Men Explain Lolita To Me

Fri Dec 18 12:43:38 CST 2015

     I suppose that subjectively, one could say that "this piece of art has
profoundly engaged me and I, personally, will act differently from now on."
That is different than a blanket statement that "Art makes Life". One could
cite Hitler's efforts at book burning and banning of "degenerate art" as
perhaps strong examples of art making a big difference in a culture. I
still think that Art, with a capitol A, has to take a back seat to the
Allied Forces noble efforts to destroy the Third Reich in making the world
a better place. Yes, the Allied bombers made special efforts to avoid
bombing the great cultural artifacts in Europe. We do value art,
literature, music, etc. I think it is a mistake to think that they
therefore gain an equal status with "Life" as, a general concept. Not
individual lives, or even a large group, but Life, as an abstract category
of existence.
     I grant that in a metaphoric or poetic sense, "Art makes Life" can be
true. I think it is a mistake to think that we use "Life' as a barometer of
how we regard the value of a piece of Art, which I think Solnit was
implying. Art can change the world in manner you suggest, but so can
weather, food, and major economic indicators. The idea that Art, by itself,
has an overarching claim on our life world than any other category, to me
still rings false. It has en elevated value, to be sure. But the minute Art
becomes a social program, we are stuck with phenomenon like Communism's
Socialist Realism.
"

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:

> Okay, I'll be ridiculous. Not the first time. I'm not going to address
> the largest implications of the question as you do.
>
> i'm going to take small philosophical baby steps. If "art makes life"
> is at least partly true for one person. And that person acts
> "better' because of it, then the statement is true.
> If "art makes life' is true of more than one person and they act
> better because of it, then the statement is true and somehow the world
> is different because of that therefore.......
>
> One question is How many are so effected? And what does it lead them
> to see and do differently? And how does that matter in your largest
> questions.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Peter M. Fitzpatrick
> <petopoet at gmail.com> wrote:
> >      I would only take issue with her final assertion that "art makes
> life".
> > I am none too sure about the truth of that, especially in our modern era,
> > where access to means of expression are at an unprecedented level, at
> least
> > in Western societies. More than one author has despaired at the idea or
> hope
> > that they could possibly change society through their writing. The
> > Mapplethorpe controversy could be read as an effort to battle gay rights
> as
> > much as artistic expression. Picasso's "Guernica" is a masterpiece, but I
> > have serious doubts if it ever changed any country's views on the use of
> > technological weapons that do not discriminate between combatants and
> > civilians. James Joyce and William S. Burroughs helped to change
> obscenity
> > rulings in American, perhaps, but I don't think this is what Solnit
> means by
> > "art makes life".
> >      Plato wanted to banish the poets, assuredly,so that his
> > philosopher-kings could priviledge reason and law over emotion and
> > imagination. I believe Heidegger had a lot to say on this aspect of our
> > cultural heritage (even if he was prone to utter idiocy in other areas,
> > notably fascism). Perhaps this is another aspect of Solnit's piece that
> > raises questions to me - why does it seem so humorless, intellectual, if
> not
> > a little unclear on what she does privilege in literature? That she uses
> > this charge of "lack of humor" to chide others does bring her own seeming
> > lack to the foreground, at least to me.
> >      "Lolita' is provocative, original, and must strike some note that is
> > essentially true to readers - books do not enter the "canon" of modern
> > literature through any other mysterious vetting process than reception
> and
> > response. Solnit can criticize it as much as she likes, it isn't going
> > anywhere. Generally, my main criticism of her piece is that it too
> strongly
> > influenced by modern literary studies efforts at de-construction and
> > Derridean disdain of the "phallo -centrism" of the so-called "Logos".
> > Somewhere in there, I think men are supposed to feel bad. My own zen
> moment
> > in modern literary critical studies was when we were covering  Lacan's
> > interpretation of Poe's "The Purloined Letter". I suddenly realized that
> I
> > could read Poe's short story one million times and I would Never, no,
> Never
> > see whatever it was that Lacan was seeing there.
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 11:06 AM, Charles Albert <cfalbert at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Thesis?
> >>
> >> Or long exhausted trope?
> >>
> >>
> >> love,
> >> cfa
> >>
> >> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Typical of Solnit: witty,engaging, sharp but balanced, and a pleasure
> to
> >>> read. Many of the responses seem to prove her thesis with unexpected
> ease.
> >>> > On Dec 17, 2015, at 3:50 PM, Matthew Taylor
> >>> > <matthew.taylor923 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > Thoughts on Rebecca Solnit's latest?
> >>> >
> >>> > http://lithub.com/men-explain-lolita-to-me/
> >>>
> >>> -
> >>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
> >>
> >>
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20151218/bee7fcc6/attachment.html>