Saturday, October 24, 2009

History, Reality, and Point of View

All I could think about as I read this week was what is going on in my senior composition course. We are reading The Jungle and talking about socialism vs. capitalism and of course Marxism. They had to know the context in order for to understand the content; once that was untangled, they really started to look at the book with a new set of eyes; a new 'mode of human sense perception' so-to-say. Reading Eagleton caused me to think about history and what is real and "pseudo-real". Sinclair made the real seem pseudo-real and, in doing so, caused history to change. My seniors have so far concluded that in theory, Marxism is great, but it is humanity that destroys it; therefore, society will never be classless. This then tied into Benjamin's "Mechanical Reproduction". Artists, be they authors, sculptors, or painter, reproduce 'things' from their perspectives and viewpoints. What they see is what they create; hence, The Jungle, To Kill a Mockingbird, The Kite Runner, Schindler's List, Malcom X, and W.

Literature is art as is film, photography, etc. However, things tend to get all jumbled up and the public is left to try and determine things on their own. Actors are not the people they portray on screen as authors are not the characters or narrator they create; they are a personality, but not necessarily their personality. Photographs are taken from one point of view or perspective and then published from that point of view so the public can see the same point of view as the photographer, as is literature of any form. It all seems to be a lot of manipulation. We are constantly told by the critics and/or experts what is good and what is bad. We do, though, determine what is aesthetically appealing or grotesque and then become the critic. So to whom do we listen? The authors, journalists, photographers, painters, film writers, directors, or actors?

History has a part in our literature, paintings, pictures, and film; but it is from the creator's point of view from which we see. Sinclair caused a nation to change from sharing his point of view; granted it wasn't the change he wanted to see, but it was a change nonetheless. Benjamin says it himself, "During long periods of history, the mode of human sense perception changes with humanity's entire mode of existence. The manner in which human sense perception is organized, the medium in which it is accomplished, is determined not only by nature but by historical circumstances as well" (1235). Art offers us one point of view, the creator's; interpretation gives us many points of view and a lot of it is based on the current events and realities.

5 comments:

  1. I like the way you said: "History has a part in our literature, paintings, pictures, and film; but it is from the creator's point of view" - to me, this can be read as the "creator" of the literature, paintings, etc., or the "creator" of the history.

    I'm not sure I agree completely with the idea that it is from the creator's point of view "from which we see."

    I think it can be argued - using Eagleton's verbiage - that any text is "unique and irreducible" (171), any representation of history is still a representation - and every time we read a representation, we produce our own "text,"

    possibly influenced by the "creator," but produced mostly by our own ideology.

    ReplyDelete
  2. My students had the same response to Marxism and Socialism when we read "Animal Farm." They are inherently set up to object to Marxism based on the "scare tactics" that the media uses, but once they realized what it was really trying to accomplish, they came to the same conclusion as your students: man has ruined any chances of Marxism being successful. In any society, it is the natural human instinct to establish a hierarchy. It is the same with art ... we value art in a hierarchy of original versus reproduction. This is further complicated, of course, by the struggle to define art in general. A great example would be the works of Robert Maplethorpe ... is it art, or is it pornography?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Even the greatest human experiment with Marxist economic principles, the U.S.S.R., was a failure. Why? Because the pricipal players set up a hierarchy that set up a class structure. This is a simplistic evaluation; there were many complex reasons for the fall of the U.S.S.R. but the collapse of the economy was fundimental. Marxism denies man's competitive nature and desire for monetary gain.

    ReplyDelete
  4. is marxism a return to naturalism?

    ReplyDelete