A Few Things…

Since we didn’t hear it last night, here is a clip from Easy Rider with Steppenwolf’s “Born to Be Wild.”

And, yay!, it’s Freedom to Read Week.  I’ll talk about banned books and art on Thursday February 26 in a lecture entitled “Forbidden Knowledge: Censorship and the Arts“.  For those of you who have a class, I’m sorry to say that it begins at 1pm in Classroom B, Matheson Learning Commons .  Here is a link to other Freedom to Read activities.

Don’t forget the exciting Beaver Ball, this Thursday February 26, 7pm at the Niagara Artists’ Centre, 354 St Paul St.  You can find info on dub poetry here, and info on Lillian Allen here.  The event is sponsored, in part, by GBLS.

Hope to see you there!

– Linda

Change to the Reading Schedule

I’ve had to make a slight change to the reading schedule.  We will switch March 3 with March 10.  On March 3, we will cover SURREALISM instead of Proust.  For March 3, please read the First Surrealist Manifesto in its entirety, including the sample texts.  It is available online at http://www.tcf.ua.edu/Classes/Jbutler/T340/SurManifesto/ManifestoOfSurrealism.htm

Next week, I’ll announce the selections from Proust.

– Linda

Exciting Event This Thursday!

Second Annual Great Canadian Beaver Ball

A few things…

Thanks for a great discussion of Sartre’s No Exit last night.  We didn’t have time to look at Monty Python’s take on Sartre (and plus my laptop died), so here is the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crIJvcWkVcs&feature=related

Also, I gave you a very brief — too brief — outline of the events of May ‘68.  Here is some more info, including film footage, if you are interested:

Background and issues

Images of posters

The Marxist point of view (there were many competing leftist groups involved, so take this with a grain of salt)

Learn more about the Situationist International (art, political, literary group that influenced the events of May).

Thank you all for your essay proposals.  I’ll give them back with comments on Tuesday February 24.  I will email comments on the blog as well as midterm participation grades to the email addresses you use for blogging.

On the 24th we will discuss Herman Hesse’s Steppenwolf.  Please read the entire novel.  Roy will lead the class that week.  (Roy could you please send me your discussion questions 24 hours before the class starts?)

I’ll be away, thinking about Sartre’s visit to Che Guevara and Fidel Castro in the 1960s, but will be available by email, so let me know if you have questions.

Oh, yes, if you haven’t signed your name to your blog, could you please go in and edit and add your name?  This way you’ll be sure to get your grades!  Also, please send me an email whenever you post somethng as the system seems to be failing….happy Reading Week!

– Linda

Freud’s Slips

When I saw that Freud was one of the assigned readings for this course, I was at first skeptical as to how his ideas would be useful in an analysis of modernity. However, in terms of the question stated at the outset of our first seminar and to be kept in mind for all readings – is modernity to be greeted or opposed – I have been able to see how Freud’s thoughts were particularly modern.

I see Freud - more specifically The Unconscious – as a comment on, and response to the developing attitudes of the modern period. Freud’s rationalization of dream thoughts, and the unconscious seem to be an obvious product of the period – an attempt to bring logic and organization to something that is neither logical nor organized. Our discussions in seminar have also often revolved around the idea of the modern period being one particularly interested with the individual. Freud’s analysis of society has grown away from seeing the actions of society through the actions of the crowd, and moved to analyzing the individual’s thoughts. Through analysis of the individual minds, it seem Freud is trying to create a composite image of his society. This is an interesting because Freud is looking at the individual’s unconscious as an explanation for overt action. The faults of society are absorbed by the individual and repressed, only to be shown in the form of phobias and fetishes.

