what do you mean? or how do you mean?

intentions, intentions. seems to be the overriding difference between the two theories. liberal humanists contend that great literature speaks in universals and thusly an author should aspire for the same. his/her intentions should be determined by this need to portray something universal, whatever that is.

meanwhile, marxists will contend an artist's intentions are already predetermined. does that mean literature has any import outside of the base? yes of course, but i think we'd have to put marxism aside to figure that out.

Reply to Ms. Backpack's Question on Art

even if we thought of authorship strictly in the terms of entertainment, enjoyment, that in itself would predicate a certain economy that allows for entertainment. if you have mouths to feed, what time do you have for entertainment. of course that works conversely as well. not all art operates or exists in a way that perpetuates the machinery of the economy. or at least one can say this in accordance to an author's intentions. perhaps it is a challenge to the machinery or the need to escape one's subjectivity in relation to the machinery.

i think the question really revolves around the supposed "transcendence" of a literary experience, for both the author and the reader. can that transcendent experience be economically determined as well?

what should come to mind is the engelsian notion of the certain freedom art has from political determinism, or art's relative autonomy. but this is overwhelmingly a grey area for me. this means that we, authors and readers, are creating a certain distance from our respective "realties", economic contexts. and that distance that we create whether consciously or subconsciously, has limits. those limits don't exist in a vacuum; they're not non-determined.

Challenges, Influences, Obsessions

i can't help but fall back on the sixties. thankfully, i wasn't around to experience it and perhaps what i do know about that period in history is less knowledge than my own renditions of nuances, sentiments, events, people, thinking. but i'm a 90's child; i've always wrestled for the clarity to render what it was like to grow up then.

aside from nostalgia (joke), i'd like to prompt the following: is theory as subversive as it seems? a bit nihilistic maybe? all the discourse surrounding antifoundationalism. but really how can literature exist separatelty from the western tradition. that is my question, a vague one i admit. the negritude movement in the 30's springs to mind; of course critics argued the validity of a new identity, a collective one, if its political aims were expressed through a western form, the novel or poetry.

here's the influence part: i couldn't turn on the tv growing up and see, let's say, malcolm x challenging the country's makeup BUT i could turn on the tv and see a n.w.a. music video. sounds funny but follow me. there's a trickle down effect (through history) of what i was getting fed by the overriding political agendas and of course, the interpolation of those agendas constantly colliding. i'm not quoting anyone, but you can call me out if you want.

so choose your medium wisely (joke). the black arts movement of the 60's is what i'm calling into play. a new identity meant a new aesthetic as means to do so. a dewesternization of the form. is that even possible?

Mission Statement

you can't bullshit a bullshitter. ideas are bought and sold and for the outset of this blog, i might just whirl anecdotes above my head and wait for some alchemical reaction. which is often what seems to be missing most from my life- clarity, a stance, vision, etc. hopefully, this blog will serve the purpose of placating my obsessions which seem to be the overriding element of any theory i've kept in my pocket.
10% above water, 90% below the surface. i invite the basic tenets of "theory" like the drunk uncle who startles, offends, may be tossed out for the evening, only to return again next time.