« Real Estate Closure | Main | At the risk of alienating anyone not interested in knitting... »
April 12, 2005
Camille Paglia
WNYC's On Point had Camille Paglia on the air as a guest today to talk about her new book, Break, Blow, Burn: Camille Paglia Reads Forty-three of the World's Best Poems. Since I was sick all day (with only my radio and knitting in reach -- I couldn't quite handle sitting on the futon in front of the TV) I listened to the show.
According to the lengthy introdution, Paglia is a strong critic of the feminists of the seventies. Her 1990 book Sexual Personae deals with sexual politics in Western literature. In her latest book, Paglia has taken on the popular rise of post-structuralism and deconstructionism in the past 30 years. She calls it a "blight" on the interpretation of art. She accuses the past few generations of cynicism and excessive irony (can't argue there), saying that critics now take apart a piece of art instead of contemplating it and revering it as something beautiful and reflective of the era in which it was written. These days, we're more concered with meta-information, or the science of criticism -- we're interested in how the text cancels itself out, the death of the author, etc. Paglia is also very critical of the professors making money off of this trend.
As a student of this era, I have to say that I like the idea of deconstructionism and the power it gives me over a text, but at the same time I can understand how that interpretation might take away from the appreciation of a text on its own terms. There are themes of human nature and psychological struggle to explore. But we're all so concerned with the author/reader relationship (well, if we're English or Philisophy majors, anyway) that we're missing out on "our cultural heritage." Appreciating art is in danger of degrading into an endless intellectual exercise. I mean -- the simple pleasure you feel when looking at an Edward Weston photo is key to understanding the piece as a whole.
A similar backlash toward deconstructionism showed up in a lecture we went to recently called "Derrida and Architecture." It was acknowledged that Derrida's influence on the medium would be felt years from now, but there was also a sense of mild rebellion toward the exceedingly abstract interpretations that Derrida's thinking encourages. Architecture is at its root a functional medium that can inspire appreciation for beauty in everyday life. By exploring the experience of the audience to an unhealthy degree you run the risk of building something completely foreign.
On the other hand, I think it's important to realize that deconstructionism is a tool we can use to enhance an audience's experience. It's also inescapable these days, and its influence is undeniable in the art of the last few decades. So Paglia's wholesale rejection of it can't entirely be achieved. Irony, cynicism, and the complex reading/author relationship is going to show up in recent art and we'll have to appreciate it with that in mind. Hopefully academia will embrace more traditional interpretation along with a lighter course on post-structuralism and Derrida -- there is a happy medium there somewhere.
If it's as wordy as her last book, Break, Blow, Burn may not be too pleasurable to read, but the survey of major authors -- Dunne, Dickenson, Plath, even Joni Mitchell -- would be a nice tour. I also liked Paglia's take on religion -- she's an athiest but belives religion is a great "complex system of symbols" worth extended study. Here's hoping I can stay awake long enough to read her book.
Posted by csageday at April 12, 2005 12:40 AM
Comments
deconstructionism was a reaction to the death throes of modernism and conceptualism...and an attempt to democratize and re-invigorate literary criticism. I'm deeply suspicious of Paglia after her attacks on feminism and, hold on, she's made a few bob off the -ism debates right?
Posted by: tony at April 14, 2005 02:12 PM
They're all in it for the money! That explains the endless nagging on NPR (and all the suffixes and prefixes -- stretches out the dialogue, book, lecture, etc.).
It's interesting that you say deconsructionism is not only a response to what came before, but an attempt to "democratize and re-invigorate literary criticism" -- it has certainly been successful there. Someone should bring that up when CP rails against it next time. It gave us all something to talk about for a few decades, and it's much more fun, too. Anything goes, pretty much. I could invent a word with meta- in front and -ism at the end and write a paper and it would be taken seriously! (Maybe.)
Posted by: Cindy at April 14, 2005 03:55 PM