Fascinating. I remember the day I realized that all tradition isn't bad---that I had been enculturated to believe it was bad and to never question that premise. But truly, we cannot escape tradition even if we want to. Everything is understood in relation to it, even "anti-traditional" art. The value in anti-traditional approaches is, I believe, to explore the mistakes of our predecessors and strive to improve, just as our predecessors strive to improve on the examples they themselves were given.
"The value in anti-traditional approaches is, I believe, to explore the mistakes of our predecessors and strive to improve, just as our predecessors strive to improve on the examples they themselves were given."
I think that's true, but the problem with consciously anti-traditional art is that in the process of rejecting everything perceived as 'traditional', even those traditions that have a necessary function are eventually destroyed. Traditional architectural and town planning principles are only 'traditional' because they proved effective over centuries (as well as more beautiful). By rejecting architectural traditions, architects have ruined whole cities.
That's a great point, and I agree. While rejecting Tradition is culturally seen as progressive and enlightened, it actually sets us back many, many years.
Otto Rank says something similar in that everyone's psychology is dominated by the prevailing ideology and, while no one knows why the creative urge is strong in folks like Eliot, the struggle between Art and Artist is the relation of an individual to the society. One feature of this relation is how symbols taken from the culture are reconfigured with individual expression. Another, curious feature, is how a strong ideology brings out the creations we think of as genius (Michelangelo, Dostoevsky, etc.) in an individual response to a dominating social order. Of course, the modern individual ideology means that everyone has to be an individual in order to belong, but Eliot was near the beginning where there was still a cultural tradition that could be rejected and sold back to the society as the new tradition.
"Another, curious feature, is how a strong ideology brings out the creations we think of as genius (Michelangelo, Dostoevsky, etc.) in an individual response to a dominating social order."
This is an interesting point - it seems to me that the creative process requires passion to some degree, and for many people their ideology is something about which they are deeply passionate. The Modernists came to prominence in a time when Christianity was on the decline and political ideologies were on the rise, so the big changes we see in modern works (e.g., more abstraction, less of an emphasis on symmetry and beauty) were likely in part motivated by the different emphasis placed on these things by modern ideologies.
Eliot is an interesting case. He doesn't strike me as a very political person (although perhaps I've missed something in his biography) - his 'ideology' seemed to be more about the importance of art and the artistic/literary tradition, at least until his conversion to Christianity.
Do you agree with Eliot’s impersonal approach to poetry? If you’ve read a lot of poetry yourself, how does his poetic work compare to more ‘personal’ poets for you?
How do you think the conscious rejection of Tradition has affected contemporary art, literature, etc.? Is there any value in taking an anti-Traditional approach to art?
"Is there any value in taking an anti-Traditional approach to art?"
Shocking the squares.
But on a more serious note I like Pound's definition of culture as "what's left over after you forgot what you tried to learn." So, culture is a learned instinct, I think he meant. LIke learning how to ride a bicycle. At first you have to think about this and that, then after much practice it becomes deep mode.
I suspect Modernists felt maybe the "culture" had become too self-consicous in a way. Too petty, bourgeois and mercantile and being materialists themselves could only use different forms rather than content. Just my intuition. In visual art, representation was considered mere illustration, and the Modernists were going to get to the "real" underlying bits of human consciousness, like Freud, say. So, you got automatic this and surreal that.
"So, culture is a learned instinct, I think he meant. LIke learning how to ride a bicycle. At first you have to think about this and that, then after much practice it becomes deep mode."
I think that's right, and Eliot seems to have been making a similar point. You immerse yourself in culture, it takes conscious effort, and then after a while you start to internalise it and it becomes a part of you. Not surprising that Eliot and Pound would make similar points given their friendship and close professional relationship.
"I suspect Modernists felt maybe the "culture" had become too self-consicous in a way. Too petty, bourgeois and mercantile and being materialists themselves could only use different forms rather than content. Just my intuition."
