Only hours after posting the preceding (or, screen-wise, following), I came across this, in the book I've been reading this afternoon ("Lost paradise", by Cees Nooteboom):
Writers were supposed to lead a paper existence -- between the covers of a book. You should not have
to be distracted by body odours, awful haircuts, bizarre footwear, unsuitable spouses, needles gossip,
professional jealousy, whorish behaviour, coquetry or boastfulness.
This refers to meeting writers in person, but it could apply to reading biographies as well. I don't know about "supposed" though. We can't help but wondering about artists' lives, I think, but maybe it's better just to wonder than to have the facts, or what passes as facts, laid out for us. Or not? Roth would seem to think so. Or is it Zuckerman? Another quandry.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Lifelong learning?
The impetus for this "blog" (whether it really is a blog as I understand the term remains to be seen) is a professional development project initiated by the library consortium with which I am affiliated as an employee of a member library ... the idea being to get us to investigate some of the new tools and playthings available now on the internet (Web2). It's suggested we devote an early post to a review of a slideshow on "lifelong learning", but as I found nothing very edifying there, I'll pass on that.
Instead, I raise 2 questions of interest to me, which may stimulate discussion if anyone else looks at this: one poltical, and one esthetical.
First the political.
How can it be that there is not a more serious (ie official, Congessional-led) movement to impeach the members of our curent administration, starting with VP Cheney (since AG Gonzalez has resigned)? This is an administration that is well known to have lied to (or at the very least misled) Congress and the public, to have circumvented and undermined the Constitution, to have set the means in motion to trample the rights and freedoms of all citizens, to have violated the public trust by using Presidential power to promote Party interests ... surely all impeachable offenses.
Of course I know the answer: there isn't a chance of any motion to impeach being passed, given the slim Democratic majority and the total control exercised over the Republican minority by the White House. But this is a very scary situation, that gets scarier all the time, as the Administration's arrogance seems completely immune to amelioration by public opinion or actual events. Quite apart from the many other possible outcomes of the failure of Congress to rein in this runaway White House, there is the undeniable fact that the next Administration will be in possession of the same unprecedented (and more than likely unconstitutional, or anti-constitutional) powers wielded by Bush & Cheney. And it will take an extraordinary person to roll back those powers ... unless the radically rightwing Court put in place by Bush & Cheney et al. takes the powers it gave to them away from a Democratic (or less Radical Right) president. The only real way to set things right in our government at this point would seem to me to be impeachment. It's worked before ... even though it only led to Nixon's resignation, it got the system working again ... at least for awhile.
I know it won't happen, and I can't believe it.
* * *
As for the esthetical ...
The question is this: how does information about an artist's personal life affect our understanding or appreciation of THE WORK?
I am a big fan of literary biography (as a kind of high end gossip), but I often wonder whether I should indulge in this sort of thing. Might it not influence the way I read the books if I know things about the author's life while they were getting written? And might not that influence be a distraction?
I tried to get a discussion of this sort going on a jazz forum to which I used to sometimes post ... the subject was a biography of the trumpeter Chet Baker, who was revealed to be (though this was pretty well known anyway among jazz fans) a terrible drug addict, a betrayer of friends and lovers, and generally an allround sh*t. But how can such a person produce fine, moving, inspiriting music?
Of course there are those who don't find Baker's music any of those things, apart from any knowledge of his personality. But leaving aside that purely musical judgment ... if you enjoy his music, do you have to forgive, or ignore, the personal excesses or excresences? Or does this knowledge somehow spoil your enjoyment? Better then not to know?
This matter is addressed (from a different angle) in Philip Roth's new book, "Exit ghost" (title deriving from, as James Wolcott noted, Shakespeare's second most famous stage direction), where the narrator makes an effort to prevent a biography being written about a writer he knew and admired, because the revelations therein could ruin his reputation and color all future readings of his work. Just so.
It's an old argument, but worth revisiting. It first came up in my experience in a college philosophy course, where the professor held the view that one could not admire the work of Ezra Pound because of his support of fascism during the war (WWII, for younger readers). My argument was, but what if you didn't know anything about that? (In Pound's case it's not a very good argument, since a look into the Cantos will find many passages that express those views, and are repellent as thought and verse.) Take, for example, the anonymous English poem much anthologized as "Western wind". Suppose we were to find out after all these years that the author was a murderer or child molester? Would we have to change or view of this poem? The counter argument, that no such person could write such a thing, seems specious at best.
There are so many examples of artists whose behavior was less than exemplary in real life that the argument seems really besides the point. Ultimately they must be judged on the work alone ... or at least the work must be judged on its own merits (since who are we to judge anyone's life ...) What bothers me, though, is the possibility that at least some of these people have used the importance of their work as an excuse for bad behavior. I've known a few people who have claimed to be "artists" of one sort or another, and have made the further claim that this status frees them from the responsibilities toward friends and family and community that the rest of us feel obliged to fill. Is the fact that, at least in one case (a musician), I find the guy's work to be so totally self-indulgent (like this "blog"?) as to be unlistenable, tainted by knowing him? Or would I make the same judgment if I had to listen to the stuff without knowing who had written it? I think I would, though. And I think if he wrote something wonderful I'd give him credit for it.
