Posts
With regard to the readings, I find myself grappling with the concept of the artist and disinterest. It seems a confusing notion. I’m having difficulty understanding Chandra’s and Croce’s take on how an artist can achieve the grandeur of the “Spirit” by being a casual onlooker to his own experiences and pain. The creation of art in-of-itself seems to me a self-indulgent practice, so why is there so much concern on Croce’s and Chandra’s part that an artist would immerse himself in his own misery, happiness, or self in order to make art? Is the artist to make only palatable work to satisfy the taste of the critics? At what point does self-expression become an expression of victimization? Is any artwork really “undiscussable" because of its content or the afflictions suffered by the maker? Is an artwork really less powerful or meaningful merely because the artist identifies with a particular group and expresses its ideals?
Great start - there's a lot there, though much of it comes back to the notion of 'disinterestedness'. I expect this will be an area we'll focus on, so I don't want to get ahead of the conversation Wednesday. Could you please locate in the text Croce and Bhabha's comments on "grandeur of spirit?" as we haven't spent a lot of time on those ideas in previous seminars.
ReplyDeleteI _do_ want to remind people to post their discussion questions and comments as new posts, not in the comments field.
Thanks for getting the ball rolling, Michele!