Men Explain Lolita To Me

Fri Dec 18 12:59:47 CST 2015

Lol,
       I was just responding to a single sentence in the last three lines
of the essay, where she suddenly asserts "Art makes LIfe". She may not even
have intended it other than metaphorically. It just seemed a little too
bold an assertion to me.

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree with what you say, I think.  I am not going to reread Solnit to
> see how I have misread her. What I remember is DANTO arguing that art/
> literature must have some effect or it wouldn't be art and the State
> wouldn't worry about some examples of it.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Dec 18, 2015, at 1:43 PM, Peter M. Fitzpatrick <petopoet at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>      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/20151218/8abac608/attachment.html>