|
Post by hannahlewman on Feb 28, 2014 3:53:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by amysohlberg on Feb 28, 2014 18:31:19 GMT
This article poses an interesting view of political criticism. In my opinion, if we accept Berlatsky's point of view, we can't even call our Political critics "art" critics anymore. He drops several lines in the article that seem to say that any aesthetic component of a work only dilutes its political worth. In reference to the Dead Poets Society, he concludes that "Political differences and exclusions are transformed into the aesthetic accouterment of a feel-good pageant."
I understand that political critics find value in a work based on its political weight, but to me Berlatsky's view seems a little extreme. He makes it sound like aesthetics are a horrible disease infecting our political life in the United States. He writes, "Idolatry, loyalty, pageantry in the name of individualism and freedom — that’s not just the basis of Keating’s class. It’s the basis for our political life as well."
Blah. If this is how we approach art, we're going to have to strip it down until there isn't any "artistic" value left. He warns that we have to be wary of aesthetics' role in our politics, or else we will be taken in by "whatever enthusiasm, or whatever dear leader, climbs up onto the desk." I just don't think that we should have to constantly monitor how aesthetics are being used to affect politics. Can't we just let art be art, and let politics be politics?
Despite his radical analysis of art, Berlatsky has a few good points, too. We have to be careful that we don't just take a piece of art as what it looks like on the surface. "Inspiration without analysis" is dangerous. This doesn't mean that we have to be suspicious of everything that inspires us, but we should consider art carefully. I think the ability to inspire passion and strong emotions is an art form in itself, but it's almost like the candy of art. It's sweet, fun, and easy to grasp. We also have to seek the meat, the core messages lying under the surface of inspirational, aesthetically pleasing art. Forgive the metaphor, but we need to have balanced artistic diets. If we eat nothing but sugar, we're going to lose the validity of our critical opinion.
|
|
|
Post by stever on Mar 1, 2014 19:29:04 GMT
While I do agree that the aesthetic element is an important aspect of art, I believe if art has an overtly political message, it has a responsibility to cover its central political issue fully and accurately. While we have discussed that all art may be political in some way, I think that some artists choose to make politics the central issue of their art, and that these artists have a greater responsibility to cover the political issue fully because of the potentially greater impact their art may have on politics in society. Of course, there is also art that is inadvertently political that may have an adverse effect on society -- but that's a different issue, albeit an important one. Judging by Berlatksky's description of Dead Poet's Society, (I have not seen it, so I have to rely on his description) the movie seems to make politics an integral part of its storyline, and its oversimplified take on the political message may be problematic to society, even if the movie is inspirational and entertaining.
Upon reading the title, I was immediately reminded of memes spread through social media. Some of these memes are political -- such as when someone shares a graphic or video that expresses a political message that is often one-sided, factually inaccurate, and too short to fairly represent the topic. While I think some of these memes are effective in inspiring social change, (People changing their facebook profile pictures to equal signs was pretty awesome in my opinion) others can grossly oversimplify the political discussion and polarize people even more in their political beliefs, to the point where people become passionate (like those standing on their desks shouting "Oh Captain! My Captain!") without deeply considering the political issue they are thinking about.
If a political issue is central to the piece of art, I think the artist should have the responsibility to present a deep, thorough look at the political issue rather than presenting a collection of memes (because we get enough of that through social media.) At the same time, I sympathize an artist who is merely trying to make beauty who inadvertently glosses over important topics -- like the value of the Humanities. Because if Dead Poet's Society did truly cover the value the Humanities and other important political issues with great depth, would it be a better or worse piece of art? (I know how the political critics would respond to this, but I don't know how I, as a reader response critic, would respond). And would it be as commercially successful?
|
|
|
Post by sheridanf on Mar 1, 2014 19:47:43 GMT
I really like the point Amy brought up with her rhetorical question, "Can't we just let art be art, and let politics be politics?" Pretending that this is not rhetorical, and keeping in mind the article as well as in-class discussions on political criticism, I'd like to respond to this question.
