Susan Sontag, 1933-2004 - American writer, filmmaker, philosopher, teacher, political activist
One of the leading critics of her generation, Susan Sontag's powerful voice is much in evidence in this outstanding collection. For the purposes of my review, I will focus on the lead essay, Against Interpretation, an essay that continues to speak profoundly to us today. Here are a batch of direct quotes coupled with my comments:
"None of us can ever retrieve that innocence before all theory when art knew no need to justify itself, when one did not ask of a work of art what it said because one knew (or thought one knew) what it did." ---------- Thus, we inheritors of Western Civilization are forever cutoff from the way other civilizations regarded art – for example, we place Aztec art in our museums and subject the artifacts to interpretation within our Western theories. Quite different than the Aztecs themselves!
"The modern style of interpretation excavates, and as it excavates, destroys; it digs “behind” the text, to find a sub-text which is the true one. The most celebrated and influential modern doctrines, those of Marx and Freud, actually amount to elaborate systems of hermeneutics, aggressive and impious theories of interpretation." ---------- Susan Sontag published this essay in 1962. In addition to all of the Marxist and Freudian interpretations of art and literature in the last sixty years, one can imagine the huge number of interpretations and analysis employing Postmodern theories. But whatever the Postmodern theory, Susan Sontag would deem them of little value compared to a direct engagement with the work of art or literature itself.
"Thus, interpretation is not (as most people assume) an absolute value, a gesture of mind situated in some timeless realm of capabilities. Interpretation must itself be evaluated, within a historical view of human consciousness. In some cultural contexts, interpretation is a liberating act. It is a means of revising, of transvaluing, of escaping the dead past. In other cultural contexts, it is reactionary, impertinent, cowardly, stifling." ---------- Susan Sontag leaves no doubt interpretation in our modern age falls into the second class - reactionary, impertinent, cowardly, stifling. Fortunately, as she points out, once we recognize the limited historic and cultural context of such stifling interpretations, they will not have the last say.
"Even more. It is the revenge of the intellect upon the world. To interpret is to impoverish, to deplete the world—in order to set up a shadow world of “meanings.” It is to turn the world into this world. (“This world”! As if there were any other.) The world, our world, is depleted, impoverished enough. Away with all duplicates of it, until we again experience more immediately what we have." ---------- For me, Susan Sontag's words here bring to mind one of my favorite quotes regarding art, written by 19th century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer: "Treat a work of art like a prince. Let it speak to you first."
"In most modern instances, interpretation amounts to the philistine refusal to leave the work of art alone. Real art has the capacity to make us nervous. By reducing the work of art to its content and then interpreting that, one tames the work of art. Interpretation makes art manageable, comformable." ----------- One of the most insipid attempts to tame a work of art I've come across was from a religious fundamentalist's review of Hermann Hesse's Steppenwolf. His review was brief. He said: "Like the Book of Revelation says, "All is vanity." Really? Might your literary judgement be a tad reductionist?
"Interpretation, based on the highly dubious theory that a work of art is composed of items of content, violates art. It makes art into an article for use, for arrangement into a mental scheme of categories." ----------- Well stated, Susan! As if the richness and depth of a work of art is but a means to undergird a writer's chosen theory.
"What is important now is to recover our senses." ---------- Susan Sontag alludes to our senses being continually bombarded by mass media, having the effect of dulling our senses and feelings toward our everyday world and toward our appreciation of art and literature. In our current culture, think of the tyranny of pop music in nearly all public places, the tyranny of television in hospitals, airports, restaurants and other public spaces. Additionally, how many hours do people sit in front of the boob tube in the privacy of their own homes?
"We must learn to see more, to hear more, to feel more." ---------- Sorry to say, the overwhelming amount of time in most people's lives is living in the head, living in unending internal chatter. I recall one of my meditation teachers' words, "Our senses are nourished when we become quiet and relaxed. We can experience each sense, savoring its essence." And how can we cultivate such richness of the senses? A good first step would be to spend time away from television and devote a portion of our day to a direct experience of literature and the arts.
"The function of criticism should be to show how it is what it is, even that it is what it is, rather than to show what it means." ---------- This is one major reason I shy away from literary criticism of any sort. Give me a good book review of a novel any day -- where the reviewer writes about things like the characters, what the story is, the writing style - no a word on what the novel "means."
Comments
Post a Comment