|
Post by emwolfram on Mar 3, 2014 5:59:12 GMT
I am biased by the fact I am not a huge fan of the movie Dead Poet's Society. I think the notion of non-conformity becoming the standard that people conform to is something that is very relevant to our generation. "la di da lets all be deep and original just like everyone else!" I also liked the fact the article critiqued the way English as a subject was portrayed. English is a subject that is often associated with creativity and feelings and freedom. These characteristics are some of the reasons it is always my favorite subject, however, it can also cause people not to take it serious. Mr. Keatings says English is about wooing women and living life and feeling raw emotion. He pays no attention to the skill and technique that goes into art. I sympathize with Dettmar's frustration with Robin Williams portraying English professors as fun loving heroes.
I had a conversation with a friend about high-school once and this friend asked me, "What subject are you good at?" To which I responded, "Well, I have always been best at English." With a laugh he said, "Duh. Anyone can be good at English. What about the real subjects?"
English is not just about carpe diem. It is a real subject. One that requires practice and skill and dedication. So I relate personally with the frustration over its portrayal in Dead Poet's Society.
I think that art can be used to portray a political message. In fact politics are such a fundamental aspect of our existence it is only natural that they would be incorporated into art. So I do not think that art and politics should be separate entities. I do feel that we should understand how to separate the art we see from the political message within. It would be misinformed to let art influence us without truly understanding why we are being influenced when it comes to matters of politics.
|
|
|
Post by rubyking on Mar 3, 2014 6:17:51 GMT
It's really difficult for me not to be subjective when looking at Dead Poets Society, as it is one of my favorite films. There was LITERALLY a moment in my French 4 class last year where I stood on my desk and said "O Captain, My Captain." Alas, in moments I see what the article argues. Aesthetics can be emotionally manipulative. A similar response was evoked after Sofia Coppola released Marie Antoinette, a visually beautiful piece that some felt portrayed the Austrian queen in too much of a sympathetic light. On the other hand, because everything is subjective, my opinion of DPS is just as valid as theirs. I have every right to love the aesthetics, love the language, love Nuwanda and little Ethan Hawke just as much as they have the right to criticize the political nature of this art. But one can't say that aspiring for some sense of self-validation or personal non-conformity isn't inspiring. To kiss a girl who's boyfriend isn't all that, or be the best Puck in a production of a Midsummer Night's Dream. I mean, Carpe Diem.
|
|
Kasey
New Member
Posts: 31
|
Post by Kasey on Mar 3, 2014 7:07:02 GMT
It's been a long time since I've seen DPS. I've only seen in once, in Mrs. Wirtz sophomore english class, so my memory of the film is hazy. Like if there wasn't a "Professor" in front of Keating I'd be like "Which one was that?"
Even as a political critic who can always find a way in literature to "fight the man", I thought this political argument against DPS was...dumb. I got the part where Keating doesn't justify the humanities. I got the part about "individuality" being taught. But calling out the film as sexist?. It takes place in an all-boys school in 1959. Sexism is NOT THE POINT OF THE MOVIE. And hold up, was that a comparison to Nazi Germany I just saw?
Essentially, I don't think I understood this dude's bend. I find his original argument about the humanities acceptable, but not specific and not very supported. His feminism argument has value, but NOW I find his argument too nit-picky. And why not? Lets sprinkle the word "Fascist" on top. Still trying to figure out where that one came from. PLEASE NOTE:comparing things to Nazi Germany that are not Nazi Germany is never a good idea.
|
|
|
Post by davidqin on Mar 3, 2014 7:08:12 GMT
As with a few of you before me, I was disturbed by Dettmar and Berlatsky's treatment of "Dead Poets Society." Who is to say that the artistic sensibilities of the movie have to agree with the somewhat lofty aesthetic inclinations of a humanities professor? Berlatsky criticizes the film's focus on aesthetics, saying in part, "The relationship between white privileged boys and their aesthetics is more important than, and subsumes, the ways these boys treat women." As a political critic, I find it very interesting that Berlatsky posits that proper politics are being subsumed to aesthetic goals. I had just talked about the marginalization of art for the sake of politics (in my political criticism presentation), and here Berlatsky is talking about the opposite. He gives the example of economics problems being expressed "through meme and symbol - the Nazi salute, the swastika, the inspirational film." I find it very extreme that he thinks symbols can corrupt politics, and it's difficult to believe that aesthetics is like an awful influence gaining ground on the pure world of politics. Since when is politics pure? And keeping that in mind, the opposite of his argument would hold more truth.