One of the most interesting points brought up in class was the idea that everything is political. Even when we try to not be political, in our art, our actions, or our words, there's some idea of power to be considered. So in reality, no, we can't let art be art and politics be politics, though sometimes I wish this wasn't so. I wish the world could look at a painting and not feel the need to wonder, "What is the political view that this painting is trying to represent?" I wish we wouldn't listen to the speech of a presidential candidate and then say, "I like your plan for our economy, but where's your sense of aestheticism??" I wish we could know when an artist means for his/her work to have a political message or when it's not political at all. I wish we could measure the worth of a politician based on his/her successes, not his/her style and enthusiasm. But the world works a certain way, and part of that way is letting art be politics and politics be art.
I'd like to bring up the very last line of the article: "We need to understand the discipline of the humanities because, if we don’t, the humanities will continue to discipline us". In other words, we need to let art be art and let politics be politics. I wonder, though, if this could ever actually happen.
|
|
amychen
New Member
“But the wild things cried, “Oh please don’t go—we’ll eat you up—we love you so!”
Posts: 47
|
Post by amychen on Mar 2, 2014 1:21:15 GMT
This is an issue I've been thinking over for a while. While putting my art portfolio together for colleges, I got into arguments with my brother about how I should present my art. While some of my work has overtly political messages, or were create with the intent of a political message, I was hesitant to present these messages in the description of my artwork because I wanted to emphasize on the aesthetics of my pieces. Eventually, my description became largely political---but only because the aesthetics of my work were visible in it. When it comes down to the wire, both art and politics have responsibilities towards each other. This is similar to Sheridan's statement: "...the world works a certain way, and part of that way is letting art be politics and politics be art." I agree with Sheridan, but would like to dance with the notion that art and politics should ideally be separate. In the Berlatsky's article, he writes: I understand the formalist perspective of "art for art's sake," but if we are to make art for those who diverge from pure formalism, we must take into account the political implications of our work. I agree with Steve when he writes "While I do agree that the aesthetic element is an important aspect of art, I believe if art has an overtly political message, it has a responsibility to cover its central political issue fully and accurately." Aside from overtly political work, however, I think there is something to be said about subtly political work as well. In a world where we don't have "philosophers" or---at least, ones we actually pay attention to---the new philosophers are our entertainers: our authors, our celebrities, our artists, and our musicians. We tend to admire the messages of those public figures we appreciate the most, especially when we are younger. For this reason, entertainers should keep in mind the political implications of their work. This is not to say, however, that art should only serve the purpose of providing political messages. It's just that because all art is political, artists should be aware of the political messages their art presents and stay away from those that prove detrimental to society. The same goes for politics and its use of aesthetics, although the use of aesthetics with politics seems more balanced because, quite frankly, that's what marketing is. The major problem with politics and aesthetics is the abuse of aesthetics to gloss over "the issues," as noted in the Berlatsky article when he writes, "politics is a spectacle and a comedy routine — an aesthetic performance." Another problem is when politics ignores aesthetics entirely (check out the selective service website: www.sss.gov/default.htm). But getting more into how politics is a detriment to aesthetics, one might argue that political messages make art shallow. This might be true, but it's akin to arguing all art must have strong political messages. In other words, although art and politics have responsibilities towards each other, they are still different. Art, due to it's public nature, has political responsibilities---to convey meaningful messages---and politics, due to it's public nature, has artistic responsibilities---to appeal with, but not abuse, art. And it's not necessary that we aim to separate the two. We know that politics can benefit from the arts, but art can benefit from political implications as well. Not necessarily the "VOTE FOR ME" politics we usually think about, but subtler politics, such as the politics of art itself. Our understanding of politics is anything relating to an exchange of power---which is inherent in all forms of criticism, especially when we look at stylistic changes in art over time. During the impressionist period, there were still realistic painters---it is only that we have deemed impressionistic work more important during that time period. In this sense, analyzing art is a political action.