So where does that leave us?
* * *
Disclaimer:
Perhaps it's paranoia, but I feel I must note that this post has been written entirely on my own time, and ofcourse reflects only my own views and has nothing to do with any organization to which I am affiliated. In Roth's book his narrator notes, as a reason for having withdrawn from society to live alone in a cabin in the woods, the energy taken up in one's daily life by having to worry and be frightened by and hate what's happening in our country.
Indeed.
Instead, I raise 2 questions of interest to me, which may stimulate discussion if anyone else looks at this: one poltical, and one esthetical.
First the political.
How can it be that there is not a more serious (ie official, Congessional-led) movement to impeach the members of our curent administration, starting with VP Cheney (since AG Gonzalez has resigned)? This is an administration that is well known to have lied to (or at the very least misled) Congress and the public, to have circumvented and undermined the Constitution, to have set the means in motion to trample the rights and freedoms of all citizens, to have violated the public trust by using Presidential power to promote Party interests ... surely all impeachable offenses.
Of course I know the answer: there isn't a chance of any motion to impeach being passed, given the slim Democratic majority and the total control exercised over the Republican minority by the White House. But this is a very scary situation, that gets scarier all the time, as the Administration's arrogance seems completely immune to amelioration by public opinion or actual events. Quite apart from the many other possible outcomes of the failure of Congress to rein in this runaway White House, there is the undeniable fact that the next Administration will be in possession of the same unprecedented (and more than likely unconstitutional, or anti-constitutional) powers wielded by Bush & Cheney. And it will take an extraordinary person to roll back those powers ... unless the radically rightwing Court put in place by Bush & Cheney et al. takes the powers it gave to them away from a Democratic (or less Radical Right) president. The only real way to set things right in our government at this point would seem to me to be impeachment. It's worked before ... even though it only led to Nixon's resignation, it got the system working again ... at least for awhile.
I know it won't happen, and I can't believe it.
* * *
As for the esthetical ...
The question is this: how does information about an artist's personal life affect our understanding or appreciation of THE WORK?
I am a big fan of literary biography (as a kind of high end gossip), but I often wonder whether I should indulge in this sort of thing. Might it not influence the way I read the books if I know things about the author's life while they were getting written? And might not that influence be a distraction?
I tried to get a discussion of this sort going on a jazz forum to which I used to sometimes post ... the subject was a biography of the trumpeter Chet Baker, who was revealed to be (though this was pretty well known anyway among jazz fans) a terrible drug addict, a betrayer of friends and lovers, and generally an allround sh*t. But how can such a person produce fine, moving, inspiriting music?
Of course there are those who don't find Baker's music any of those things, apart from any knowledge of his personality. But leaving aside that purely musical judgment ... if you enjoy his music, do you have to forgive, or ignore, the personal excesses or excresences? Or does this knowledge somehow spoil your enjoyment? Better then not to know?
This matter is addressed (from a different angle) in Philip Roth's new book, "Exit ghost" (title deriving from, as James Wolcott noted, Shakespeare's second most famous stage direction), where the narrator makes an effort to prevent a biography being written about a writer he knew and admired, because the revelations therein could ruin his reputation and color all future readings of his work. Just so.
It's an old argument, but worth revisiting. It first came up in my experience in a college philosophy course, where the professor held the view that one could not admire the work of Ezra Pound because of his support of fascism during the war (WWII, for younger readers). My argument was, but what if you didn't know anything about that? (In Pound's case it's not a very good argument, since a look into the Cantos will find many passages that express those views, and are repellent as thought and verse.) Take, for example, the anonymous English poem much anthologized as "Western wind". Suppose we were to find out after all these years that the author was a murderer or child molester? Would we have to change or view of this poem? The counter argument, that no such person could write such a thing, seems specious at best.
There are so many examples of artists whose behavior was less than exemplary in real life that the argument seems really besides the point. Ultimately they must be judged on the work alone ... or at least the work must be judged on its own merits (since who are we to judge anyone's life ...) What bothers me, though, is the possibility that at least some of these people have used the importance of their work as an excuse for bad behavior. I've known a few people who have claimed to be "artists" of one sort or another, and have made the further claim that this status frees them from the responsibilities toward friends and family and community that the rest of us feel obliged to fill. Is the fact that, at least in one case (a musician), I find the guy's work to be so totally self-indulgent (like this "blog"?) as to be unlistenable, tainted by knowing him? Or would I make the same judgment if I had to listen to the stuff without knowing who had written it? I think I would, though. And I think if he wrote something wonderful I'd give him credit for it.
So where does that leave us?
* * *
Disclaimer:
Perhaps it's paranoia, but I feel I must note that this post has been written entirely on my own time, and ofcourse reflects only my own views and has nothing to do with any organization to which I am affiliated. In Roth's book his narrator notes, as a reason for having withdrawn from society to live alone in a cabin in the woods, the energy taken up in one's daily life by having to worry and be frightened by and hate what's happening in our country.
Indeed.
Monday, September 17, 2007
First post ...
"What is the use of talking/and there is no end of talking/there is no end of things in the heart." -- Rihaku (Li Po), "Exile's letter" trans. by Ezra Pound.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)