Can Literature Survive Without Spirituality?

Discussion in 'Art & Culture' started by Carcano, Jun 28, 2009.

  1. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
    Your words:

    "Be clear, artists are vehicles. If the artist is a mirror then you cannot blame him or her for exposing the neurosis of their time, do no make the mistake of saying its the artist that is sick and infecting the world with his sickness when it is quite the opposite. Do not make the mistake of saying that it is he that is neurotic when all he or she is doing is reflecting back to the world or society what the world or society is itself reflecting."

    -Lucysnow.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    Yes but they use their voice and their perspective, how they compose something is wholly theirs.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
    The modern artist's ideal is not about exposing ugliness...its about creating ugliness as a symbol of his own insanity.

    One can see this even in hairstyles of the 20th century...where its gradually become a fashion accessory!
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    What would these consequences be? Unless you believe that all art should refrain from reflecting its society and culture but elevate religious ideals such as karma, heaven and hell and so forth. You seem to be saying that its the artist fault that these ideals are not present in the social collective mind. Am I correct or misunderstanding you? These principles are only active in art when they are active in society. I would venture to say that Neuromancer by William Gibson has more significance in a modern society than Dante's Inferno.

    You seem to be saying that because society has become irreligious in its mechanisms (secular society) that man doesn't give a hoot, throws caution to the wind and lives as if life has no meaning. Am I right? If so why don't you then criticize the failure of religious ideals in society instead of blaming the modern and contemporary authors?

    Addressing this, "All majors cultures embrace it in some form"

    Those cultures were governed by the myths they created which guided collective consciousness. I think I said something in my previous post about our culture being in flux. Western European or American culture has had to embrace secularism to adapt to a globalized multicultural society, the only ideals which this embraces is 'democracy' 'capitalism' and 'individual expression'. Do we agree on this? I'm trying to establish that we at least agree with what type of society or culture we are speaking of which creates the art to which you are critical. If we agree on this then I would ask where is the cultural religious mythological framework to come from? Right now its being built by technology and consumerism as in the work of Don Delillo for example. I don't know if you have read any of his novels, if not you can wiki 'White Noise'.

    We no longer have a set religious framework to work from unless you want to advance Scientology and then we can all read Hubbard's books.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2009
  8. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    Again you have to give a text example of that or at least a list of authors to establish this or its simply speculation on your part. You have offered no literary examples as proof of your assertion.

    Hairstyles?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    To bring that up out of left field at least have the decency to add a link to the 'destructive' hairstyles you speak of.

    I have ordered The Master Plan, thanks for the suggestion.
     
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2009
  9. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
    When society no longer aligns itself with the principle of continuity, yes.
     
  10. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    What are the principles of continuity in a modern western society? We need to establish what that is to prove that literature is not expressing something that is there.



    Can you please answer some of the questions I had in my last post or at least the points of the post itself?
     
  11. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
    Destructive is the right word yes...hairstylists for the first time in human history must now learn to be deliberately destructive.

    As if your hair was bitten off by rats!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
    Well increasingly there aren't any in modern western society...hence the point of this thread.

    You know the end is nigh when the most popular word is...whatever!
     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2009
  13. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    Hahaha! The first laugh of the day. Wonderful line.

    But this:

    http://celebhairstyle.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/gwyneth-paltrow-hairstyle-bob.jpg

    And this:

    http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2005/gallery/transformation/050503/philton.jpg

    Are also examples of a modern hairstyle. What is offered today is choice right, so for example the 'cutting edge' hair cut you show is not worn by 'all' women. What we have today is more choice.

    Its not something I could do with my hair for example as its too curly.

    But I do see the point you are trying to make so lets move on.
     
  14. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
    Isolate your points...instead of hiding them in a forest and a night of dark trees.
     
  15. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
  16. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    Ok. So we have established that there aren't any. So why blame literature for this fact? You see I agree with you but I what I disagree with is the notion that literature or art is responsible for this. Nor do I agree that there is no beauty in modern literature, I just think that since people really do not read literature much anymore anyway that these wonderful writers are generally not known. As Gore Vidal once wrote the writer used to have a place in society, the writer's work was discussed at cocktail parties and people would know the work even if they had not read the material. The written word has now become the visual word in film. we are becoming a visual animal and not one of the word.