I strongly disagree with his argument that the film cares too much about culture and aesthetics and too little for political messages and portraying the reality. I think that because of his strong humanities focus, he sees this viewpoint, and the vast majority of the public would definitely see enough of the politics in the film. Like Amy Sohlberg said before me, "Can't we just let art be art, and let politics be politics?" Art is meant to be aesthetically-sensible, and if you want a strong political message, then run a few political commercials or start a campaign to end gender discrimination. As a member of the general public, we watch films for aesthetic gratification, but that's not to say that we do not see the implicit political messages. I think we do think about them, especially on the drive home from the movie theater when we mull over what we just watched and start discovering what the film had to say about gender equality or Native American symbols. When I watch a film (any film, even if it's some dull action film), it always commands my attention after I've left and gone home. I think it's fair to say that most people, while they watch films to relax, they aren't completely mindless automatons, but thinking individuals capable of analyzing what they've just experienced.
That's not to say that we don't have to analyze every piece of art for its merits and pitfalls. Nothing can excuse us from that responsibility, and I totally agree with Berlatsky on this point. We have to dig deeper than the surface (especially the surface-level aesthetics) and uncover the deeper meanings, for it is these lessons that are the valuable elements of art: its power to inspire reflection and create new perspectives on what we take for granted in society. Additionally, there can be far less benevolent works of art than "Dead Poets Society," which have outwardly-pleasant appearances but have malicious intent hidden within them. It is humanities that teaches us to distinguish between, for lack of a better phrase, the good and the bad in both art and politics.
|
|
|
Post by coreybrown on Mar 3, 2014 8:01:17 GMT
Wow. I'm having a lot of trouble with this article. I loved the "Dead Poets Society" and this article certainly made me take a closer look at some aspects. For me, the overall message of the article is valid and worth considering. "Dead Poets Society" has its flaws and it's important to recognize them and how they might detract from the work. My main problem with the article is that it starts out with a very weak argument (and then follows that up with a recognition of said weakness, but later refers back to that same argument) that the portrayal of a humanities teacher was sub-par and demeaning in some way. This is a bit ridiculous. Sure Robin Williams doesn't inspire his kids to delve deep into the works, he's promoting literature and individuality based on his perspective in hopes to widen theirs. I get that. I get how he's imposing a specific kind of individuality and that kind of defeats the purpose (although I could also argue that by teaching them to act out/be different His way, they could learn to break the overall system and eventually become their own people), but I don't think the argument about the portrayal of a teacher is valid. Would a (non-literary) audience really appreciate an in-depth profound and length discussion on literature in the middle of this movie? no. The inspirational portrayal of the English class is much more empowering and meaningful in the context of the film. It's a choice for aesthetic beauty that does, however, sacrifice a small amount of realism and meaning. The remaining arguments about the film's portrayal of women and gender-relations, however, were completely on point. From a political perspective this film fails in many areas. From a formalist perspective, not quite as much. For myself, I still love this movie and don't agree with all the points the article made, but it certainly made me think very differently about the film.
