originated as a morality tale about little girls choosing between a life of servitude or prostitution, but Little Red herself is personified for the purpose of engaging the emotions. One can explain dispassionately the pit-falls of seduction and ask the hearer to engage reason, or one can tell a story and ask them to identify with and feel with a character.
...being too direct...
As for the education of children and "the vortex"...
It hasn't always been the case that fiction was considered a good thing. Sure, there probably weren't that many people like my great-grandmother who viewed all fiction as sinful on account of it being a lie, but it was commonly seen as a frivolous waste of time.
And now we want to force the kids who aren't interested to learn to like it or think there is something wrong with themselves. Fact is, some people don't care for made up stories and would rather read news or opinions or something informational like how to tune a car or make ravioli with a raw quail egg inside. But just now the *fashion* is to value novel reading and try to force it on children somewhat like forcing right handedness on a left handed child.
But just now the *fashion* is to value novel reading and try to force it on children somewhat like forcing right handedness on a left handed child.
Those are good points but the key is to let the kid read what he wants so long as he reads. My father's most frequent greeting to me was "Get your nose out of that book !" Sort of like Bill Cosby who thought his brother's name was "Jesus Christ !" until they were ten.
Now, we have alternatives and maybe I would have been into computer games at nine (I was later a programmer so I don't think so).
I was also left handed, supposedly, and my father changed me. IM guess I'll never know unless I have a stroke.
I guess I should add that I have seen what passes for "fiction" at the college level these days and I wouldn't read it either.
"Bonfire of the Vanities" is a conservative novel, as are other recent works by Tom Wolfe.
Sort of like Bill Cosby who thought his brother's name was "Jesus Christ !"
Cosby's name was Jesus Christ. His brother Russell was "Damnit".
Following the link I was saddened by Althouse's dissing of "Dick and Jane". I consider liking "Run, Spot, Run" to be the first step in appreciating great literature.
Yes, "Bonfire" is a great conservative novel. Too bad Liberal Hollywood didn't have the guts/desire to make an accurate movie of it. Nor has TV made it into a mini-series.
Maybe, that's one reason we see a lot of liberal fiction.
Professor, your son -- and Tyler Cowan -- need to broaden their reading.
"In the words of Roger Scruton, modern art rejects beauty because it is afraid of love."
What a pile of horse-shit.
Everything by Tom Wolfe is conservative. The Electric Kool-Aid Test, works on many levels including the point that several people involved in the acid scene went crazy.
The Painted Word and From Bauhaus to Our House are devastating traditionalist critiques of modern art and architecture.
Radical Chic and Mau-Mauing the Flack Catchers skewer the mores of 1970s limousine liberalism and academic goofy liberalism.
You should all read all over Tom Wolfe's books. The man is brilliant.
...a struggle for justice...
Yeah, pretty much when I hear that I know someone is reaching for my wallet.
Yes, but can you afford the massive financial and technical outlays implicit in the iPhone studio system?
audi-parts
It's worse than you stated in 2007. My children's public high school (they went to Lutheran grade school) uses *Fiction* books to teach history! As a trained historian, I was utterly horrified. But the teachers (all, of course, far younger than I) *didn't* *see* *a* *problem*!
Think about this: public school teachers of history do not see a problem in using texts that are made up to teach high school age students history.
They don't even attempt to draw a distinction between "fiction" and "non-fiction".
Lin
Now before you get all up at arms over using fiction to teach history: One of the best classes I took in college used James Michener's "The Source" and a couple other novels, including Michael Shaara's "The Killer Angels," along with a text. The novels were outside reading, and we were tested on them. I probably learned more about the Holy Land by reading Michener's book than I had through any other means.
How can "the story per se" be left-wing?
Most of the "stories" I've read in the last several years were either mysteries, science fiction, George MacDonald, or Orson Scott Card, and since by now I know what I like, the self-selection bias is huge.
Still, if you take the mystery genre alone, what you generally have is a private individual fighting evildoers and (as likely as not) stupid or corrupt government. Sara Paretsky is probably the leftiest of the contemporary mystery writers I follow, but she has enough integrity to acknowledge moral complexities. (Of which, since she sets her books in Chicago, there's always a plenitude.)
wv: drock. Paretsky, Elizabeth George, Ngaio Marsh, Margery Allingham, Dorothy Sayers, and Edmund Crispin are not drock.
"Similarly, modern art rejects tradition."