My first problem with Freud’s idea of repression is in his explanation of how these repressed thoughts resurface and present themselves as phobias and fetishes. Freud seems to wonder about this inconsistency himself, but does not reconcile it here. The problem is in what happens when a thought that has been repressed and stored in the unconscious is brought into consciousness (or the preconscious). There are two ways in which I think Freud is trying to explain the process: in one case the action would be that of cut and paste, where the thought is completely removed from the unconscious and placed in the conscious. The other case is that of copy and paste, where the repressed thought or feeling is merely copied – one copy stays in the unconscious, while the other is placed in the conscious. Freud never makes a clear decision as to what happens here. Personally, I don’t think there is a need to maintain a copy of the thought repressed – once it has come to the surface, it seems redundant to need a copy in the unconscious. Also, once the thought has resurfaced, it seems that the individual’s mind will have been forced to deal with the unpleasant experience that caused it to be repressed in the first place. There would be no sense in it continuing to cause a phobia at this point. I don’t know what Freud would think of this though.

Another aspect of Freud that I find to be specifically modern is that he imposes certain western universals on the whole world. This doesn’t relate so much to the theory of repression, but more to fetishism. As fetishism usually results in societal norms forcing the repression of inappropriate sexual desires or fantasies, it does not seem correct for Freud to assume that the same societal norms would be in place in all cultures. My problem with this is that what would be deemed inappropriate or worthy of repression in one culture, would not necessarily be deserving of repression in another. Therefore, the idea of universal fetishes and phobias seems false.

Basically, it seems that Freud has made a few slips himself. What I do see of modernity in his writing though, is the increasing gap between the individual and society, and the western superiority complex

M. Carmichael

Ere I Start – A Quick Exorcise

Escaping the Tuesday afternoon traffic jam
With peanut butter and toast
Before silver-spoon-shattered goblets fuse the bride and groom
After another pointless dressage your colic Arabian
Nights from the sister’s perspective hiding under the bed.

Reclining upon a litter of satin-lined nails ere the sheets
Of cascading sulphurous rains
Or its equally constricting homonyms enrage and incense
Will choke the spiritual atmosphere’s passive control
Your inner drives: PCS, UCS, eXCeSs

Ending at the beginning or starting at the finish
Ceaseless circular housework with the orange-drenched, feigned gloss of Pledge
Never to remain a camel, nor lyin’
Amongst the heart’s creosote
Caused the chimney fire – TOTAL LOSS.

Yes, I will admit that this is a rather poor attempt at trying to duplicate the efforts of William Carlos Williams.  This being said, I find that his style of poetry alienates the audience far more than Eliot’s style ever would.

When poets, such as T.S. Eliot, strive to find the most obscure references possible in order to communicate their message, the majority of the readers are lost.  Even when given notes by the author, or if you’re luckier and received detailed notes from the editor, knowing that line ABC is found within book DEF of Augustine’s confessions rarely expands my knowledge of what’s being written.  Perhaps I’m just a lazy member of the audience, and I’m certain that there are many who would fervently strive to understand every nuance within his poetry, but I find that when poetry takes this much work, I toss it aside and pick up something written by Pablo Neruda.

At least T.S. Eliot’s poetry will have an audience as there will be some erudite readers who will appreciate the bird calls references within his poetry.  William Carlos Williams’ poetry strives to inspire the imagination.  Although I appreciate his motivation and attempt to do so without the regular connotations that constrained poetry, for how many times can a rose be love before it becomes redundant, I still rely on those loving roses to gain some appreciation of the emotions that the poet is trying to communicate.  Not only does the author lose control of the message that he is trying to convey through his poetry, for my imagination will perceive things far differently than his imagination might intend, but I’m not certain that the author himself is aware of what he’s trying to communicate through this method.  When he appeals directly to my imagination, I’m no longer the audience, so I feel that I can’t possibly understand what he’s trying to convey.  And just as my rational mind is no longer aware of what is meant by the poem, I’m not sure that Williams’ mind can be aware either.