|
|
rishi
New Member
Posts: 38
|
Post by rishi on Mar 3, 2014 8:39:55 GMT
Like some of my peers that have already responded to this thread, I have never seen "Dead Poet's Society." My comments below simply reflect what I read in the Berlatsky article and what I believe about the relationship between art and politics/. Berlatsky writes about a reality that many of us refuse to accept. He claims, "We live in a time when mass politics involves the continuous manipulation of aesthetics." Aesthetics and art are bound to politics and meaning, whether we like it or not. "Art for art's sake" is merely a fantasy that will never be realized, at least by educated people like us, because of the manipulation of politics. (Just to clarify, I, like many, wish that art could universally be appreciated for its aesthetic qualities rather than its political meanings, but that is not something I see in modern society). As a matter of fact, while practicing for the SATs last summer, I read a passage about the intertwining of art and meaning. This article noted a societal shift in attitudes towards art from appreciating art for its aesthetics to judging art based on its political message. This only confirms my claim that art will most likely never be appreciated solely for aesthetics. The article is on page 13 of this PDF if you're interested: file.xdf.cn/uploads/130301/137_130301175626JbdREB8vN60Cch7J.pdf. (<-- this looks like a sketchy link, but trust me, it won't destroy your computer!) I know that many would disagree with this, so let me explain my argument. We cannot let art be art and politics be politics because we, as educated individuals, try to find meaning in everything. We are taught that everything is done or made with a purpose. This is especially true whenever we walk into an English classroom: in the words of Mr. Parris, "I don't want you to read, I want you to Read." In our English classes, we are not solely supposed to read books for enjoyment; we are also supposed to make meaning out of the text. This is not a bad thing in itself, but it has negative consequences. Let's start with the positives. Political "manipulation of aesthetics" and art can obviously bring about higher awareness of global issues. A good example of this is Lord of the Flies by William Golding. This novel could have been merely an adventure story illustrating a group of boys struggling to survive on an isolated island. It could have solely depicted the triumph of Ralph and the good guys over Jack and his evil friends. However, Golding's incorporation of political messages in the story created a more enduring and powerful novel. Readers witness the retrogression of the characters from civility to savagery in the face of danger. Furthermore, Golding's resolution incorporates an even more politically profound message with his novel's aesthetic brilliance: SPOILER...the children are "rescued" from the island and from their own violence only to be brought to a warship. Clearly, the intertwining of aesthetics and meaning can create works with insightful political revelations. Unfortunately, because we are taught to find meaning in art, we occasionally assume that there must be meaning and purpose in everything. This feeling has become a truth to us. We ask ourselves, "Why would the artist create something without a purpose?" This is precisely why we cannot let art be art. As Berlatsky explains, "That’s why amateurish embrace of aesthetics, which Dettmar warns about, is dangerous —it leaves you at the mercy of whatever enthusiasm, or whatever dear leader, climbs up onto the desk." As long as we continue to try to make meaning out of everything, aesthetics cannot be separated from meaning. I disagree with Berlatsky's point about manipulating all art so that it accommodates the requirements of the "humanities," because, ideally, art should be appreciated for its aesthetics. However, that is not realistic, so when we make art, we must keep in mind the fact that some will try to find political meaning in works devoid of such insight.
|
|
|
Post by keelycorrigan on Mar 3, 2014 13:59:42 GMT
Well, he just said a mouthful. Berlatsky makes a lot of interesting points in his article about politics and about, what he sees, as its oversimplification and dramatization into “meme”. I thought that his constant use of the word “meme” was an interesting choice because that seems to be, to my knowledge, a creation or popularization of the modern technological age. To a greater extent, his article as a whole seems to suggest that it is politics post 20th century that revolves around aesthetics. To me, this is shortsighted. Politics has always, always revolved around aesthetics because politics is about the distribution of power and in order to gain power one must mobilize or soothe the masses. One does that through image. Caesar did it. Thomas Jefferson did it. Monarchs and rulers for all of recorded human time have built themselves into a “meme” as Berlatsky calls it. I agree with many of the points made about the treatment of women in the film and the points made about the undervaluing way that the film portrays the humanities, but Berlatsky’s step toward a broader statement about the degradation of politics after fascism is a bit shortsighted for my tastes.
|
|
|
Post by mitralebuhn on Mar 3, 2014 15:11:00 GMT
That was a really interesting article! I like what Berlatsky has to say, particularly about inspiration without a solid and good message. I feel like I have observed and appreciation a great number of art pieces that are incredibly impacting in the inspiring and profound way they are presented, but often times the message they present is not the best use of their power, or the piece might simply be void of a strong meaning. I agree with Berlatsky that it is important that we notice what we are reading/watching/experiencing, and that we are aware of what is influencing us. I like the political critic concept that art is aesthetically powerful and has the potential to move the viewer to make a change, and I agree that our society has slowed down on it's use of this art to make a positive impact.
|
|
|
Post by patricktbutenhoff on Mar 3, 2014 16:19:13 GMT
Berlatsky makes some interesting points, but I think he starts to run into trouble when he implies that art doesn't exist, that everything is (and should be) purely political and logical. The formalist critic, believing in art for art's sake, would obviously be disgusted with Berlatsky's complaints about the film's refusal to discuss current political issues, but I think that political criticism, at least the blend we learned about in class, would take issue with the article as well. From what we learned, a political critic would say that powerful art is that which has a strong, beneficial effect on society. However, the author argues that aesthetics and politics shouldn't be mixed, that "ideal art" consists of an accurate and thorough discussion of the issues at hand free of any aesthetic fluff. This would be wonderfully correct--if humans were computers. In reality, however, the works that have the strongest effect on society are those which are powerfully aesthetic in nature. People aren't just swayed by logic; they're affected by emotions and ethics as well. Berlatsky even admits this: "We live in a time when mass politics involves the continuous manipulation of aesthetics." Consider Uncle Tom's Cabin. Is it a fair and accurate depiction of slavery that encourages people to consider the facts before contemplating the issue? It's not. It's a heavily aesthetic propaganda piece. Yet the novel was able to have a huge effect in stopping slavery "despite" its aesthetic base. Political critics would have loved Uncle Tom's Cabin when it came out. Berlatsky probably would've found it overly flashy. Even works that aren't devoted to logical political discussion can be great from a political perspective.
