Chesterton, Wilde ...and Dali.
Dud Fivers
Oscar Wilde were compared, to the disadvantage of the
latter. Of course, the post brought furious accusations of
"homophobia" although I feel none and intended none.
If adverse criticism of a writer who happens to be
homosexual draws a charge of homophobia ...as it
practically always does... we can choose only between
praise and silence. This is scarcely a recipe for
objective criticism and is insulting to homosexuals,
suggesting that their work cannot stand on its merits but
must be protected.
Wilde's reputation has benefitted from the modern
indulgence towards homosexuality. The cult of Wilde has
romanticised his life and sentimentalised our attitude to
it so that his reputation now enjoys the protection
accorded a sacred artefact.
We should not allow this confidence-trick to succeed.
At the centre of Wilde's genius there was a moral flaw.
Casting around for a non-homosexual example of what I
mean, I thought of Salvador Dali. In a way, he was rather
like Wilde. There was the same towering vanity, the same
conviction of his own genius, the affectedly flamboyant
manner and the studied eccentricities of costume. His work
was of great brilliance but there was a degenerate
psychology at work in it. It is informed by sadism and an
obsession with corpses, putrefaction and weakness.
It was to this same fractured morality and not to his
homosexuality that I was objecting in Wilde. Great art
exists to demonstrate our relationship to the universal
scheme ...to put it in religious language, to connect us to
God... and it is difficult for a bad man to be a great
artist.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Michael Zeleny
So to speak.
Cordially -- Mikhail Zel...@math.ucla.edu * M...@ptyx.com ** www.ptyx.com
God: "Sum id quod sum." ** 7576 Willow Glen Road, Los Angeles, CA 90046
Descartes: "Cogito ergo sum." * 323.876.8234 (fon) * 323.876.8054 (fax)
Popeye: "Sum id quod sum et id totum est quod sum." ** www.trespass.net
established on 2.26.1958 ** itinerant philosopher * will think for food
Fiona Webster
> A while ago, I made a post wherein G. K. Chesterton and
> Oscar Wilde were compared, to the disadvantage of the
> latter. Of course, the post brought furious accusations of
> "homophobia" although I feel none and intended none.
And then elaborates:
> At the centre of Wilde's genius there was a moral flaw.
[...]
> It was to this same fractured morality and not to his
> homosexuality that I was objecting in Wilde.
I missed the previous discussion, but it's evident from what
you're saying here that you're judging Wilde's work by standards
that he himself considered irrelevant. Have you not read his
opinions (best explained, in my opinion, in his essay "The
Critic as Artist") on how morality is irrelevant to art?
I confess to being a Wilde fan. My respect for his work
has nothing to do with his homosexuality or some sentimental
version of his life story. I respect his ideas, and the way
in which he expresses them. If there's another writer who's
done a better job of arguing for (1) the role of criticism in
art and society, and (2) aesthetics as a worthy value system,
I'd like to know!
> Great art exists to demonstrate our relationship to the universal
> scheme ...to put it in religious language, to connect us to
> God... and it is difficult for a bad man to be a great
> artist.
Ahem...first off, you make the annoying presumption that
Wilde was "a bad man" (which statement practically proves that
you haven't read Ellmann's biography), but worse yet, you've
got the art and the man all mixed up together. A common error,
but still, not likely to win you many supporters on this
newsgroup.
As for your statement about the role of great art, why is that
necessarily so? That's not just your personal point of view,
but more importantly, it's completely counter to Wilde's point
of view.
Of course, you can judge Wilde on whatever grounds you wish.
But saying that his art is lacking because of its, or its
creator's (!), "fractured morality" is just as silly as saying
that Picasso's "Guernica" is a bad painting because it doesn't
adhere to conventional standards of pictorial realism. If you
can't even accept an artist's choice about how to approach
Beauty, and judge them based on whether they succeed at doing
what they set out to do (which Wilde may not have, I readily
admit), then you invalidate yourself as a critic to be taken
seriously.
--Fiona
Bill Duke
<s.dowle1...@dtn.ntl.com.invalid> noted that:
: A while ago, I made a post wherein G. K. Chesterton and
: Oscar Wilde were compared, to the disadvantage of the
: latter. Of course, the post brought furious accusations of
: "homophobia" although I feel none and intended none.
Charges of homophobia should almost always be ignored or dismissed. If
your demurrals on literary grounds are legitimate, the charges of
homophobia are irrelevant. For better or worse, your refusal to accept
homosexuality doesn't require further justification (unless you're
encouraging physical violence or public mayhem). If your complaints of a
writer's work are on wholly literary grounds, then sexual considerations
(yours, his, or one's sense of the other's) are beside the point.
