Art and Authority

[Bandwraith at aol.com]

D. Monroe:

[ Well, surprised to get any response to this at all,
 which I posted largely because B&D (!) later mention
 they might have written about, among others, Lawrence,
 Bataille and Pynchon as well (none of whom generally
 display quite the austerity of Beckett, Rothko and
 Resnais, no?), and because it addressed, perhaps
 helpfully, I think, that problem of opacity,
 difficulty (though Pynchon, I think, tends more to the
 difficult than the opaque; I'd've almost put him in
 with Joyce, as B&D characterize Ulysses, at least,
 although Pynchon certainly isn't so forthcoming with
 "keys" ...) in regards to authority, in at least the
 literary sense, so ... but I'll skip reposting the
 excerpts from Bersani and Dutoit ...]



[ I think what B&D are addressing here is the presumed,
 or, at least, prescribed, "moral" function of art,
 literature, film, what have you.  That such
 productions should perform such a function, or, at any
 rate, the pressing of service of such productions into
 such functions.  That art, literature, film, should
 not just have "redeeming" qualities, but that they
 should be redemptive, or, at any rate, will be
 deployed as such.] 
  
Then I'm not sure their theororizing is that relevant to Pynchon's work, 
which generally seems to question if "any" cultural artifacts are capable 
of being redemptive, i.e., able to make up for what has been lost in the 
acquisition of Culture. The mutual dependence on the possiblity of at least 
being fooled into thinking that there might be something like the phenomenon 
of individuality loose in the world has not come cheap I'm not sure even 
religion pick up the tab let alone art, et. al. 


[ "We are not interested in comparing a Beckettian
 fiction with a Rothko painting.  Rather, our
 juxtaposition of the two has been motivated by a sense
 that in the careers of both artists there have been
 moments ... when their principal concern seems to have
 been to discourage an audience from coming to their
 work.  It is as if each of them were saying to his
 reader or spectator: I have very little (perhaps
 nothing) to say to you ... to show you,  To put this
 in another way: My work is without authority.  You
 will learn nothing from it; you will gain no moral
 profit from it; it will not even enhance your life
 with that delight or superior pleasure which, you have
 been led to believe, artists have the obligation to
 provide you.]

You have to watch that "It is as if..." trope. To my reading, it is
as if these two have put alot of words in other peoples' mouths.
Don't really feel like I've "been led to believe" as much as they
would like to lead me to believe. Art is what you can get away
with, isn't it? 

 [   "This surly discourse is of course at odds with the
 reasons presumably behind recent, and much publicized,
 calls for the maintaining of the great classics of
 western civilization in university curricula.  Our
 culture, though paying little attention to art, is
 emphatic about its edifying value.  Not only do great
 masterworks ... have much to teach us; they are
 expected to make us better individuals and better
 citizens.  They may, it is suggested, even save us
 ..." (pp. 2-3)]

I don't know about saving anyone (Is that the same as redemption?)
but it is enjoyable to see what all the fuss is about, keeping an open
mind, of course.

 > One can always close the book, leave the theater,
 > etc. The above premise, which I assume the following
 > paragraphs will be debunking is a little grandiose,
 > even for a "straw man" isn't it?

 [And one often does, believe me, I see it all the time.
  If they even bother to pick up the book, go to the
 theater, and so forth, in the first place.  People
 don't like "difficult" works.   Of course, the "easy"
 works are really never quite so innocuous as they
 appear, either, there's just an extraodinary amount of
 work that's already been done for the reader, viewer,
 whoever, which then goes ignored, but ... but just
 'cos something isn't true, doesn't mean it doesn't
 have real effects in the world ...]

I think this notion about having to do work is really quite interesting,
especially as it applies to creating or appreciating (recreating?)
artistic productions. It may be that the moral consternation surrounding
art, and maybe concerning the move toward abstractionism in particular,
is really at the heart of this little debate. Maybe the artists in question reflect
(or project) an uncertainty or insecurity over the value of their own
labours, which is heightened by the thought of the audience having to
do work to appreciate their productions. I'm reminded of Pynchon's 
comments comparing the "work" of the writer/artist to mortal sin. 
  