Fascinating. I remember the day I realized that all tradition isn't bad---that I had been enculturated to believe it was bad and to never question that premise. But truly, we cannot escape tradition even if we want to. Everything is understood in relation to it, even "anti-traditional" art. The value in anti-traditional approaches is, I believe, to explore the mistakes of our predecessors and strive to improve, just as our predecessors strive to improve on the examples they themselves were given.
"The value in anti-traditional approaches is, I believe, to explore the mistakes of our predecessors and strive to improve, just as our predecessors strive to improve on the examples they themselves were given."
I think that's true, but the problem with consciously anti-traditional art is that in the process of rejecting everything perceived as 'traditional', even those traditions that have a necessary function are eventually destroyed. Traditional architectural and town planning principles are only 'traditional' because they proved effective over centuries (as well as more beautiful). By rejecting architectural traditions, architects have ruined whole cities.
That's a great point, and I agree. While rejecting Tradition is culturally seen as progressive and enlightened, it actually sets us back many, many years.
Otto Rank says something similar in that everyone's psychology is dominated by the prevailing ideology and, while no one knows why the creative urge is strong in folks like Eliot, the struggle between Art and Artist is the relation of an individual to the society. One feature of this relation is how symbols taken from the culture are reconfigured with individual expression. Another, curious feature, is how a strong ideology brings out the creations we think of as genius (Michelangelo, Dostoevsky, etc.) in an individual response to a dominating social order. Of course, the modern individual ideology means that everyone has to be an individual in order to belong, but Eliot was near the beginning where there was still a cultural tradition that could be rejected and sold back to the society as the new tradition.
"Another, curious feature, is how a strong ideology brings out the creations we think of as genius (Michelangelo, Dostoevsky, etc.) in an individual response to a dominating social order."
This is an interesting point - it seems to me that the creative process requires passion to some degree, and for many people their ideology is something about which they are deeply passionate. The Modernists came to prominence in a time when Christianity was on the decline and political ideologies were on the rise, so the big changes we see in modern works (e.g., more abstraction, less of an emphasis on symmetry and beauty) were likely in part motivated by the different emphasis placed on these things by modern ideologies.
Eliot is an interesting case. He doesn't strike me as a very political person (although perhaps I've missed something in his biography) - his 'ideology' seemed to be more about the importance of art and the artistic/literary tradition, at least until his conversion to Christianity.
>" I hope self-citation isn’t frowned upon here ..."
“By necessity, by proclivity, and by delight, we all quote.”
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/62111-by-necessity-by-proclivity-and-by-delight-we-all-quote
Even, periodically, ourselves ... 😉🙂
Great quote! Nothing wrong with a bit of self-citation.
What did you think of Eliot’s essay, overall?
Do you agree with Eliot’s impersonal approach to poetry? If you’ve read a lot of poetry yourself, how does his poetic work compare to more ‘personal’ poets for you?
How do you think the conscious rejection of Tradition has affected contemporary art, literature, etc.? Is there any value in taking an anti-Traditional approach to art?
"Is there any value in taking an anti-Traditional approach to art?"
Shocking the squares.
But on a more serious note I like Pound's definition of culture as "what's left over after you forgot what you tried to learn." So, culture is a learned instinct, I think he meant. LIke learning how to ride a bicycle. At first you have to think about this and that, then after much practice it becomes deep mode.
I suspect Modernists felt maybe the "culture" had become too self-consicous in a way. Too petty, bourgeois and mercantile and being materialists themselves could only use different forms rather than content. Just my intuition. In visual art, representation was considered mere illustration, and the Modernists were going to get to the "real" underlying bits of human consciousness, like Freud, say. So, you got automatic this and surreal that.
"So, culture is a learned instinct, I think he meant. LIke learning how to ride a bicycle. At first you have to think about this and that, then after much practice it becomes deep mode."
I think that's right, and Eliot seems to have been making a similar point. You immerse yourself in culture, it takes conscious effort, and then after a while you start to internalise it and it becomes a part of you. Not surprising that Eliot and Pound would make similar points given their friendship and close professional relationship.
"I suspect Modernists felt maybe the "culture" had become too self-consicous in a way. Too petty, bourgeois and mercantile and being materialists themselves could only use different forms rather than content. Just my intuition."
Interesting point!