Another problem of Berlatsky's is the fairly strong bias he's coming from. While he claims that artists should discuss the politics in their art, he mostly seems to want artists to discuss politics in a way that reflect his own worldview. His quote of Dettmar's that "while the boys are marching to the beat of a different drum, it’s Keating’s drum" is especially ironic when considered in this light. For one thing, although I haven't seen Dead Poets Society, it seems that teaching students to think more like they do is all teachers, even the legendary ones, can ever do. Attacking a fictional professor for teaching his students in a way that reflects his own beliefs (remember, true objectivity is impossible) seems unfair. Berlatsky's suggestion, apparently, is that the boys should instead be marching to the beat of his drum. He claims that issues like gender and race shouldn't even be mentioned in passing without an overarching didactic message about rape culture or Anglo-Saxon colonialism. I have no idea whether Dead Poets Society's lack of political discussion is deliberately political or not. What I do perceive, however, is that the author posits two things: that all art should have purpose in the political message it inevitably sends, and that this political message should be centered around the social and cultural assumptions of one Noah Berlatsky. Amy's post has a really good quote that sums up both the main strengths and fatal flaw of Berlatsky's argument: "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." It makes perfect sense that artists should be self-aware about the political things their art is inevitably going to say and refine their work accordingly. The issue, however, is the question of who gets to decide the messages that are harmful to society. No human judge will be able to remove all bias when considering what messages to censor. Is Dead Poets Society detrimental to the world? How about Huckleberry Finn? Who can say? In my opinion, Berlatsky's hatred of the mix of aesthetics and politics and the assumed notions his complaints come from ultimately undermine the core argument behind his criticism of Dead Poets Society.
|
|
|
Post by billfeng on Mar 3, 2014 17:01:07 GMT
Well... the aestheticization of political art, that's a nice way of calling it...
While reading this article, I couldn't help but remember the extremely-absolutely-ridiculously ineffective Kony 2012 campaign. Sure, the movement successfully mobilized millions of uninformed first-world youths into vicious, enthusiastic sharers/rebloggers/retweeters of “Capture Kony” online literature. Other than that, the Kony campaign changed absolutely nothing. There were no advancements for the real cause of the campaign: capture the sinister Joseph Kony. It was a sad waste of time when the campaign itself became the spotlight of the media rather than it’s mission statement.
Sadly, both “Dead Poet’s Society” and the Kony spectacle represent a terrible trend in today’s youth: inaction. I agree with the article that “Dead Poet’s” creates a false image of what should be done. According to a recent lecture from Mr. Koepping, this false perception has already been perpetuated in our school. At school, the only type of civil discourse taught to students is voting through class elections and fall/winter court voting (these two actually cause students to find voting meaningless). Not a single other form of discourse, like civil disobedience or political involvement, is even slightly advocated for in the current school environment (go after the school administration? No way!). I definitely feel like this trend has to reverse if the youth in this country is to ever be mobilized for action rather than enthusiasm.
|
|
|
Post by jessicapollard on Mar 3, 2014 18:23:37 GMT
While Berlatsky does a solid job in pointing out ideological faults in a movie I will admit I shallowly adore, I'd really like to believe art and politics can have a legitimately impacting relationship, all the while avoiding the tropes that DPS and even books like Uncle Tom's Cabin have fallen to. I agree with Keely that politics have always been aesthetic, at least in America, and that Berlatsky's thoughts towards the end hold that sort of "when I was a kid" air.