|
|
|
Post by kevinle on Mar 2, 2014 2:19:04 GMT
When mixing politics and art, there is a possible danger and a possible benefit. The danger is, as others have mentioned, is the oversimplification of the situation. Political memes are infectiously shared on the internet, often containing a dramatic picture and few words that try to send a message about a much more complicated subject. Take this image as an example. While this is not exactly a meme, it has annoyed me greatly... Many people exploded in rage, demanding Subway to remove this "yoga mat plastic" from its breads. Family and friends included, people are quick to believe that Subway has been feeding us plastic for years. We're all going to get diseases now, we're eating poison--wait, what are we actually eating? Azodicarbonamide is an additive used in Subway's bread, and it turns out it's found in many many mannnnnny more bread products. If you're thinking that McDonalds is now healthier because its burgers aren't made of plastic, they actually contain the same substance. People see an eye catching image with a few bold words, and they immediately have an emotional response and believe the words to be true. That food additive has been deemed safe by the FDA, and no, it's not going to do any harm. So there's the danger. We see and hear something surprising, and we believe the message and pass it on to the rest of the world. Berlatsky writes, "That’s why amateurish embrace of aesthetics, which Dettmar warns about, is dangerous —it leaves you at the mercy of whatever enthusiasm." While that line holds truth in certain situations, I feel it greatly devalues and degrades aesthetically-purposed art. Who wants to analyze the scenery at a viewpoint? Going back to memes and political art, the benefit can be found in the danger. The bold words and eye-catching images spread messages quickly and passionately, which can lead to positive change (like the equal sign profile pictures). Simplicity drives action more easily; who's going to bother to read a scientific report on Subway breads? The aesthetic communicates the message more efficiently, and hey, maybe people will try to be healthier because of a misunderstanding of Subway breads. In the end, how we interpret and connect art and politics is individualistic. Some will say one is the other and vice versa, but I will never see politics in the grace of a beautiful stride or the musculoskeletal anatomy of the human body.
|
|
|
Post by emilybrinkmann on Mar 2, 2014 15:05:46 GMT
I would like to start off by stating that I do think politics and art can be intertwined and still have the art and political message stand on their own, but it is very rare. It takes a certain artist to be able to build a bridge with art without, as my peers have put it, oversimplifying the situation. Art is something that in normal circumstances individuals can look at for hours and each second see a different meaning. When the author puts a message into the art, it takes away that magic because the artist takes away the power to the audience to see the meaning for themselves. A very extreme example of this is propaganda. Propaganda has a look-you-in-the-face-meaning with no room for interpretation. I think this form of art, degrades from the "real art" that isn't trying to tell everyone something.
To look at The Dead Poet's Society, I think the author brought up a fascinating point, that although the students were learning to defy social norms, they were being "brainwashed" into thinking exactly as Keating did. “while the boys are marching to the beat of a different drum, it’s Keating’s drum.” (Dettmar). The first time I saw this movie I didn't think about the fact that Keating wasn't really teaching the kids English, he was teaching them to stand up for themselves keating style.
Overall for me to be able to accept political messages within art I think they need to be hidden, or at least not the most predominant feature. Propaganda and Keating teaching style are two examples or how politics get in the way of art and the beauty that lies in freedom of interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by garygates on Mar 2, 2014 19:49:34 GMT
I would like to begin my response by directly addressing the article and the opinions of Dettmar and Berlatsky. In all honesty, I was disgusted. Neither writer seems to possess any faith for the personal discretion of humanity, arguing that "[aesthetics] leaves you at the mercy of whatever enthusiasm, or whatever dear leader, climbs up onto the desk," as opposed to understanding that each human being has the capacity separate the politics from art and use personal discretion (that I guess I too optimistically believe is inherent in all humans) to rationalize an acceptance of either party. In fact, (in the minds of the two pessimistic writers) I commonly undergo the impossible task of isolating my aesthetic and political appreciations for pieces of art, for instance like when I read novels on my own time and for my own appreciation. I have even discovered the ability to laugh and enjoy art, in form of comics, literature, and numerous other forms, that express strong and often explicit disdain for either liberal or conservative agenda.