: If adverse criticism of a writer who happens to be
: homosexual draws a charge of homophobia ...as it
: practically always does... we can choose only between
: praise and silence. This is scarcely a recipe for
: objective criticism and is insulting to homosexuals,
: suggesting that their work cannot stand on its merits but
: must be protected.
Some of it must be protected, but only so it can be of use politically.
Work of genuine literary merit doesn't need protection (unless we're
talking about Nazi Germany, or Stalinist Russia, or the equivalent).
: Wilde's reputation has benefitted from the modern
: indulgence towards homosexuality. The cult of Wilde has
: romanticised his life and sentimentalized our attitude to
: it so that his reputation now enjoys the protection
: accorded a sacred artefact.
Oh, I don't know. Wilde was a writer of genuine talent, he was hounded
out of his country and to his death on what to us would seem
disproportionate grounds. He didn't hurt anyone, he was used far more
than he used others, and his peccadilloes we're not the sort of conduct
that merited the death penalty (which he faced before fleeing to Paris).
And it's still quite acceptable (and profitable) to attack both his
reputation and his writings. A sympathetic figure he may be, but hardly
a sacred one.
: We should not allow this confidence-trick to succeed.
: At the centre of Wilde's genius there was a moral flaw.
I'm not sure what you mean. What was this undisclosed moral flaw?
Homosexuality? Well, Okay. I would've said his criminal naiveté. Anyone
who could've let themselves be taken in by Bosie (repeatedly) should
definitely have his judgment questioned.
: Casting around for a non-homosexual example of what I
: mean, I thought of Salvador Dali.
Hmmm,...not necessarily the best example.
: In a way, he was rather like Wilde. There was the
: same towering vanity, the same conviction of his own
: genius, the affectedly flamboyant manner and the studied
: eccentricities of costume. His work was of great brilliance
: but there was a degenerate psychology at work in it.
Entartete Kunst!
: It is informed by sadism and an obsession with corpses,
: putrefaction and weakness.
Well, it was informed by various Surrealist associations, including
dreams and all the things they engender (prefigures of life, death, sex,
memory and the other aspects that a particular psyche conjures up).
: It was to this same fractured morality and not to his
: homosexuality that I was objecting in Wilde. Great art
: exists to demonstrate our relationship to the universal
: scheme ...to put it in religious language, to connect us to
: God... and it is difficult for a bad man to be a great
: artist.
I'll delicately step around definitions of bad men and good artists,
thereby avoiding Wagner, Celine, Picasso, Giacometti, Heidegger, and
others.
It's often maddeningly hard to make an estimation regarding art and
artists. Dali, who you cite as the anti-Wilde, had a longstanding
homosexual affair with Garcia Lorca. Wilde, the figurehead of numerous
homosexual groups, was married with two children. Mixing sex and
literature (outside the printed page) is often more problematic than it
seems.
Bill
Fiona Webster
> I'll delicately step around definitions of bad men and good artists,
> thereby avoiding Wagner, Celine, Picasso, Giacometti, Heidegger, and
> others.
I'm always amazed by people who refuse to read Rilke after
finding out what he was supposedly like as a person. Even
Michael Dirda of the _Washington Post_, whom I admire and
respect, said something to that effect.
But then I don't understand people who justify their case for
capital punishment on the basis of how horrible the murder was,
either. As much as I can, I keep my aesthetics and
my social/political stance separate from my estimation of
individual bad people and their bad actions.
--Fiona
Puss in Boots
[...]
> I confess to being a Wilde fan. My respect for his work
> has nothing to do with his homosexuality or some sentimental
> version of his life story. I respect his ideas, and the way
> in which he expresses them. If there's another writer who's
> done a better job of arguing for (1) the role of criticism in
> art and society, and (2) aesthetics as a worthy value system,
> I'd like to know!
D.H. Lawrence is very good there.
-- Moggin
midtown neon
Willam Carlos Williams. The American Grain. 1925.
Charles Perrault. Parallele des anciens
et des modernes. 1688.
Inherited wealth is all very fine ... but smartness pays. ibid. 1697.
neon, m.
Bill Duke
Webster) noted that:
: Bill Duke writes:
: > I'll delicately step around definitions of bad men and good artists,
: > thereby avoiding Wagner, Celine, Picasso, Giacometti, Heidegger, and
: > others.
:
: I'm always amazed by people who refuse to read Rilke after
: finding out what he was supposedly like as a person. Even
: Michael Dirda of the _Washington Post_, whom I admire and
: respect, said something to that effect.