Appreciation for Originality (or Lack Thereof)

A concept in William Carlos Williams Spring and All that I find intriguing was the suggestion to redefine art as a creative force of the imagination aimed at the progression of original ideas. Williams seems to portray the modernist movement in art as a sort of positively aligned progression. He seems to take note of the fact that culture is a movement (much as Nietzsche did) and sees the cultural paradigm shift of his time as inherently beneficial to both humanity and art. Williams states, “In fact now, for the first time, everything IS new… The terms ‘veracity’, ‘actuality’, ‘real’, ‘natural’, ‘sincere’ are all being discussed at length”. He is speaking, of course, about the attempt to analyze and redefine concepts that were once blindly accepted. Williams works in concert with this new modernist movement, which was attempting to redefine so many notions that were once held as simply ‘given’, by re-evaluating the concept of art. For Williams art is not something that should be subject to rigid structure or something that should be a mirror of nature. He claims that art is a process of the imagination and that the imagination affirms reality while at the same time creates something new to behold. He states that “poetry does not tamper with the world but moves it”, which is to say that poetry is not meant to delude the reader but show them another aspect of reality, of that which they have potentially taken for granted. In a way, art, as a process of the imagination, is a progressive force rooted firmly in reality used to create new objects of meaning.

At first I was unsure about whether or not I agreed with Williams position on art. I felt that his notion of art was to exclusive in that it did not include (and, in fact condemned) art that is meant to be cathartic or an escape from reality. However, after a while, I started to see the benefits of society adhering to the thought that art ought to be a progressive force. If art is always an attempt to redefine something or create something new then progression can always be made. During this progression new ideas can be formed and then evaluated. Through this one could view art as a sort of cultural motivator that could constantly push ideas and creativity to the next level. This could be a very good approach to art because the constant generation of new ideas and perspectives can cause oneself and others to repeal certain judgments that they might otherwise not have. Essentially art could be used as a force against ignorance, and I would have to say that, to me, this is a very positive aspect of Williams’ conception of art.

There is, however, a problem with Williams’ conception of art. This problem would be the inability for some people to concede that art is a creative flux of original ideas. If art is always new and different then how are most people going to get into it? Sure there are people who revel in the ‘dynamic’, those who love change and new ideas. However, a great number of others seem to be struggling to hold onto something with a little more permanence. This is why feelings like nostalgia are so prevalent in the modern (and even post-modern) period. This is also why people tend to form identities around certain forms of art. In our culture art tends to be conceived as a plethora of different arts, whereby one may pick and chose their preferred aesthetic experience. I am not prepared to say that this is a bad situation that our culture has fallen into, what I am trying to say is that I do not believe that art can be thought of as a progressive force by most people because most people seem to only appreciate a few different genres of art. I’m not saying that these people cannot change their opinion of art but I just don’t think that they want to. Having a distinct opinion on something like art leads to the formation of identity groups (groups of people who base there identity around a specific thing or principle and who identify with each other through this thing or principle) and identity groups provide a sense of purpose and security for those that fit into these groups. While I realize that believing that art ought to be progressive and original does prevent one from having a preference to a specific genre of art, it does take away from ones ability to be in identity group. I think a lot of people want a specific structure or distinction to be made with art because it makes their lives easier.

Also, Perhaps some people (myself included) simply cannot appreciate the progression of art as a whole, but can only appreciate certain aspects of art. Perhaps the destruction of the structured approach to art makes it less accessible. Art, under the paradigm of constant originality, seems to be geared towards other artists rather than regular audiences. I am not about to condemn Williams for this opinion, nor am I about to label him with hasty valuations, such as ‘elitism’. I only want to conclude with the statement that, like many others, I am not an artist (and not even very artistic for that matter) and as such I am unable to appreciate art in the same way that Williams can. I think I would rather keep my old conception of art as either the experience of something that is beautiful or of something that evokes a cathartic response.