The other item that bothered me about the article was that the author and Dettmar expressed disapproval for "Dead Poets Society" in such an immature manner. A piece of art, like the movie of concern, does not necessarily need to mesh with the opinions of self-proclaimed scholars like Dettmar. In fact, the probability that it does is slim due to the fact that there is a multitude of ways in which someone could analyze Whitman, and both Dettmar and Robin William's character express only a slim minority. Therefore, would it not be just as inappropriate and single-mindedly political for William's character to preach Dettmar's opinions of Whitman's art? To me, Dettmar comes across as a struggling teacher who, though he tries to teach correctly and "by the book" cannot seem to inspire followers like Williams, and is thus envious and disdainful of this fictional character. That could just be me incorrectly analyzing Dettmar and Berlatsky's text, but all in all, their arguments seem childish.
As I conclude, I have come to realize that my bone to pick with Dettmar and Berlatsky is just as silly as theirs is with the film. Both parties, myself and the two writers, are expressing a certain level of disagreement and dissatisfaction with the analysis of a work of a separate party. Wordy, I know, but try to follow me. In the end, just as I, in this circumstance, am trying to appreciate "art for art's sake," it would also be possible for me to take a separate route, as due the to writers, and analyze the politics behind the art. There are shades of black, white, and grey between the contrast and combination of politics and aesthetics and because of this paradox (that art and politics can be individual yet united instantaneously) there will never be unanimous agreement on the subject. Whether you agree with my political points, prefer the artistic values of my post, or rather loathe both individually or as a group does not matter to me. Just have fun and be passionate about doing so, because that is really all that matters.
|
|
joelk
New Member
Posts: 36
|
Post by joelk on Mar 2, 2014 20:55:56 GMT
I agree that there are a few problems with the article, but I find them minor. I find the overall message worthy of note: the danger of mixing politics with art incorrectly, maliciously, or negligently, and the impact of that mix on people's conscious or subconscious political perspectives.
After all, aesthetics often shape our reality. I believe that the message, or societal picture, depicted can certainly be persuasive. That line of reasoning, however, begs the question: do we "choose" which aesthetics to call "art" based on which works affirm our already-held political beliefs, or do the aesthetics we like then "choose" our political values for us?
It seems like a line of chicken-or-egg reasoning, but I think that one of the possible answers actually further upholds Berlatsky's point. If everything is political, then true aesthetic beauty (however you want to define that in your "Master Works" list) is political, although the reader/viewer may not realize it as such. This means we do not have an opportunity to "choose" the art that affirms our political beliefs, because we do not approach aesthetics with this political perspective.
I doubt that most (excluding people who are truly political critics at heart) first-time viewers of "Dead Poets Society" immediately reflected on the film's messages about independent thought or treatment of women. Most people probably asked themselves, "Did I like that movie? Was it entertaining?" Even those that ask, "Did it make me see things in a new way?" might take this "new way" at face value, without analyzing its implications. So, since we don't approach aesthetics with a political perspective, of the two options—us choosing art for its politics, or art choosing our politics for us—the answer seems to be that aesthetics choose our politics for us.
Now, let's move on to the few minor problems. I, too, think the article perhaps assumes people are not intelligent enough to catch political messages (though in regards to movies most people watch primarily for entertainment, I'm not sure you need to be naïve to make that mistake). On the other hand, if the 25th anniversary of "Dead Poets Society" is the first time we're—and I mean a broad, all-accepting view of "society" here, because all but one of us were not alive when this movie first came out—having this discussion…that timeframe might suggest we do overlook these things. (Note: I have no idea if this was a common criticism of "Dead Poets Society" when it first came out, but since Berlatsky doesn't mention any, and I was -7 years old at the time, I'm assuming it wasn't).