Personally, when I approach a piece 'politically' I actually take a more biographical/historical route. Maybe DPS feels so politically disconnected because it wasn't politically motivated (so far as I know) during its production. Pieces that shine politically due to the circumstance of their creation appear to avoid the criticisms Bertlatsky has towards DPS. I think of horror movies over the decades, and how the monsters presented in them are subtle (or sometimes really obvious) indications of the time period's fears and struggles. To me, that is when art becomes political in an empowering way. Not when its content attempts to play straightforwardly with various social issues.
|
|
|
Post by carolinedorman on Mar 3, 2014 20:51:38 GMT
“We live in a time when mass politics involves the continuous manipulation of aesthetics”—This is the line that particularly grabbed my attention. I think humanity as a whole is immediately attracted to what is tangibly appealing. In the class, Sports and Entertainment, we were just discussing how the new redesign of a logo increases the popularity of the brand by huge margins—almost as if the new redesigned Pepsi logo means that the Pepsi tastes better.
There are so many channels to gain information than there used to be. This is simultaneously beneficial and extremely detrimental. I think this largely contributes to humanity’s gravitation toward what is aesthetically appealing. It requires no deeper analysis. I agree with the article in the sense that power can be easily obtained with the manipulation of aesthetics. The power comes down to what can quickly grab an audience’s attention amongst all the channels of distractions. Without the skill of analysis society becomes victim to the façade of manipulated aesthetics.
|
|
|
Post by robertxu on Mar 3, 2014 21:04:43 GMT
I believe that this article is silly. My least favorite part of the article was when Berlatsky wrote about mixing aesthetics and politics, "it leaves you at the mercy of whatever enthusiasm, or whatever dear leader, climbs up onto the desk." This is simply not true. Individuals are not mindless robots that subconsciously absorb subliminal messages without thinking. This is even less true in Dead Poet's Society, the author pointed out a few subtle problems with the movie, which were not even unique to the film, but a criticism of blockbuster movies in general. To prove his point, the author needs to show the direct impact of how Dead Poet's society. Yes the movie follows a trend of oversimplifying somewhat important issues, but what would be the alternative? Are people allowed to make uplifting films with shallow messages?
Berlatsky writes, "Politics is a spectacle and a comedy routine — an aesthetic performance". Even if that's true, once again I see no problem with making politics a spectacle. I haven't seen DPS, but inferring from the context the movie is good-intentioned, but simply doesn't delve into the depth the author would prefer. There is nothing wrong with that. The author should indict the plethora of meaningless movies that don't even try to convey a good message before looking down on DPS. We have to remember what the target audience for DPS is. It is trying to inspire and enthuse high school students that have little knowledge of the humanities and the political connotations behind it.
Bill Nye oversimplifies science and sometimes makes it a "spectacle" through his videos, but he also inspires a love for science among students that have grown up hating science because of a lack of exposure.
|
|
|
Post by anaritter on Mar 4, 2014 4:21:08 GMT
Rather than focus on the intricacies and specifics of the author's disdain for "Dead Poet's Society" (a Ritter family movie night favorite), I chose to focus on the way that political criticism is applied to - well, everything. Even "Dead Poet's Society", a movie that I admit is a little schmaltzy and over the top, can be analyzed in a political context, and that is pretty amazing.
What I have always perceived as a moderately sappy, inspirational, feel-good movie with an all-American actor can actually be analyzed politically if you try hard enough. Heck, it can be analyzed any way. Just as easily as the author of this particular article can take the film as a statement on the American education system and teaching philosophies, I can take it as a representation of the time period in which it was set, a reflection on the life of the screenwriter or director, or even an emotionally resonant piece in my life.
Though I know this isn't centered on this particular article, and the conclusion I came to might have been glaringly obvious, it truly occurred to me upon reading this that lenses can be used anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by moreno on Mar 4, 2014 21:23:45 GMT
I regret to say that I have never seen "Dead Poets Society." I suppose that makes me a more objective reader. Steve's point is where I would like to begin. Steve said, "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." I agree with this statement, however, "Dead Poet's Society" is a movie. Although movies can be educational or controversial, they have to be entertaining. No matter the element of truth they possess, in order to get your point across, the movie needs to capture people's attention before anything else. No one wants to sit in front of a screen for 90 minutes and watch someone read off they're opinions on our education system. Elizabeth stole the words out of my moth. She said, "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." YES!
Furthermore, I don't think the movie or the producer/director can be blamed for the under-thought political and undervalued english references. In reference to english study, there is obviously some truth to the way our society values english education, otherwise the producer wouldn't have had the idea and the movie wouldn't have been so popular. Like Steve alluded, it is the responsibility of a political message to be politically correct. But I do not believe it is the responsibility of a movie to be the same way.
|
|