Yes, but two points: I am not saying ANY works of art are good or bad, because I don't believe it can be done without ending up with a prescription of what art should be. I don't think I've spoken about good or bad anywhere above. To rephrase your quote to reflect what I AM saying: "Look, the fact is that ALL works of art ARE works of art, and your opinion of them is irrelevant. Deal with it!" And from this position we can cut the nonsense and quite literally start DEALING with art (and no I don't mean the art market by that, hehe!)
Secondly: we both know that Nabokov had read these guys more thoroughly than you and I ever will; and the reason he despised them is located in his intense familiarity of their (according to him, bad) choices. The original source of the aesthetic displeasure is not located in the TEXT (it's only a carrier), but in the bad choices - bad artistry - of the writer. (The formalism I mean is the Russian brand - Sklovski, Tynyanov etc. - the idea that aesthetic experience is derived from HOW a work is made, and that all ideological etc. content is entirely secondary. I just mentioned it because of that) 17. maaliskuuta 2012 17.40 <[email protected]> kirjoitti: > John -- I'm not altogether sure what you have in mind when you say > "formalism". > > But, to me, your following line suggests something important about your > position (The issues are "personal" preferences -- Jones always loves the > flute, Smith always hates it, etc.): "What I AM saying is that these issues > should not > enter the artistic appreciation of a work." > > Your line seems to reveal a belief in an objective fact-of-the-matter about > "art", almost as though you're saying, "Look, the fact is that some works > of art are good and others simply aren't. Deal with it!" > > I don't agree with that. As a scholar of Nabokov, you must know that he > despised Faulkner, Thomas Mann and Camus. Did Nabokov lack "artistic > appreciation" of written works? You can't think so if you've read his > appreciations of > Austen, Dickens, and Tolstoi. Once we're convinced of a reader's sincere > and focused attention to a work, there is no possibility of refuting his > "subjectivist" response. It's wrong-headed to say, "Well, you OUGHT to > like it!" > "Art" is one of the foggiest words in our language because it so often is > mistakenly used to indicate a mythical absolute ontic status.