Chris Roy

Eliot and Williams: doom and hope

What is interesting about T.S. Eliot’s The Wasteland and William Carlos Williams’ Spring and All is that they are published within a year of each other – The Wasteland in 1922, and Spring and All in 1923. The decade in which they are published is one full of optimism for the future, as the term ‘the roaring twenties’ would suggest. Why then, is Eliot so pessimistic and Williams so hopeful?
I think the most important distinction that can be made between the two authors is their frame of inspiration: Eliot is looking to the past – especially ancient Greece – while Williams is looking to the future for the saving grace of humankind. I feel that Eliot thinks the world has come to its end, having grown from greatness backward into destitution. The destruction of World War II no doubt plays a significant role in Eliot’s understanding of nature and humanity. The fact that Eliot moved to England in 1914 means that he watched the war unfold from the very beginning and was able to see step-by-step the destruction that humanity could inflict. Eliot exhibits nostalgia for the past, which can be seen in other modern movements such as surrealism. I think it is this mindset that taints the attitude of The Wasteland. He sees humanity as having run its course and having to start over. While this idea, which I see in terms of Nietzsche’s ‘eternal return’, is also present in Williams, Eliot does not portray this rebirth in a positive fashion. Instead of seeing it as a second chance, Eliot seems to see Humanity’s new birth as coming from death, only to result in the same destruction with time. One can only imagine how the destruction of World War II would have solidified this idea with him.
As I mentioned with Eliot, the idea of the eternal return comes up in Spring and All. Williams, though, sees humanity’s rebirth as a much more positive occurrence. Instead of seeing spring as a time when life grows from death, Williams seems to see this rebirth as a starting over, a second attempt untainted by the failures of the previous attempt. This is also evident in that Williams’ inspiration comes from the imagination, not from classical allusion. Williams is very critical of trying to reproduce through art, and tells readers that the only reality exists in our imagined form of it. Realism is actually ‘falsism’ in Williams’ mind.
I think that location has to be the biggest factor in determining why two authors writing about a very similar topic only a year apart from each other would come up with such starkly opposed views. Williams is writing in the United States, well removed from the destruction and inhumanity of World War I. Eliot is writing from London, pretty much in the centre of the destruction and inhumanity. Williams exhibits the American sentiment of isolationism in Spring and All. His hope for humankind’s future seems naïve in contrast to its actions in war. Eliot is nostalgic for the past, but even the past shows the destructive nature of Man. Williams’ desire to imagine reality and the future is ignorant of the cycle of history.

M. Carmichael

Constructed Imagination

Tuesday’s seminar shed considerable insight for me on both Eliot’s and Williams’ works.  However, I’m still having troubles viewing Williams poetry/prose as a form of art. Williams, being a modern artist, strives for new forms by combining and changing traditional concepts of prose and poetry into something new. It makes sense that his new form of writing seems senseless. Spring and All appears to be presented in its virgin form – as a free flow of Williams imagination without any edits. The spelling errors, lack of grammar, and absence of full sentence formation enforces the idea of something that spilt forth from his imagination. Yet, the introduction states that this text is a travesty on the idea of typographical form. This could suggest that his incoherent format is intentional. But if it’s intentional, does that degrade from the idea that Spring and All spilled out from his imagination? Linda explained the popular notion of tortured artists are those who experience great pain then sporadically create great works of art. This is a romanticized way to view artists since many had to create and re-create their works in order to finish a piece of art. If Spring and All is meant to be viewed as something which sprang forth from Williams’ imagination, presented to the public unedited, can it still be considered a piece of art?

Of course, I don’t endeavor to polarize Spring and All as something which isn’t great and shouldn’t be considered a piece of art, or as something which is intentionally constructed incoherently and therefore isn’t imaginative; these categories aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive. However, when considering the text, these ideas keep looming over my thoughts.

Also, there was a question poised to whether our generation is capable of creating anything new – if there is anything new to create. Below I’ve posted a video of a wall-painted animation by the artist Blu. Would this be considered as new? Could this be considered imaginative according to Williams?

Here’s the link just in case the video doesn’t work: http://www.vimeo.com/426617

fantoche from blu on Vimeo.

Upcoming Assignments

Hi Everyone,

Posted below is what is required for your proposal and essay.  This, and descriptions of other assignments, are available at http://modernityseminar.wordpress.com/about-the-course/course-requirements

Your essays may be of varying lengths, depending on what you chose in your contract.  A shorter essay should address only one text, whereas a longer essay could compare texts.  The key to an excellent proposal is to present clear, well-developed research questions that are innovative.

