|
Post by allegra on Mar 5, 2014 4:37:40 GMT
The idea that aesthetics is an underlying factor of politics is something I find extremely romantic. I've always enjoyed the aesthetics of politics, however skewed they may be. I like watching presidential commercials, even though I know that they're essentially "who has the biggest peni- erm, stack of money" contests, and I enjoy political cartoons. Essentially, politics are made up of opinions. Opinions on how to run a country and how laws are made and maintained. However, like Dead Poet's Society, these aesthetics and opinions are one-sided. For example, there are only two main parties in America, which adds to an extremely bipolar atmosphere in congress. Elsewhere, especially in Europe, it is not uncommon for there to be several parties in a democratic system (however, America has lasted longest, so really I'm not sure what this means other than arguing over black or white seems to keep most people satisfied and happy). Now, politics doesn't play into the aesthetics of art, but what this article explains is that aesthetics is extremely tied into politics, and that politics can be seen in Dead Poets Society. Personally, I'd love for art to be art and politics to not be art, but apparently politics can be seen in freaking everything. I guess it's just a matter of which you prioritize most. I find Dead Poet's Society entertaining, and I've never once thought of it as a political message. Maybe that's just me. Art is art unless you prioritize politics more than you do aesthetics, in which case you will see politics in your own reflection.
|
|
|
Post by juliamoreland on Mar 5, 2014 5:51:58 GMT
Disclaimer: I have not seen Dead Poets Society so I am going off the article and my peers reactions/discussions. I agree with Keely that politics have always been aesthetic; certainly the art of politics is to win over an audience. Art with a political message can also be beautiful within itself and suggest ideas outside of the norm of political polarity. But has this article taken this too far? To pick apart a film by the pieces and choose the ones that support a certain message? I wish art could just be interesting and entertaining, but then I would be bored. Although looking for deeper meaning does inspire the critical thinking and change, there is definitely such thing as going too far. This movie is meant for pure entertainment. I find the film more interesting as a reflection of the times, it shows what society considered acceptable and how they reacted to it. That I find more interesting than the hidden political messages that may or may nor even mean anything. I also really like Jessie’s point, for me personally, I think of the political lens as greatly overlapping with the biographical lens. This is probably super biased for my own preferences, but when a film is made without any context for political grounds then how are you to judge its political worth?
|
|
|
Post by Anna M. on Mar 5, 2014 7:48:16 GMT
I enjoyed DPS when I watched it a couple years ago. I agree that Dead Poet's Society has problems, but I've never seen a movie without problems. I appreciated it's intentions and the central idea of art enhancing life, not diminishing it. To be honest, this article confuses me a little bit and I haven't really known how to respond. Just because the film didn't fervently argue for women's equality doesn't mean it's other messages are invalid. I do agree that the treatment of women is one of the problems of DPS, but I don't think that this poor political stance makes the movie completely worthless. This article in general confused me, so I struggle to come up with an excellent response.
|
|
|
Post by Adrian Harter on Mar 10, 2014 0:01:59 GMT
Dettmar's most interesting point was raised when he mentioned the integration of women into the school in 1959. He divulged the real motive of Charlie Dalton for supporting woman's integration when he revealed that Dalton only wanted women in the school for sexual purposes, not actually for the pursuit of social equality. Dettmar's example shows that Dalton did not actually engage in any political means, but rather a simplistic artistic kind, as he found the initiative to rally for gender integration through his teacher's obvious motto of "carpe diem". The extraction of seriousness from political issues is a real problem in society, but instead of explaining a possible source, Berlatsky focuses on what he believes to be improper teachings from an inept English teacher. From what I have seen in this article, Mr. Keating is entirely inept at analytical analysis of text, but is that due to a widespread problem or a much more personal, internal one? The answer is both.
Political criticism is tricky in that it describes any entity on this planet to be of a political nature. Therefore, Mr. Keating's practices of desk standing and protest are undoubtedly political, but are they reasonable in the scope that he is trying to strive for? Mr. Keating, as an English instructor, wants his pupils to learn knowledge from him to analyze text as he would. His ability to convey his message and attach it to his students is impressive, as the entire plot of the movie revolves around Keating's unorthodox ways. The message he sends, however, is warped by ambiguity, and thus, shows that neither Keating nor his students understand the power of politics well enough to efficiently send and receive information. Back to Charles Dalton. Keating wanted Dalton to protest, but for the purpose of achieving a result that the protest is founded upon, but instead, Dalton's motives reflect the fact that he's a hormonal teenager. If Keating had a stronger understanding of the political nature of instructing, his cause (the teaching) would have found a uniform effect in all of his students. Instead, the disconnect between cause and effect creates an inefficient political system, and because a perfectly political system has no flaws, the result is "art". Art was never intended to be created, because Keating has no motive in the movie other than to teach his students, validating his role as a teacher. In doing so, he does not find a precise way to convey his message because it is either too complicated or he doesn't grasp why he is teaching to begin with. Inconsistencies are bound to occur in any political exchange, but it appears to me, and possibly Dettmar and Berlatsky, that Keating's teachings are so imprecise that the only way to categorize their resulting, unrelated effects is to call them "art".
|
|
|
Post by danyhong55 on Apr 4, 2014 23:45:26 GMT
Quite frankly, the article seems to downplay the importance of aesthetics of a piece in favor of a accurate representation of whatever political message it wants to employ. However, I find that extremely shortsighted and idealistic. The problem of using accurate information rather than inspirational information is that the former is much harder to make interesting and appealing to a broad range of people. Not to mention, it is ultimately aesthetics that can shift us into a different mode of thinking, truly make a political mindset change.
