... Terry Teachout does something that's unusual for him: Inconstant reader. (He also links to a Camille Paglia piece I meant to link to yesterday, but never got around to.)
'... my experience of reality, which includes the reality of art, is the ultimate source of my philosophy, from which my political convictions spring. In art, experience is truth, and there is no greater sin than to say, "I know I liked that novel when I first read it, but it can't be good because it's inconsistent with my theory of fiction, so I guess I won't like it anymore." That's the trouble with political art and politicized criticism: they start with theory instead of experience. I can't think of a more efficient way to make bad art.'
I quite agree. John Nichols is far away from me on the political spectrum, but I still think his New Mexico Trilogy is maybe the best work of fiction by an American in the second half of the 20th century (largely because he never lets his politics really interfere with his job as a novelist).
Frank, thanks for last week's reminder about Nichols' birthday, and today's kind words about his work.
ReplyDeleteI had the great pleasure of knowing him in the 70s, while I was a student at the University of New Mexico, after he had published MBW. A great person, and great to know.
It often seemed to me that politics - far from being a central theme of his work - was, rather, a comic extension of life, rather than something that shaped our life. At the occasional book-signing he'd attend, he would usually talk to visitors about recipes, music, home cosntruction ..... just about anything, but rarely politics.
By the way, that was a busy and exciting time for writing in NM ..... while Nichols was publishing MBW, we also had breakthough works by a pair of UNM professor's - Leslie Silko's "Ceremony" and Rudy Anaya's "Bless Me, Ultima" ..... meanwhile, a UNM administrator, Tony Hillerman, had just come out with "Dance Hall of the Dead"
A REALLY exciting time!
Sounds as if Nichols and I may be closer on the political sprectrum than I thought. And that was quite a lineup, I must say.
ReplyDeleteHi Frank,
ReplyDeleteWell, the misinterpretation of Mr. Teachout's work aside, this discussion made me think of John Meacham's American Gospel. In it, he talks about the founding of the US as spiritual entity - a part of God but separate from any particular church.
The willingness of the founding fathers to discourse at some length before deciding on a fair middle for their new nation was quite an accomplishment and many of the documents reproduced in the book bear reading.
I also thought of Plato in Ion saying that poetry 'is the art of divine madness' and therefore it is not the poet's job to express truth.
Socrates (quote by Plato) warned against the seduction of these arts. In The Republic Socrates warns his pupils about serious regard of poetics, as the poet has no place in our idea of God.
Aristotle thought that art and life should be separated. In Poetics he rather counters Plato's position, noting instead that it's through mimesis we experience that which we haven't known, to explore it more fully because we are witness but with the necessary distance.
All of this by way of saying, this discussion has been taking place for a long, long time.
For critics, or readers, or viewers, the hardest part is divorcing yourself from your preconceptions and allow yourself to experience what the artist tried to create. It's near impossible - we can't unmake ourselves but when you do - then it's possible to learn something new. Experience the joy of faith, or understand a philosophy you've never even contemplated.
I can't agree with Camille Paglia. I've been too involved with creative endeavors for too long to see a poverty of inspiration. There's a lot more involved than the 'divine madness' of God.
'Spiritual poverty of liberal secular humanism' is a tidy catchphrase but so wrong. The founding fathers practiced a very spiritual secular humanism. Histrionics like this and Green's blatant misinterpretation that widen the abyss between conservative and liberal camps, between art, artist and everyone else, and propagate this kind of demonization.
There's room for the spiritual in Liberalism. There's room for secular ideologies in Conservatism. We're forgetting how to negotiate these gaps and maybe it's past time we simply study our own history, rather that call for a religious wonderwall to re-ignite our artistic passions.
Art is necessary. It raises IQs, produces lateral thinkers and heightens innovation. It's our way - all of humankind's way - of experiencing that which we do not or cannot know.
When we try to force it to conform to any particular ideology we forget it's core. Art doesn't tell us the truth. It shows us possibilities.
-- Charlene D.
sorry for the typo's and dodgy grammar - I was on a roll and forgot to proof :)
ReplyDeleteThanks, Charlene, for a very thoughtful comment. I fully agree with you that there's plenty of room for the spiritual in liberalism and for the secular in conservatism. I think the tendency to seek a settled, closed view of anything is to be guarded against. I have, for instance, never been quite sure if Plato is serious or ironical in what he says about poets. After all, he was one. But one of the things I like about Plato is the open-endedness of his method. I am also inclined to place far more emphasis on faith than on belief.
ReplyDelete