![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
baleanopteraIn a recent discussion ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
losyark refered to Hamlet as the whiney prince. After years of reading Hamlet she’d developed a certain allergy towards the brooding Dane. This got me thinking.
I suspect ever country or culture has them – a writer, or painter or poet who is so vital to their literature and art that they get taught again, and again, and again. I’ve understood that Shakespeare is one of these figures in the English speaking world. In Norway the poor poet is Ibsen. He gets dragged out every school year – certain like clockwork. The result is usually a little discouraging. My class once went to see A Doll’s House, and the audience was packed with people who were there because they felt they had to, rather than wanted to. Don’t ask me how – but you could just tell. Late in the first act a classmate leaned over and whispered to me: “I wish Nora would just get her shit together and leave already.”
Now I know this was a guy who usually loved books and plays, so I can’t write him off as a buffoon. I likewise refuse to think that the entire audience where cultural ignorants, and sincelosyark has studied theatre I very much doubt that her dislike of Hamlet is based on ignorance. And the plays in question are good – so it isn’t their fault either.
But somewhere along the way something happens. I’m not going to blame the schools – because that is too easy. But I am wondering if culture can get broken? Not used up, because that implies emptying a cultural artefact of meaning – and I’m not sure that is possible.
No, I mean broken. Rather like a mirror that is supposed to give you a nice, contemplative reflection, only somewhere along the way the mirror was broken and all you can see now are these really ugly shards. And they distort everything.
See – I have a problem with Raphael’s “The School in Athens”. I’m an art historian and in almost every art history book or lecture, when someone mentions perspective and composition, up comes “The School in Athens”. I can understand that because Raphael does perspective so well, and he is so essential in that aspect. Rationally I also know that “The School in Athens” is a good picture.
But when I look at it all I see are compositional lines, references, disegno and historia, and I hear little whispers of text and theory. And then I no longer see the picture, but this other thing –and in many ways “The School in Athens” has for me become broken.
Does this make sense to anyone?
losyark refered to Hamlet as the whiney prince. After years of reading Hamlet she’d developed a certain allergy towards the brooding Dane. This got me thinking. I suspect ever country or culture has them – a writer, or painter or poet who is so vital to their literature and art that they get taught again, and again, and again. I’ve understood that Shakespeare is one of these figures in the English speaking world. In Norway the poor poet is Ibsen. He gets dragged out every school year – certain like clockwork. The result is usually a little discouraging. My class once went to see A Doll’s House, and the audience was packed with people who were there because they felt they had to, rather than wanted to. Don’t ask me how – but you could just tell. Late in the first act a classmate leaned over and whispered to me: “I wish Nora would just get her shit together and leave already.”
Now I know this was a guy who usually loved books and plays, so I can’t write him off as a buffoon. I likewise refuse to think that the entire audience where cultural ignorants, and since
losyark has studied theatre I very much doubt that her dislike of Hamlet is based on ignorance. And the plays in question are good – so it isn’t their fault either. But somewhere along the way something happens. I’m not going to blame the schools – because that is too easy. But I am wondering if culture can get broken? Not used up, because that implies emptying a cultural artefact of meaning – and I’m not sure that is possible.
No, I mean broken. Rather like a mirror that is supposed to give you a nice, contemplative reflection, only somewhere along the way the mirror was broken and all you can see now are these really ugly shards. And they distort everything.
See – I have a problem with Raphael’s “The School in Athens”. I’m an art historian and in almost every art history book or lecture, when someone mentions perspective and composition, up comes “The School in Athens”. I can understand that because Raphael does perspective so well, and he is so essential in that aspect. Rationally I also know that “The School in Athens” is a good picture.
But when I look at it all I see are compositional lines, references, disegno and historia, and I hear little whispers of text and theory. And then I no longer see the picture, but this other thing –and in many ways “The School in Athens” has for me become broken.
Does this make sense to anyone?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-09-22 09:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-22 03:54 pm (UTC)But more seriously - it is so sad that the constant hammering on certain authors or artist, ends up destroying them. We actually had to read Ibsen's "Ghosts" three years in a row - from we were 14 to 17. I hated that play in the end, and only reluctantly reread it for an university class. Then I was surprised to discover I really liked it - and thereby proving your point that 15 year old's don't necessarily understand "Anna Karenina" or in my case "Ghosts".
But then comes the problem - how can we not teach them about the great classics? For it's a double edged sword really - they need to learn the classics, but if you repeat the classics to much they might end up hating them instead.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-11 04:14 pm (UTC)Things that are dead for me:
"Hamlet"
"Ars Poetica"
"Prometheus"
"Hills Like White Elephants"
"Lord of the Flies"
"Sienfeld" (SHUDDER)
"The Simpsons"
"Dogma"
"The School in Athens"
"The Last Supper"
"The Magic Flute"
"Akira"
"The Thinker" (Though, I was a bad girl and touched it...)
"The Mirror Held to the Flower"
"Rozencrantz and Gildenstern are Dead"
"Headda Gabbler"
"The Cherry Orchard"
"The 47 Samurai/Ronin" (Name varies depending on translation)
"Romeo and Juliet) (It wasn't even a damned tragedy!! It was a bunch of stupid mistakes happening all at once - a farce with a sad ending!)
"Star Trek" - ALL the original episodes, but especially the ones with the half-black half-white people. Really. Hammers. Heads. Ouch.
And "Annie," but only cause I've done it three times.
Yes, I agree that somethings really are the epitome of whatever, but must you CONTINUE to shove it down my THROAT?
On the other hand, there are things that I will never tire of no matter how often I'm forced to read about them or re-watch them. "A Midsummer Night's Dream," "Peter Pan," "Inu Yasha", etc. These things never get old, but I think it's the enjoyment factor for me.
At any rate, I meant to comment on this AGES ago - I'm still catching up on your blog, due to the business of the winter term and my time at home and my eye stuff.
As my students say in Japanese at the end of classes "Please keep teaching me!"
no subject
Date: 2007-02-13 12:59 pm (UTC)"Sienfeld" (SHUDDER)
Would this be the tv-show? Because I must admit I never like it. Then again I wasn't to crazy about Friends either.
Romeo and Juliet) (It wasn't even a damned tragedy!! It was a bunch of stupid mistakes happening all at once - a farce with a sad ending!)
*huge grin* This is so very, very true! And Juliet might be okay enough - but Romeo is a joke. What does she see in him?
And late replies are love! And thank you for all the lovely comments.