If you have questions, please email me.  I maybe available in my office tomorrow.  Let me know if you want to make an appointment.

Essay Proposal: this is a two-page document in which you propose your object(s) of study (the texts and the ideas) and the course of action you plan to use in your paper. It should a paragraph or two that describes a topic, research/analysis question, tentative thesis, possible arguments and possible evidence. The second page will be a properly formatted bibliography, using Chicago or MLA style.

Final essay: Your final essay will be a 1000-2500 word thesis-driven analysis of a text or group of texts that we have not studied in class and that falls within the period under study. You are to explicate and analyze the central idea or ideas in relation to the theme of modernity. This is to be a considered discussion of ideas, not a book report or summary. You should begin thinking about this immediately. You must clear your topic with me in the third week of class.

You think you know, but you have no idea

Following Tuesday night’s seminar I continued to think about Linda’s question, which asked how much of Freud’s thought we buy. Many of us were quick to accept the existence of the unconscious, and to praise Freud’s attempts to understand this part of our mind. However, one thing that I remained sceptical about was the belief that a seemingly conscious thought or action can actually be a manifestation of an entirely different idea repressed in the unconscious. Freud explains that the censors between the ucs and the cs will often miss a repressed idea, but that these ideas, which get beyond the censors, are always manifested in a form that seems unexplainable from the conscious point of view. I did not find this idea to be convincing, since it is difficult to believe that such illogical manifestations of repressed ideas are active in my own consciousness. Strangely enough, that same evening, while a friend was describing a problem that she had been having, I began to see the validity of Freud’s belief. Although it remained difficult to apply this explanation to the extreme that Freud had, my friend’s description does seem to be an accurate demonstration of this process at work.

This problem was one that she had been dealing with for approximately a year. Although her relationship with her partner was very positive, she had the tendency to get extremely angry in response to certain things he would do. This may seem common, yet the situation proved to be more complicated when having calmed down, she would find herself unable to explain the anger she had felt. Her immediate response was to attribute this anger to her partner’s actions, but she herself was not convinced that this was the actual cause. She continued to fall into these angry episodes, and since she just assumed that the problem was her own lack of tolerance or impatience, she was unable to find a solution.

Ironically, she brought up the possibility that her unexplainable anger may have been a reaction or expression of a deeper problem that she had been failing to recognize. She explained that her partner had left her long before and when they had gotten back together she had been very afraid of being abandoned again. She suggested that many of the things she was getting angry about may have actually been connected to this fear of being abandoned, but in such a way that she was unable to recognize the connection. It was at this point that I recognized a similarity between her situation and some of Freud’s ideas discussed. I seemed to me that the anger could simply be an illogical manifestation of the previously repressed anxiety about being abandoned. This seemed to explain why she could not identify the origin of her anger. This connection between her anger and the repressed anxiety became even more apparent when she explained that these particular fits of anger were aroused when her partner chose to spend time with his friends, or when she felt he was not paying enough attention to her. It seemed that she had repressed her anxiety fearing that it may cause her partner to leave her again. Unfortunately, as it was explained the censors will not always be able to hold back the repressed ideas, and thus they often re-emerge in the consciousness in a different form. Thus, her anxiety may have come back in the form of anger, which made it difficult to explain. Since the unexplainable anger may be a result of repressed anxiety, she decided that a solution may be to try and eliminate the anxiety and to stop the problem at its root. 

Although this description seems to relate to the emergence of repressed ideas into one’s consciousness, the absence of sexuality may restrict us from linking it directly to Freud. Regardless of sexuality, the description does seem to relate to his belief that the repressed ideas emerge in the consciousness in illogical and often unexplainable forms. For this reason it seems appropriate to compare the above description to Freud’s principles. It seems that this description may even be more logical than those provided by Freud, since the conscious and unconscious ideas are much more relatable. Although I believe that the conscious idea may not have a direct tie to the unconscious repressed idea, it is difficult for me to believe that their relationship can be as abstract as Freud believes. It seems rather that the connection between the conscious idea and that which was repressed in the unconscious would be more logical.