The other problem I had with the article isn't all that topical to political criticism, but I personally disagree with Dettmar's criticism of the movie. Berlatsky explains, "Dettmar [finds it] unfair to real English professors, who should be respected for their analytical keenness rather than for their inspirational awesomeness. I do understand Dettmar’s frustration; no one likes to see themselves glibly Disneyfied on film." To me, being "awesomely inspirational" sounds much cooler and more rewarding than being "analytically keen." If you're analytical, people can admire you, but if you're inspirational, people can benefit from whatever you inspire them to achieve. (I'm also not sure I agree that it wouldn't be cool to be "Disneyfied" on film. I mean, it's obvious that I'd make a terrific princess.)
Actually, let me refine that last statement (since I'm already rambling), about "not all that topical to political criticism." Even the prioritization of analytical keenness over inspirational awesomeness is political, and it's a political point I disagree with. (Good thing I didn't let that slip by in the aesthetics of Berlatsky's article.)
|
|
|
Post by elizabethmeyer on Mar 2, 2014 21:15:56 GMT
I found this article extremely frustrating. I think it represents a perfect example of when political criticism goes too far - the political critic, in this case, has found meaning where there is none, messages where there aren't any, and problems that don't exist or don't matter. Apparently both Mr. Berlatsky and Mr. Dettmar would rather that "Dead Poet's Society" be a political lesson about morality and goodness than a STORY. I'm sorry, but guess what fellas? It's a story. It's a story that happens to be set at an all boys boarding school (ie, no, there aren't any girls because the girls attend an all girls school) where all the teachers need to wake up and smell the coffee (except Mr. Keating, which is the entire point of the story). Berlatsky wants the discussion of the inclusion of girls at the school to go longer? Dude, it's an all boys school and the crotchety old professors aren't gonna change that just because Charlie Dalton embarrassed himself in front of everybody. Besides, it's quite obvious that the boys that want girls at the school only want them there so that they can have girlfriends within closer proximity. They're teenage guys! Of course that's what they want! Dalton gets beaten for his outburst because that is the proscribed punishment for outbursts. The discussion is dropped because the movie isn't a propaganda film about making one gendered boarding school integrated. Sure it'd be nice if there weren't so many boarding schools just for guys and just for girls, but the fact is there are/were and that's just not the point of the film. If you want a propaganda film about integrating schools Mr. Berlatsky, go and watch something else. "Dead Poet's Society" happens to be about a cool English teacher and his lesson to his students. He says "Still, only a humanities professor could watch “Dead Poets Society” and come away with the conclusion that the film’s problem is insufficient reverence for humanities professors" but he should also note that 'Only a political critic could watch "Dead Poets Society" and come away with the conclusion that the film's problem is insufficient reverence for political issues/ideals". Carpe Diem!
|
|
|
Post by fionabyrne on Mar 2, 2014 21:27:36 GMT
The first thing I learned from this article is that political criticism requires a basic understanding of modern and classical politics. The second thing I learned is that I do not possess such an understanding. I understood almost none of the first section of the article, before a feminist perspective was introduced. I looked to other posts and found understanding in what Amy said about Berlatsky's view seeming extreme. I now see that the aspects which the critic is criticizing are all aesthetic. His position seems to be that aesthetics are inappropriate in any work with a strong intentional connection to politics. I have trouble seeing how a political fundamentalist could get much enjoyment out of anything artistic.
|
|
|
Post by betsyrahe on Mar 2, 2014 22:28:23 GMT
I had a similar reading experience as Fiona. I felt I should have researched politics before even reading the article which I think says how knowledge base Political Criticism is. I still want to Love "Dead Poets Society" for the aesthetics of the piece, and like Fiona I have a hard time seeing how political fundamentalist could still enjoy that aspect of the piece. An Aspect of the article I thought was interesting was Dettmar's point that Keating is not a good teacher that, "Keating stands on his desk, and then urges each of the young men to climb up as well so that they can see the world differently — from Keating’s perspective." I hadn't looked at the scene in that perspective before and it made me realize that thats what most teachers do. I think its hard to encourage people to think independently and differently when you're the one teaching. A POMO critic would say teachers are just moving their reality unto their students. However, to look at the movie through a political perspective as well, everything is a power struggle. The students are learning to take charge in their lives and live their own way, but you could just see that as living Keating's way.
