Tuesday, January 20, 2009
I am not sure how you feel about terminology, but my professional training makes me leery of such terms as "baroque." In the 19th and early 20th centuries, French intellectuals believed that the greatest use of the human brain was to create order by indentifying and classifying all human knowledge. Thus virtual boxes for similar ideas and works were created and labels such as "neo-classical" and "baroque" applied to them. There are commonalities between works of art in the period we are studying, and they do spread their influence from one genre to another, but rarely at the same time, and to overly rely on the label to capture the work is to diminish both. I am listening to Gregorio Allegri's Misere a 9 while thinking of Calderón and Caravaggio, and I can see similarities between all three. To that extent a label such as "baroque" is useful; however, when it denies the individual qualities of each work, then it is a nuisance. French theorists of dramatic literature treat "baroque" dimissively, as if it signifies an inferior work when compared to the "neo-classical" oeuvre of Racine, Corneille, or Molière. I think, however, that the "baroque" elements (what do you think they are?) of Calderón make this play extraordinary. What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree, yet I understand the importance of categorization. From a psychological perspective it is human nature to categorize information because it makes life simpler, especially when there are innumerable amounts of information to process at a given time. Categorizations aid us in many ways: which classes to take, deciding which research materials are relevant, sticking to the topic of a paper, etc. If the world wasn't categorized, I feel it would be much more complex than I can even imagine. Given this idea, I have learned to appreciate categorization. However, I also know to seek out the individual differences of the entities that make up a category. Sometimes I may even create an argument as to how and why a categorization doesn't fit with a particular piece. Having a categorization is really a challenge to me: a challenge to either disapprove/approve its presence in a particular genre while finding the elements that set it apart from other pieces. Simply, I feel that as students we must learn that it is necessary to take the step beyond categories and strive to appreciate uniqueness. Perhaps this is even a practice-round for larger issues in life.
ReplyDeleteI believe that it is human nature to classify things in groups. As a matter of fact, I wonder venture to say that it is a good survival technique. Think of this, if you didn't classify lions the same as beers, or tigers, or crocodile as dangerous animals, that might be a problem. Of course this is extreme, but this idea was not so extreme to an instinctual being like a caveman or the like.
ReplyDeleteNow, as far as art. The simple nuisances in a piece are the things that make art beautiful. Classifying in this instance takes away from the entire field of art. What I like to call visual, marginal benefits is what makes art great. Take for instance "The Agony in the Garden" by El Greco. The rays shinning down on Jesus are subtle yet extraordinarily brilliant part of the piece.