Let me first say that I agree with the Marxist idea that literature is a product of its social, economic and cultural circumstances. Because of this, Marxism provides a stark contrast to the ideas of liberal humanism.
Liberal Humanism says that true literature is timeless. It presents us with thoughts and values that transcend place and time. Basic human truths. LH also tells us that the piece of literature has its own meaning and has no need to be placed in the context of time. The entire belief of Marxist criticism goes against this. Marxist criticism tells us that a work of literature is a product of very specific circumstances, thus making it a reflection of the time and culture in which it was written. The economic system, class position, and the where and when are all important factors that influence a writer's works.
In the first week of class, we discussed this idea to some extent. Does a work carry the same meaning with it through time or does its meaning change as cultures and values adapt? Personally, I think that this is true- in reading a work from the early 1900's we may not understand it the same way in which someone living in that time and place would understand it- however, we are given a window to that time, we are allowed a glimpse into the circumstances surrounding the author's life and a reflection of those circumstances in their writing.
Another interesting idea is presented in Lenenist Marxism: art and literature can and should be used for political purposes. In liberal humanism however, we are told that literature is not able to influence political views. "If literature becomes overtly and directly political it necessarily tends towards propaganda."
I know that that last bit about political influence was a bit off topic from the rest of this post, but I wanted a chance to incorporate a picture. And with the upcoming election I thought that a little bit of election art would be interesting.
Comment with your thoughts!
Ciao until next time :)
5 comments:
I really thought that picture was relavant to what we have been talking about. From a Marxist point of view this picture would be extremly significant to our time. I was thinking about what this picture would mean to someone 50 years down the line and how different it would be for them. If obama were to lose the election pehaps this picture would mean nothing to them. But if he were to win and be a succesful president the mean would be completly different. The picture could be iconic. It is interesting to take a Marxist point of view and think about how things are viewed in different times and places.
I first would like to say that I appreciate your use of art to encourage discussion. Is it propaganda or good use of rhetoric? And what is the difference between the two? almostfamous' comment about what it would mean fifty years from now is very interesting if you think about it from a Marxist perspective. Does the meaning change as social, economic, and cultural conditions change? Would it not have significance to a Marxist theorist for this reason? What do you think?
Before responding to these comments, I want to say that I got excited when I saw that they were here. So, thanks for reading!
My personal response to this particular picture is that it is a good use of rhetoric and not propogandistic. 1: I think that the use of both red and blue wants to show people that Obama would be a good candiate choice for both parties and that his ideas will not just benifit those with democratic beleifs. 2. The word "hope" reflects a feeling that many Americans are looking for in this time of uncertainty. From this piece, I feel that the hope refered to is one for change. What ideas do you have? What Marxism do you get out of it?
In response to the question of this pieces meaning in 50 years, I think that it would not have the same kind of meaning as it does today, however, it would show people what it was like to live in this time. This is a Marxist oerspective. It would show what peoples tohughts were and to demonstrate part of the importance of this year's election and the ideas behind the work. I think that it would be taken the same way as a pice created during the cival rights movement. Though we will never know what it was like to live in that volatile and changing time, these pieces represent the power and emotion behind the movement.
I agree with your comment about the timelessness of literature and the difference between works that are dated now in comparison to works dated 20 years earlier. Within each time, there are different experiences that people or authors write about. For example, some consider "The Great Gatsby" to be classic literature, but if we look at the times between then and now, there may be a different view at how the economic base is viewed in comparison to the economy of today.
I can't wait to see what else you have to say... ps. barack the vote!
oh my god woman, it's far too early for me to wax intellectual. I came by to see if you'd watched last night's True Blood, and am instead bombarded by all this rude academic talk. I'm far too lazy to contribute anything worthwhile to the discussion, so I'll just invite you to come read my latest recap.
=)
Post a Comment