    It could be the end as you say or it could also be a stage of development and change. The modern world globalized one world thingy is still establishing itself. Then we will have literature written in esperanto

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    You think I am kidding?

    "I now dream that someday we will be able to collect and publish in our
    language a whole book of original literary products, written directly
    in the international language... I believe that one original work,
    even if not very good, is much more important and worthy of respect
    than the ten best translations of the best national writings, because
    only an original work is completely our own property, in form and also
    content. Only an original work can prove to the world that our language
    is something really alive."

    --M.S. Rakitski, Lingvo Internacia, Aug. 1901;
    quoted in Auld, Enkonduko en la Originalan
    Literaturon de Esperanto, p. 15.

    http://donh.best.vwh.net/Esperanto/EBook/chap09.html

    But I digress too much here.

    Do you believe these ideals can be restored? Or do you see nothing but destruction? Destruction often offers the seeds to a new or renewed state. So perhaps we are only giving way to a golden age.
     
  17. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    If you read more literature you would be accustomed to that.

    Its pretty clear as I explained my point before asking questions and it isn't written in esperanto:

    What would these consequences be?

    Unless you believe that all art should refrain from reflecting its society and culture but elevate religious ideals such as karma, heaven and hell and so forth. You seem to be saying that its the artist fault that these ideals are not present in the social collective mind. Am I correct or misunderstanding you? These principles are only active in art when they are active in society. I would venture to say that Neuromancer by William Gibson has more significance in a modern society than Dante's Inferno.

    You seem to be saying that because society has become irreligious in its mechanisms (secular society) that man doesn't give a hoot, throws caution to the wind and lives as if life has no meaning. Am I right? If so why don't you then criticize the failure of religious ideals in society instead of blaming the modern and contemporary authors?

    Addressing this, "All majors cultures embrace it in some form"

    Those cultures were governed by the myths they created which guided collective consciousness. I think I said something in my previous post about our culture being in flux. Western European or American culture has had to embrace secularism to adapt to a globalized multicultural society, the only ideals which this embraces is 'democracy' 'capitalism' and 'individual expression'. Do we agree on this? I'm trying to establish that we at least agree with what type of society or culture we are speaking of which creates the art to which you are critical. If we agree on this then I would ask where is the cultural religious mythological framework to come from? Right now its being built by technology and consumerism as in the work of Don Delillo for example. I don't know if you have read any of his novels, if not you can wiki 'White Noise'.
     
  18. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    Old fashioned hairstyles were the product of a leisure society. Women today are too active to take too much time doing their hair. Hair styles reflect pragmatism. If you want a woman donned like these various styles here

    http://www.zimbio.com/1950's Hairstyles/articles/6/1950s Hairstyles Dita Von Teese

    Then you would have to go back to a time where women spent more time building a feminine mystique than working, studying and going to the gym.

    Out of curiosity are you above or below the age of 50?
     
  19. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
    I was born in the nosecone of the hippy era.

    I doubt women have less time now than before. They arent too active to take time carefully destroying their appearance. I'm actually astounded by the lengths they go to make themselves look appalling.

    Just think how much time they save by NOT using one of these!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    Well they are not going to have more time washing by hand. I had to do that one day in Phnom Penh which is where I have been living for a while and everything is done by hand. My housekeeper was ill and I thought I would do everything for a few days and it was back-breaking and took 4hrs out of my day. Washing machines are definitely a good thing

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I am convinced that what liberated women was technological more than political. Technology meant not having to sew every garment, cook all food from scratch, wash from hand and sweep the floor with a broom made out of thickets. Women were no longer NEEDED in the house maintaining a home.

