This third reading, to be honest, took a couple tries to get my brain wrapped around. It was much more conceptual than the other two main book excerpts and the Popova posts. But when I dug into it, I found that this writing connected with the others in many ways. One framework I found helpful when reading this was nature vs nurture. As the author writes about how one forms his own identity, the essential question becomes where the identity is coming from. We like to think it is from inside ourselves; our essential nature. When we choose to do, or not do, or like or not like something, and so on, we can feel ourselves make that decision. For most people, it is against their own conceput of themselves to consider that there is anything driving the wheel besides their own brain. But the influence that external factors have on our creation of our identity cannot be overstated. Our family, our books, our writing, our friends, our culture at large impacts us tremendously. And it becomes a reinforcing cycle- every impact that external factors have on us, we internalize and think that it came from within. The author writes about how some thinkers believe “that men are born ‘unfinished animals’, that the facts of life are less artless than they look.'' People tend to assign a poetic finish to the facts of their extenseance; they have the ability to choose everything themselves, that there is someone in life looking out for them, or that everything will be alright. But this writing argues that there is much less distinction between ourselves and that which is around us than many believe. This has a huge impact on art and how to approach it. Under this reading, each piece of art is both an extension of the social culture and the artist themselves. Take this quote: “the way to explore these implications lies neither in denying any relation between the play and social life nor in affirming that the latter is the ‘thing itself,’ free from any interpretation.” Every piece of art we consume is affected by the environment and codes it was created in, whether we consider that or not. I think that this is a great way to look at art. In some circles, how something was created already dicates much of the conversation. In film, for example, how difficult seeming a particular shot or performance was to create can have a big impact on how it is received. (This actor did his own stunts and had to wear a bear carcass! Oscar now!) Beyond that, it is now common practice to consider the demographics of the author when considering their work. Is this piece about race written by a white person? And so on. Of course, this information can greatly inform on the reading of the piece itself, and often contributes to a greater discussion of the piece. As this writing makes clear, the line between one’s self, one’s culture, and one’s art can blur.
0 Comments
|
AuthorRobbie Kane Archives
December 2019
Categories |