These readings have been some of my favorites throughout the semester (though I've certainly enjoyed almost all of the work we've studied - a rare thing, even for a literature nerd like me).
Pater asks how we might define beauty. One of the most interesting questions he asks is "What is this song or picture, this engaging personality presented in life or in a book, to me?" (1507). I think this accurately sums up the theme of his discussion. I mentioned in class that I think this question is along the same lines as asking yourself or someone else, "Well, why do you like [book, music, movie, etc.]?" There really isn't any definite answer for either question. I could say, "Oh, this song reminds me of [random event in my life]," but that doesn't mean anything to anyone else. Beauty is relative to the individual. In Pater's "'La Gioconda,'" he suggests that da Vinci's paiting of Mona Lisa is the epitome of the artist's work, and also that the feelings it evokes represent the combination of the absolute id (the basest human pleasures) and the absolute superego (the most intense form of self-control). In "Conclusion," Pater suggests that art is "the race of the midstream, a drift of momentary acts of sight and passion and thought" (1511). This is sort of how I feel about writing (or how anyone might feel about creative expressions) - they're about sight, passion, and thought. A final interesting idea that Pater expounds is that we also need to have the sciences in order to put the arts into perspective.
The excerpt we read from T. Clifford Allbutt's "Nervous Diseases and Modern Life" discusses neuroses - the breakdown of the human psyche when the observation of too much creativity overloads the senses. Neurotics, according to Allbutt, have a distinct lack of innocence and imagination, a lack of faith, and a healthy sense of cynicism. The performance of lives and the decay of abject morality leads to insanity. However, Allbutt admits that going crazy isn't a death sentence. Once overextended aesthetes get their lives in order, once things are put in perspective for them, they may recover. The article makes perfect sense; those who spend their lives putting on a performance for the sake of other people lose their own identities. If they change who they are to fit burgeoning trends every few weeks or months, these aesthetes might be likely to go crazy. It's no surprise that disorders like schizophrenia could develop.
Arthur Symons' excerpt from his article, "The Decadent Movement in Literature," reiterates Allbutt's theories that those who participate in the Decadent movement put on false airs for show. They are concerned with colors and patterns, showy and distinct outward appearance modifiers. What I wonder is if there can be a return to nature once one experiences Decadence, or if the neurotic breakdown is the fate of all who play into this lifestyle.
The example of Decadence we studied is Oscar Wilde's play, "The Importance of Being Earnest." The play, according to the small introduction, was meant to depict the "deconstruction of Victorian moral and social values," which it does perfectly and succinctly. The characters in the play reserve sentiment for art, and science for life (in other words, emotion is for creativity, and formulas are for life). Throughout the play there are many pointless interruptions - this is art for art's sake. Wilde portrays Victorian views on family, marriage, parenting, and relationships between relatives and lovers. I really enjoyed reading the play, as I never had before. I appreciated the social commentary - the Victorian era is slowly becoming one of my favorites in terms of literature.
No comments:
Post a Comment