What do you mean by "modern art?" Much contemporary art is quite traditional in its means and content. If by "modern art" you mean art that is abstract or expressionist or otherwise untraditional in means and content...do think think a "rejection of tradition" (aka "exploration of new approaches") is innately bad, good, or neutral?
"It also rejects beauty as a universal value, and instead seeks to shock the audience (see the countless examples of crosses in urine, or pictures of Christ defecated upon)."
How are you defining "beauty"? Why should art be beautiful or represent beauty? Why do you assume any art that does not hew to traditional subject matter or means of expression is intended to shock the audience? Some art may indeed shock merely by virtue of its newness...Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring" famously caused a riot at its premier, yet it is a beautiful work and would hardly be cause for outrage today. The beloved French Impressionists were scorned in their day and the term "Impressionist" was first utilized as a pejorative. Neither Stravinsky nor the Impressionists intended to shock anyone, yet their work was unprecented in nature and thus received as an assault on convention.
As for those artists who do intend to shock, one would have to discuss specific examples. Piss Christ" the notorious photograph of a crucifix immersed in the artist's urine, is actually a beautiful image, the most beautiful depiction of Christ on the cross I have seen. It is "shocking" only in that we consider urine "unclean" and impose on the photo our own interpretation of the image as somehow a desecration. It is not innately ugly in any way. I am unfamiliar with pictures of Christ defecated upon.
Some artists who employ intentional shock tactics are simply bad artists who resort to sensation for lack of any other ideas or virtues and may be easily ignored.
"In the words of Roger Scruton, modern art rejects beauty because it is afraid of love."
Oh, please.
The right wants history?? Nyet.
Nazis, klansmen, capitalists and social darwinists (ie, Kissinger, Winnie Churchill, Ted Roosevelt. OW Holmes) --bad for business including the theology bidness.
Not to say communism is much better.
What do you mean by "modern art?" Much contemporary art is quite traditional in its means and content. If by "modern art" you mean art that is abstract or expressionist or otherwise untraditional in means and content...do think think a "rejection of tradition" (aka "exploration of new approaches") is innately bad, good, or neutral?
By “modern art” I’m not referring to artists and types like Manet, who may fall into the broad category of “modern artists,” but rather the art that disposes of beauty as its ultimate goal or message (however the method), and instead seeks other purposes (kitsch, irony, shock, etc.).
How are you defining "beauty"? Why should art be beautiful or represent beauty? Why do you assume any art that does not hew to traditional subject matter or means of expression is intended to shock the audience? Some art may indeed shock merely by virtue of its newness...Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring" famously caused a riot at its premier, yet it is a beautiful work and would hardly be cause for outrage today. The beloved French Impressionists were scorned in their day and the term "Impressionist" was first utilized as a pejorative. Neither Stravinsky nor the Impressionists intended to shock anyone, yet their work was unprecented in nature and thus received as an assault on convention.
Beauty is like pornography – I know it when I see it. But beauty in the form of art can be a universal value, not a subjective opinion. In other words, art can be inherently beautiful (see Michelangelo's David). Of course, what is shocking or unorthodox can also be beautiful – I never said otherwise. But it’s again method vs. purpose – Stravinsky and the Impressionists never had the purpose to shock anyone, whereas that’s the exact purpose of some modern artists. (Or kitsch, or to confound the middle class.) Anything of aesthetic value is merely an afterthought.
As for those artists who do intend to shock, one would have to discuss specific examples. Piss Christ" the notorious photograph of a crucifix immersed in the artist's urine, is actually a beautiful image, the most beautiful depiction of Christ on the cross I have seen. It is "shocking" only in that we consider urine "unclean" and impose on the photo our own interpretation of the image as somehow a desecration. It is not innately ugly in any way. I am unfamiliar with pictures of Christ defecated upon.
Actually no, you don’t have to discuss specific examples if you’re talking about the purpose to shock; the purpose is enough and at that point beauty becomes incidental. “Piss Christ” merely claims that the desecration of the sacred is art – the picture, like the idea behind it, is unimpressive. You can’t disassociate the urine and the picture. It isn’t a cross through a yellow lens.
Some artists who employ intentional shock tactics are simply bad artists who resort to sensation for lack of any other ideas or virtues and may be easily ignored.
You mean, like Andres Serrano who made "Piss Christ"?
But why would they be bad artists? Is a purpose to shock not enough, or must the art have some other value? And if so, what must that value be?
Post a Comment