    If you are a child of the 60's I can understand what you complain of, I am not of that era but I do believe they produced a lot of crap social ideals and looked positively awful. Who came up with the tie-dye anyway? :shrug:

    Hippies deconstructed art willy nilly. I have not much enjoyed Ginsburg or Jack Kerouac but the Beat Generation did yield some interesting work and I wouldn't dismiss them even though I am not impressed with them, but how could I be, they do not address my world nor my concerns. They introduced a new method of writing that mirrored the improvisation of jazz, so in short they were influenced by their society as well as creating that society's legacy in the process, what else would they have to work from unless they simply 'copied' what was done before them. They did try and emulate aspects of Eastern philosophy for example in the work of Alan Watts but I have always seen this as a failure in modern western culture to successfully meet the psychological needs of its time. What you may be reacting to is the rapidity with which these social trends come and go. Any modern movement has maybe 10 years before its usurped by another, its a sign of how quickly things change politically as well as in art & technology.

    When I said that I find Neuromancer to be of more significance than say Dante's Inferno I meant that the religious and political framework of Dante does not address today's needs spiritually or otherwise even if it is a beautiful timeless piece of work. It would never align the modern reader to his or her environment. Neuromancer and The Matrix for example do attempt to do this. They reflect man's struggle to maintain his humanity in a computerized technological age. An age where life is mechanized and the art is in the 'machinery' and not in man's life. It is meant to resolve these internal conflicts and issue. Have you seen the adult anime Ghost in the Shell? Its brilliant. It looks to an age where the idea of human beings as sentient and machinery as not is in question in a world where there are more and more cyborgs in use in everyday life. As more machine parts are added to the human animal it focuses on the philosophy of a new age. What is this 'essence' that can exist in a machine made of little organic matter? Man and machine merge. It asserts that this 'essence' is transferable but does not attach these philosophic exercises to religious principles. In a sense its anti-existentialist as it hints that essence proceeds existence. These are the works that look towards the future, to a new age and a new consciousness.

    Spinoza cannot speak to contemporary concerns the way Baudrillard has but the philosophy of Spinoza is a pre-curser of what we have now in terms of how he challenged religious authority and its precepts by positing that good and evil are 'relative', or that god and nature are one and the same.

    His philosophical positions back in the 17th century were:

    The natural world is infinite.

    Good and evil are related to human pleasure and pain.

    Everything done by humans and other animals is excellent and divine.

    All rights are derived from the State.

    Animals can be used in any way by people for the benefit of the human race, according to a rational consideration of the benefit as well as the animal's status in nature.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza

    The blueprint for where we are and how we think was set a very very long time ago. Baudrillard on the other hand focuses on histriocity and "societies always searching for a sense of meaning — or a "total" understanding of the world — that remains consistently elusive...Accordingly, Baudrillard argued that the excess of signs and of meaning in late 20th century "global" society had caused (quite paradoxically) an effacement of reality."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Baudrillard

    This is more of a contemporary concern than anything else.

    I do not agree you can blame art for what you see around you, its simply a reflection. This wish to go back to the certainty and beauty drawn from past ages is an impossibility, we have to align ourselves to the here and now not to the past. Past artists were not raised in a world of concrete and iron, they were not divorced from nature nor did they have to seek out their meaning in the world as religion did that for them. They were not hooked to the globe through t.v and the internet leading to a drowning in voices and information. They lived in a world where there was a silence and we live in an age of white noise. They did not live with the threat of global catastrophe, modern man lives in fear of many things and then you accuse him of doubt. Doubt is the sign of his humanity in an increasingly plastic material world. But there is still beauty there you just are not looking in the right places, perhaps its not for you to look for it at all meaning its something that belongs to a future generation.

    The world isn't ending its simply transforming.
     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2009
  21. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
    Its a collective condition, however as part of that collective artists tend to act as mass market distributors of ideals...or the lack thereof.

    At volume discounts!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
    The majority of the 'globe' is NOT secular.

    More to the point, it is not nihilistic.
     
  23. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
    Whats interesting about this is that novels have increasingly become more like scripts, with more dialog and less description...perhaps in the author's hope that they will become films.
     

Share This Page