the will to death
This post, and the next three are from my old blog. I thought they were worth preserving. The dates provided are the original dates of posting.
Monday, 10 May 2004
Do all civilisations rehearse their own death through art?
You might say that obviously they do, that after sex death is the predominant theme of art, and that where artists don't directly address their own concerns they focus on their community. That community may be the nation (or some supranational grouping), or a microcosm of the nation. To an extent that's true, but I think there's more to it than that, I think there are at least two other strands to this argument.
Firstly there is the joy, the exciting liberation of watching yourself, your nation, destroyed in art. It enables you to imaginatively destroy everything that's bad in your nation, while preserving those intangible values you'd like preserved as somehow inherent in the people. It also allows the excitement of witnessing your own demise, and surviving. Outside of art the nearest you'd come to that is risking your life in some way, whether engaged in extreme sports or in fighting for a cause. It's a way of making yourself feel more alive, and reappraising (and reaffirming) those things which are important to you.
Secondly there is the possibility (not always pursued) of engaging in criticism of the nation. Much of the most damning criticism of any nation or civilisation comes from within. And if you put that criticism into the mouth of a fictional enemy then it can be all the more extreme. It's the reason why satire can be so effective, and reactions to it so virulent. The only way to be that cutting and brutal is to be, at least in part, an insider; to understand how things work, and where to place the blow for maximum effect. Of course, pushed far enough (especially in satire) this criticism can be seen as a form of destruction
Monday, 10 May 2004
Do all civilisations rehearse their own death through art?
You might say that obviously they do, that after sex death is the predominant theme of art, and that where artists don't directly address their own concerns they focus on their community. That community may be the nation (or some supranational grouping), or a microcosm of the nation. To an extent that's true, but I think there's more to it than that, I think there are at least two other strands to this argument.
Firstly there is the joy, the exciting liberation of watching yourself, your nation, destroyed in art. It enables you to imaginatively destroy everything that's bad in your nation, while preserving those intangible values you'd like preserved as somehow inherent in the people. It also allows the excitement of witnessing your own demise, and surviving. Outside of art the nearest you'd come to that is risking your life in some way, whether engaged in extreme sports or in fighting for a cause. It's a way of making yourself feel more alive, and reappraising (and reaffirming) those things which are important to you.
Secondly there is the possibility (not always pursued) of engaging in criticism of the nation. Much of the most damning criticism of any nation or civilisation comes from within. And if you put that criticism into the mouth of a fictional enemy then it can be all the more extreme. It's the reason why satire can be so effective, and reactions to it so virulent. The only way to be that cutting and brutal is to be, at least in part, an insider; to understand how things work, and where to place the blow for maximum effect. Of course, pushed far enough (especially in satire) this criticism can be seen as a form of destruction
Comments