 > Of course, understanding any of this, or the above
 > cited artists, requires that one be a card carrying
 > intellectual, not to mention elitist, with enough
 > free-time to make the effort. These authors and the
 > artists cited are the embodiment of "cultural
 > authority." Maybe that's the "agitated narcissistic
 > concentration" angle- they are really at war with
 > themselves.

[Reminds me, better get in my renewal so's I can get my
 validation sticker for the coming year ... but my
 eternal bemusement at Pynchon fans complaining of
 difficulties reading anything else.  Anything not
 written in a language which one knows aside, and, for
 some (say, me), outside of specialized scientific and
 technical texts, what's more "difficult" reading than
 Gravity's Rainbow?  Finnegans Wake? ] 

You're a lifetime member, and anyways, reading Pynchon is only difficult if 
you're worried about getting it "right." Who can't enjoy a good limmerick, 
re: Prussian tastes?

 [But Beckett, Rothko and Resnais are still none of them
 by any means uncontroversially accepted "cultural
 authorities."   Beckett's Nobel Prize notwithstanding,
 there are still no small number of readers, viewers,
 whatever, who are skeptical of the value of their
 work, precisely because of its difficulty, its
 obscurity, its seeming lack of message, moral,
 meaning.  Cf. Pynchon here as well ...]

But they have at their disposal the means of production and distribution,
and they are deemed important enough to be discussed, the hallmarks of
authority, (or at least marketability) despite any putative denials on their part.
 "...skeptical of the value of their work..." You say? Again, it's that obligatory 
value function which must be calculated in order to to determine if their products
are worth the time and effort. You know, as in, "it's only rock and roll, but I like
it"- that individuality thing again- whatever gets you through the night. Maybe it 
can only be calculated on an individual level these days. Maybe society is too 
fragmented to redeem itself. The cost may be too high, inspite of certain unifying 
threats recently from the outside world.


 [But maybe what Bersani and Dutoit are attempting is to
 affirm the difficulty, the opacity of such works
 without redeeming them on, appropriating them to, such
 grounds, moral, message, meaning, whatever.  Which is
 sort of what I'm expecting, but, well, still reading,
 so ...]

Affrim?

 > The difference (and long live that difference) is
 > that Slothrop wants to understand, and probably
 > longs to be understood. That's what provides him
 > with a measure of our sympathy. These two are much
 > more concerned with replacing the old system of
 > control and domination with one of their own.

[ Of course, we sympathize with all those Pynchonian
 protagonists who are trying to figure out just what
 the hell is going on, because we're constantly asking
 the same question ...

 But what I was interested in in Bersani and Dutoit
 here is that connection of opacity with the
 renunciation of authority, a reticence to an outright
 refusal to say anything straightforwardly for fear of,
 say, seeming to provide definitive answers, much less
 a positive course of action, a way out ...]

Why then bother to say anything? Or, if they insist, why bother paying
attention to them? There must be at least a hint of a pay-off. Otherwise, 
why not just become a zen buddy and contemplate koans? It must be that
a significant enough number of "patrons" are so entrigued by the practice 
of this "art of opacification" that they find it valuable enough to vouchsafe
authority upon those artists that practice it. What is that pay-off?  

 [Also, that passage about Slothrop's scattering in GR
 makes in particular a connection between the
 deconstruction of "the" self and, if not necessarily
 resistance to, evasion of, perhaps, authority,
 convention ("It's doubtful if he can ever be 'found'
 again, in the conventional sense of 'positively
 identified and detained" [GR, 712]) ...

 But, again, just something I flew to see who'd salute,
 or who'd tear it down and burn it in front of the
 embassy ...]

I think that the assumption that there is something called "the self" which
can be deconstructed is just that: an assumption. The opacification, the
concealment, etc., maybe be just a technique to provide the illusion of
reality to that which may not be. There still remains the potential to be
fooled into thinking that there is the possibility, however.