This is an idea that one of my friends brought up that I had adopted, but I changed modified it to match my own beliefs. Aesthetics utilizes art and expression to dismantle modernity, and epistemetic "coloniality." I am hesitant to use the word coloniality, but it is a word that I think captures the heart of a mainstream political mindset that tries to "colonialize" other schools of thought or behavior. It is only dissent at an epistemological and ontological level that can embed itself in the discursive cracks of a political mindset all the way to the heart of socio-political change. It is valuable to rethink politics through the lens of poetry- a lens that acknowledges the unity of aesthetics and politics.
Aesthetics and art have a place in politics and that is to view the bland world in way that truly captures what is and what is not and what could be. To call Mr. Keating a bad teacher and saying that he should feel bad is in no way a justifiable criticism on the political message and the obvious implication that it could have. That is the end goal of a political piece anyways, to create implications and effects. To ignore that in the face of "I don't like this because it makes me looks bad" Mr. Pretentious English Teacher isirresponsible.
|
|
|
Post by chrisb on Jun 4, 2014 6:02:07 GMT
You know what they say -- there's nothing worse than a pretentious English teacher. I agree with danyhong55. "Dead Poets Society" is bad for political reasons.
|
|
|
Post by shannonfender on Jun 4, 2014 6:30:05 GMT
When I think about political criticism, my mind immediately jumps to our beloved Mr. Koepping. For those of us not in Gov, Koepping has debriefed us on a number of books from political literature in order to better acquaint us with some ideologies (either controversial or commonly-accepted) of our time. Each book offers a well-organized and detailed description of the author's theory. However, the threadline through all of these works is that the author's viewpoint is strictly singular. While his or her assertion may be well-articulated and multi-faceted, it does not encompass all possibilities that would account for a discussion. These books are great for lecture, but they do not contribute to conversation or expansion of thought if taken at face value. I imagine this is not Koepping's intention, and that nobody would think its a good idea to adopt a mantra as-is from a book or movie or whatever.
Therefore, I have to disagree with Chris and Danny (and the article) on this one. Political literature is not something to be taken at face value, and it is up to the reader to interpret and draw their own conclusions from what is presented before them. What this article believes is that political literature operates under rigid boundaries and definitions: that what the book puts forth textually is what can solely be evaluated under a political lens. This is, in a way, demeaning to the capabilities of the reader. When I came away from Dead Poet's Society, the overall good that the movie did (which was encourage students to think independently and whatever) outweighed any negative implications I may have subconsciously garnered through its context. And that's not to say those arguments aren't valid...And the fact that the author of this article was inspired to write about the hidden injustices of Dead Poet's Society it shows that it has contributed a valuable point to the whole discussion. In fact, I didn't even think about the whole feminist thing until it was brought up in the article- and thus, Dead Poet's Society has indirectly caused me to think more about the lack of a female role in DPS. I would argue that political criticism tends to be a function of both text and societal reaction, and that a "good" piece of political literature positively contributes to the discussion, rather that concrete thesis, that exists in our evolving world.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Jun 4, 2014 17:02:47 GMT
It’s been a while since I’ve seen Dead Poet’s Society, but from what I remember, the article is absolutely right. Keating basically uses sensationalism to make impressionable students agree with him. Telling them to stand up and look at things differently, from his point of view. A few responses are critical of the article creating meaning where there is none, but I see at least the basis of the author’s point. Not to make this super meta, but couldn’t Dettmar be using the same technique he despises in his performance? We all live in different realities, and confirmation bias is a powerful thing. We all just want to be right. And if not know ourselves, then be told by others. Much like the Shaper from Grendel, politics is about packaging opinion in a way that makes people agree. He used music, which is aesthetic. I haven’t been alive for very long, but I’ve seen politicians act in ridiculous ways. Voted representatives using these types of memes instead of debating actual points. This image might show the difference between how our leaders behave compared to the past. cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/20131207_USC120.png
|
|
|
Post by travistoal on Jun 4, 2014 19:48:20 GMT
The goal of a political critic is to challenge the widely accepted political views in society. However, that can become problematic when people take a stance so radical, it automatically is seen as a brilliant new view. People adopt that view simply because they think that nonconformity has some sort of artistic value and beauty, and you get the oxymoron of people nonconforming together. People hop on the bandwagon of political stances that they think are aesthetic and revolutionary, simply because it's something fresh, until that becomes mainstream and you have to find a new way to nonconform. This leads to groups accepting someone as a messiah, believing that he has some greater vision about the world simply because he disagrees, even if his vision doesn't make sense.
|
|