I feel like I say this every two weeks but this week’s reading, Distant Star, by Roberto Bolaño was probably my favourite so far. It read extremely well, was fast paced, discussed themes I am very interested in and had characters that were relatable, likely due to their status as university students. I think this is a very smart introduction on Bolaño’s part. Although the story by no means continues how it starts, it begins by roping in the reader with relatable dynamics and characters.
The discussion on barbarism and art is one that I have encountered. few times now and I strongly disagree with Adorno’s claim that poetry should not be written and art not created about atrocities like the Holocaust. On the contrary, I think it is essential and poetry such as Todesfuge by Paul Celan proves this. This is in fact the poem that changed many people’s mind on art post Auschwitz. I do however believe that the art has to be, as almost all art is, deeply informed by the artist and their position in respect to the subject.
One of the main issues I take with the denial of culture existing in the context of barbarism is that it assumes culture to somehow be or be striving for what is somehow morally ‘good.’ This is absurd because culture and art are not inherently good or just and to attempt to restrict themas such would devalue all art. Art does not need to be admired to exist and does not have to be understood and agreed with. The same applies to culture. What is the point of art and culture if they are so fragile that they cannot coexist with the devastatingly common barbarism of people? Wieder’s photographs might also be art and if they are I would consider them trophy art. The art is exploitative and wrong but it is nonetheless art.
The cover of my copy of Distant Star has a photo on it that is extremely close to Damien Hirst’s The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living, a piece that had been criticised as culturally obscene. Perhaps this is an allusion to the existence of barbaric art.
Question for the class: Why did Stein have two lives: the Stein who was a resistance fighter, and the Stein who never left the area he grew up in? And how could these seemingly coexist to such an extend that the family friend believed him dead and buried in the nearby graveyard?
“I strongly disagree with Adorno’s claim that poetry should not be written and art not created about atrocities like the Holocaust.”
This is fair enough, but it’s worth noting that Adorno’s argument (which as I say, he somewhat backed down again) wasn’t so much that there shouldn’t be poetry *about* the Holocaust, but closer to the notion that there shouldn’t be poetry *at all*, as all culture was irreparably tainted in the wake of Auschwitz. NB I’m not even sure he was quite saying that… I’m not sure he was so prescriptive. Of course there will be poetry. But it will be barbaric. And as you say, that doesn’t necessarily mean it will be any the less “art.” But it will be an art that constantly (intentionally or otherwise) reminds us of barbarism. Perhaps, then, like Hirst. (Though what Adorno admired was music like that of Arnold Schoenberg: discordant, rejecting conventional harmony or tonality.)
“I do however believe that the art has to be, as almost all art is, deeply informed by the artist and their position in respect to the subject.” This is probably one of the most discussed questions recently, and I don’t think we have an easy answer. Above all because of the ease with which we apply adjectives of a moral sense to art, whether in defense of a particular work or artist or to turn them into attacks. I have been thinking about the combination of two issues that you mention: exploitation as art and the existence of barbaric art. What are the limits of these notions, how do they conjugate or repel each other? Thanks for your post.
“I feel like I say this every two weeks but this week’s reading, Distant Star, by Roberto Bolaño was probably my favourite so far.”
Oh, and I’m pleased about this, of course! 🙂
So interesting! I feel like the blogs I’ve read so far didn’t like the novel, myself included, but I’m glad you enjoyed it and found some interest in the theme of art in the novel! I’m intrigued at your notion of art not being inherently good (or bad), but I’m wondering whether art even belongs to the moral realm… should it?