|
|
|
Post by Lacey Doby on Mar 2, 2014 22:34:28 GMT
Ug, politics. Does anyone else have that reaction? I sympathize with Amy's statement "Can't we just let art be art, and let politics be politics?" but I also acknowledge the idea that there are politics in everything. Politics can be found anywhere, if you are looking for it. Art can also be found anywhere. If two things are found everywhere, then those two things must intertwine. Whether they should both be searched for is an entirely different matter. The "Dead Poets Society," like most but not all movies, functions as a tool of entertainment that emphasizes looking at things a new way, which is exactly what the students do, and this new way of looking at the world shapes them to be different from the majority of the world around them. Sure, they are being shaped in a particular fashion, but they gain a lot from this experience and become, lets say, more enlightened about the world. One might argue that "Avatar" is the same way, a tool of entertainment, but there is a clear and almost hilariously obvious political message in there. It was designed with the intention that a certain message would be received, that of unwelcome colonization = bad, native people = good. "Dead Poets Society" did not strike me as a piece designed to be analyzed politically, at least, not in the way that it was. Though, I could be wrong. I haven't got much skill in unearthing political messages.
|
|
|
Post by jamiezimmerman on Mar 2, 2014 22:39:32 GMT
There are two critical components to a piece of political art. The first is the political statement. The second is the art. No, seriously. There ought to be a central message that is deep and thoughtful and not immediately categorized as unilateral or uninformed - it can't be reductive. But it has to be hidden within the depths of the aesthetic element and, in a way, should be made much more complicated by the art itself. Perhaps we rag on The Dead Poet's Society because it glorifies only the aesthetic element - that we Carpe Diem all day long and live our souls riotously and joyfully. This is why serious English students and professors dislike it - not because it has no political message, but that it doesn't have a well-balanced mix of politics and art. This has dangerous consequences. Berlatsky says, "Inspiration without analysis is a recipe for gullibility". We've talked in class before about how hard it is to be thoughtful, how easily we slip into reductive statements that simplify our world because it is simply easier. Politics is not simple and a more globalized society only further complicates it. That's why we need quality art with a balance of politics and art.
|
|
|
Post by Lauren on Mar 2, 2014 22:48:22 GMT
For me, this article pointed out how extremely different each critical perspective is. Dettmar analyses the film's merit based off of his political lens and finds that DPS fails to live up to the expectations of a political work. He made a claim, he supported his claim, and in my opinion what he's saying makes perfect sense. No, DPS doesn't address the feminist view in the best way, you can't argue too much with that, but like Emily previously said, one must remember what a piece of art's goal is. In this case DPS didn't come forward to try to make these political claims that Dettmar says its failing at. DPS wanted to say things about humans, learning and other such themes presented in the movie. Does this make Dettmar's argument invalid? Of course not. DPS might not have the best political ideas but that's an analysis's job to decide (we're included in this!). However, just because a work doesn't live up to political standards does not mean it isn't powerful and meaningful. In the beginning of the article where they say that Mr. Keating is "a crappy teacher" because of his approach to teaching English, I was reminded of something Bob McGranahan once said in class. Someone was complaining about a teacher in our building and Bob stopped them and told a story of when he once disliked one of his coworkers. He saw their teaching style to be ludicrous and could not understand why they were a teacher. Then one day he heard a story of a student who, because of that teacher, was doing well in class. Just because a teachers teaching style doesn't work for you, doesn't mean they're not reaching someone else. Maybe Mr. Keating doesn't have the perfect approach to teaching English but he was able to reach kids and help them grow, which is the most important thing about being a teacher. Disliking a piece of literature's approach to something because it doesn't agree with your approach doesn't mean its bad, it just means that literature is reaching someone else.
|
|