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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
n exploring my question further, i guess i think that the context of the artist does really truly determines the out come of the art. Marxist would say differently, as you said in your next post...subject is predetermined.
I mean, maybe you are not writing/ creating for a specific economy but in a way (and this might sound ridiculous) the artist is creating art that does pertain to his/her context and i guess in turn his/her economical surroundings determine the art.
So what i am trying to say is that higher art, is higher art but artist, lets say in the modernist/the cubist period-art reflected their lifestyles-the way in which they lived their lives, the beliefs that they obtained from living in the economic realm that they did (or even their thoughts on the world outside of their economic standings??)
...sorry if this was totally off topic and if it does not make sense.
honestly, i'm a little confused about the first two paragraphs, they seem to be speaking in opposites. i don't think marxists necessarily are concerned with the "outcome" of art as they are concerned with what exactly produces art and how. you know, the spiel about works of literature reproducing the dominant ideology...
as far as what you said about the modernist/ cubist period, i think a marxist would sustain that any given influence on a work of art cannot be "outside of economic standing". hope this clarifies a little.
Post a Comment