On Art
I just remembered I had this thought but forgot to write about it so making a note here before I forget again.
Okay, so this was prompted by my brain remembering, out of nowhere, V.E. Schwab's The Invisible Life of Addie LaRue and that led me down a rabbit hole of more thinking. My main point can be summarized as this:
In the 21st century, any form of art is seen as disconnected from the larger world around it.
I picked Addie LaRue because obviously, a book about art and books and literature with supposedly philosophical underpinnings would talk about the inherent connection of art to humanity. There is a tendency, I believe, in today's world to see art as an entirely separate realm: pure, beautiful, untouched by the messy realities of politics and war and humans being cruel and callous etc. It is a beautiful thing, it is a lovely thing, it is a redeeming thing. Creativity is a gift to be given for consumerism, to remind people that they are good no matter how rigged the systems are in the favour of the top 1%.
This is all true. Creativity is a gift.
But I think we forget that it depends upon the creator to utilize or manipulate it according to his own wishes. Addie LaRue presents art as this beautiful, humane thing entirely disconnected from the realities of war or politics. Actual history. The events that the main protagonist lived through are left out in favour of presenting this fairytale ideal, so wholesome that it connects all humans.
(Yes, I know I sound cynical)
Except, this fairytale-esque, profound connection was not the reality for several thousand groups for years. Yes, of course, there was joy. Everyone was creating art and writing books, all our cultures are replete with thousands of years' worth of beauty and knowledge. And of course, the book does not touch it. It is unabashedly Eurocentric, right down to its ideals of artistry and literature.
Because guess what sort of art the Europeans were also making c. 1700s-early 2000s :) You think those heroic portraits of Britannia or Germania were created for funsies :) just a cutesy little project for a cutesy little artist totally disconnected from what was happening in the larger world :)
Addie LaRue, as a protagonist, has the kind of features that allow her to move through the world with a certain level of comfort and anonymity. Had she been any other person in the world, the book would be called The Invisible Life of Addie LaRue.
Several other books take the same course even as they promise to tackle these prevalent issues in sff or historical fiction or any genre, really. A few familiar names pop into my mind. Even those in different genres, such as romance, seem detached from anything real, even if it's cultural joy or pride. They exist. They move towards the culmination of their arc or their love interests, quite anonymously like Addie LaRue. Their view of the world, and their art is entirely sanitized: hollowed out of any and all substance only to be pretty for an aesthetic, fit for consumption by everyone. There is this idea of appealing to an anonymous, universal gaze that is mostly white American (and quite obtrusive, because any reminders of actual history are panned and demonized, or simply brushed aside as happening in tHe OrIeNT). If you really think about it, this is how the world seems divided even today.
As Edward Said said in Culture and Imperialism (in context of the classics):
"Critics have often, I believe, relegated these writers' ideas about colonial expansion, inferior races... to a very different department from that of culture. Culture being the elevated area of activity in which they 'truly' belong and in which they did their 'really' important work."
Incredible how this is applicable to criticism in any way, shape or form today. In addition:
"Culture conceived in this way can become a protective enclosure: check your politics at the door before you enter it."
I think this idea has become extremely predominant in modern culture too. Art is equated to a disconnected aesthetic with no bearing on reality. And while I acknowledge that this approach is useful in reviewing a work without personal biases or based purely on our own enjoyment, completely stripping a text of its socio-political realities does not serve any purpose. The goal, to borrow Said's words again is to admire works for the pleasure and profit they give us while simultaneously observing "the imperial process of which they were manifestly and unconcealedly a part; rather than condemning or ignoring their participation in what was an unquestioned reality in their societies..."
To sum up, our constant struggle to achieve a pure and untouched aesthetic is ultimately fruitless because art is not created in a vacuum. It never will be. Art is born of human hands. You cannot run from its history any more than you can run from your own reality.
21 notes
·
View notes
I started wondering about Manet and photography, which he began using to document and make his own work right around the time he created Olympia. He included a photo of Olympia on the print moodboard he arranged when he painted his Portrait of Emile Zola in 1868. And it turns out several scholars have looked at Manet's work and photos of it in relation to the explosion of visual culture around Manet at the time.
images: Manet's Portrait of Emile Zola, 1868, from the Musée d'Orsay, photographed at the Met; Anatole Louis Godet's albumin print of Manet's Olympia, c. 1865-68, from one of four photo albums Godet made of Manet's work, held by the Bibliotheque national de France.
8 notes
·
View notes