Michael Dirda, who I admire also, can be a bit prissy in some of his
socio-literary estimations. (In fact, I read a new translation of the
Duino Elegies not long ago that I liked a lot.)
The writers and artists I cited are those whose work I admire, however
unadmirable they were as individuals (which is why, sensing the original
posters sentiments, I just sidestepped the issue).
: But then I don't understand people who justify their case for
: capital punishment on the basis of how horrible the murder was,
: either.
Me, neither. The whole concept of "hate" crimes, and the whole point of
Victims Impact Statements, just elude me. A crime should be judged on
it's merits (i.e., whether it constitutes an act that transgresses the
bounds of agreed standards of conduct), not on what is thought to have
been the criminal's emotional state of mind when he committed it, nor on
the severity of its impact on the victim, his friends or family. That's
why it's presented as "People v. Ted Kaczynski," not "Gelernter v. Ted
Kaczynski."
: As much as I can, I keep my aesthetics and
: my social/political stance separate from my estimation of
: individual bad people and their bad actions.
I _think_ I know what you mean. It's hard for me to keep my
social/political sensibilities separate from my estimation of Joseph
Stalin or (on a tiny scale) Newt Gingrich. But I do try to separate my
aesthetic appreciation of the work of Arthur Koestler or Anne Sexton
from what I know (or think I know) of them personally.
Bill
Steve Hayes
14:23:30:
DF> A while ago, I made a post wherein G. K. Chesterton and
DF> Oscar Wilde were compared, to the disadvantage of the
DF> latter. Of course, the post brought furious accusations of
DF> "homophobia" although I feel none and intended none.
DF> If adverse criticism of a writer who happens to be
DF> homosexual draws a charge of homophobia ...as it
DF> practically always does... we can choose only between
DF> praise and silence. This is scarcely a recipe for
DF> objective criticism and is insulting to homosexuals,
DF> suggesting that their work cannot stand on its merits but
DF> must be protected.
DF> Wilde's reputation has benefitted from the modern
DF> indulgence towards homosexuality. The cult of Wilde has
DF> romanticised his life and sentimentalised our attitude to
DF> it so that his reputation now enjoys the protection
DF> accorded a sacred artefact.
DF> We should not allow this confidence-trick to succeed.
DF> At the centre of Wilde's genius there was a moral flaw.
DF> Casting around for a non-homosexual example of what I
DF> mean, I thought of Salvador Dali. In a way, he was rather
DF> like Wilde. There was the same towering vanity, the same
DF> conviction of his own genius, the affectedly flamboyant
DF> manner and the studied eccentricities of costume. His work
DF> was of great brilliance but there was a degenerate
DF> psychology at work in it. It is informed by sadism and an
DF> obsession with corpses, putrefaction and weakness.
I'm not sure what the point of your comparison of Wilde and Chesterton was.
Wilde lived, wrote and died in the 19th century.
Chesterton was 20 years younger, and wrote in the 20th century.
So their careers don't seem to have overlapped at all
Wilde was an aesthete, and espoused "art for art's sake". I haven't read much
of his work, other than "The picture of Dorian Gray" and some of his
children's stories. I rather enjoy a good gothic/horror story, and I think
"Dorian Gray" qualifies there. Ev
en though Wilde said that one should not
write moralistic tales, it's not difficult to draw a moral from that one, and
also from the children's stories like "The selfish giant" - which Ayn Rand
would no doubt denounce as totally immoral, since it seems to
denigrate the
virtue of selfishness.
Chesterton was a liberal, and was deeply suspicious of big business and big
government and the like, and was an early 20th-century exponent of the "small
is beautiful" philosophy.
Whatever may have been the case in the times in which they lived, in some
ways at least, when reading them today, they seem to be on the same side.
DF> It was to this same fractured morality and not to his
DF> homosexuality that I was objecting in Wilde. Great art
DF> exists to demonstrate our relationship to the universal
DF> scheme ...to put it in religious language, to connect us to
DF> God... and it is difficult for a bad man to be a great
DF> artist.
Well yes, I can see there that you would disagree with Wilde's "art for art's
sake" philosophy, but I'm not sure that everyone would agree with your
premiss. Not that they have to, of course.
But perhaps even with that premiss a bad man could be a great artist - if you
think of the whisky priest in Graham Greene's "The power and the glory",
where even a bad priest could be a great witness.
Keep well,
Steve Hayes
E-mail: meth...@bigfoot.com
sha...@dunelm.org.uk
WWW: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/steve.htm
.... Theology: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/philtheo.htm