Seems to me like she has an exremely limited view of what art should be and should try to do, without even entertaining the possibility that maybe it can do multiple things? The immediate sensory experience cant be ignored, obviously, otherwise you can just write an essay(oh the irony). To be fair, this was written at a time when cultural iconoclasm was very popular, and interpretive texts were still widely used in the west for enforcement of wierd fucked up cultural standards. They still are, but thankfully, its becoming less and less fashionable, and maybe Sontag played some role in that, so good for her. That said, I do not wish to dispense with the idea that things can mean stuff. That's a bit of an overreaction in my view. We judge works based on their ability to sustain attention; attention has two forms, immediate sensory, Sontag's fav, which we might call Dionysian, and the "meaning" or contemplation of the "content" known as interpretation, which we may call Apollonian. Apollo and Dionysus are both present in the drama, and must be. The playwright gets big, beautiful philosophical ideas and mythopoetic images in their mind, but then they must take that and tame it into a fun story with great characters; then that story has to become a script, then that script has to be interpreted by the director and the actors; then their individual parts join to form the production, which is experienced by the audience, and then contemplated afterward; those who do the most contemplation become playwrights, and the cycle continues. The whole thing is a dance between Apollo and Dionysus. It seems Sontag would like to kick Apollo out of the sacred theatre. Now I get it, Apollo is a patriarchal douche, and that much has been shown throughout history by interpretors of great works being such (you know who). However, Nietzsche was right: art simply doesn't sustain itself without the tension between these forces. Sontag's view of art is shallow; the feelies of Huxley's Brave New World would suit her definition of art just fine.
![Warhammer 40k Core Book [Dark Imperium section]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ROZvqVqCXEg/mqdefault.jpg)
![Warhammer 40k Core Book [Dark Imperium section]](/img/tr.png)
That was interesting! Did not expect you to read this, you always pick such unexpected books! Thank you :)
based and incantatory ritual catharsis-pilled
God this rules
Why didn’t I know you were. Doing this . Hearing swiftly do Sontag … you are god level cool
Omg I'm livid that I just found this.
Thank you for this :)
thanks for providing this reading!
omg i've just been reading this! great to have a little review :P anyway, off to sleep zzz
Seems to me like she has an exremely limited view of what art should be and should try to do, without even entertaining the possibility that maybe it can do multiple things? The immediate sensory experience cant be ignored, obviously, otherwise you can just write an essay(oh the irony). To be fair, this was written at a time when cultural iconoclasm was very popular, and interpretive texts were still widely used in the west for enforcement of wierd fucked up cultural standards. They still are, but thankfully, its becoming less and less fashionable, and maybe Sontag played some role in that, so good for her. That said, I do not wish to dispense with the idea that things can mean stuff. That's a bit of an overreaction in my view. We judge works based on their ability to sustain attention; attention has two forms, immediate sensory, Sontag's fav, which we might call Dionysian, and the "meaning" or contemplation of the "content" known as interpretation, which we may call Apollonian.
Apollo and Dionysus are both present in the drama, and must be. The playwright gets big, beautiful philosophical ideas and mythopoetic images in their mind, but then they must take that and tame it into a fun story with great characters; then that story has to become a script, then that script has to be interpreted by the director and the actors; then their individual parts join to form the production, which is experienced by the audience, and then contemplated afterward; those who do the most contemplation become playwrights, and the cycle continues.
The whole thing is a dance between Apollo and Dionysus. It seems Sontag would like to kick Apollo out of the sacred theatre. Now I get it, Apollo is a patriarchal douche, and that much has been shown throughout history by interpretors of great works being such (you know who). However, Nietzsche was right: art simply doesn't sustain itself without the tension between these forces. Sontag's view of art is shallow; the feelies of Huxley's Brave New World would suit her definition of art just fine.
thank you.( ᖛ ̫ ᖛ )ʃ♡