Sunday, April 20, 2008

FINAL: Part A

Two weeks from Tuesday I do believe you'll be handing in your finals for Aesthetics and Politics. You'll be choosing to answer one question from the three I am providing for you here, and then answering a second question from another three I will be providing in a week. This is a take home exam and I would recommend that you get your draft of the first question done before the second group comes online. Each question, as before, is to be 4-5pp. long. This time you are answering these questions at home with all of your notes, texts, and colleagues around you... And so we will expect clearer theses supported by readings of passages from the actual texts this time around.

PART A

Question One:

Bill Brown writes of "the suddenness with which things seem to assert their presence and power: you cut your finger on a sheet of paper, you trip over some toy, you get bopped on the head by a falling nut." Jeanette Winterson begins her own account of an education into visual art by telling a story that seems to complement Brown's in key respects: "I was wandering happy, alone… when I passed a little gallery and in the moment of passing saw a painting that had more power to stop me than I had power to walk on." Brown draws on such experiences to flesh out his sense of the thing as distinct from the object. "These are occasions outside the scene of phenomenological attention that nonetheless teach you that you're 'caught up in things' and that the 'body is a thing among things.'" As for Winterson, it would seem for Brown that aesthetic encounters have something to teach us, especially when we are unprepared for them. What are the politics of this aesthetic education for Winterson and Brown? Do they seem to follow the same route from their initial encounter? Do the politics of this encounter differ or do they resemble the political education attributed to the "realist" art object in some of the Marxist aesthetics we read early on in the term? Assume a perspective on one of these questions, and make a claim that you substantiate with close reading of relevant passages from the texts.

Question Two:

Identify what looks to you like a key difference in the way Simon Frith and Iain Chambers document possible forms of political commitment in popular art practice and popular culture. What political significance attaches to this difference in your view? Substantiate your claim with close reading of relevant passages from the texts. In highlighting this difference you may (or may not -- it's entirely up to you) choose to point to the way in which you find in this difference an echo of a difference between Walter Benjamin and Theodor Adorno reflected in their writings "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" and "The Culture Industry."

Question Three:

Name a way in which the treatment of the figure of the Spectator differs in Wilde's "Soul of Man Under Socialism" from its treatment in Debord's Society of the Spectacle. Make an argument about the key political significance that attaches in your view to this differing treatment of spectatorship in these texts and then substantiate your claim through readings of relevant passages from both texts.

1 comment:

Anisa said...

Bill Brown's idea of realizing that we are "caught up in things" made me think of a trip to New Orleans I took last summer in which I walked through a soon-to-be-demolished high school that had been flooded during Hurricane Katrina. The rusted-over lockers, waterlogged books, and educational posters falling off the walls were very bizarre and disturbing, perhaps because in the divorce from their objective functions, they had become things - testimonies to the historical conditions that allowed the flood to destroy this school and leave it still neglected two years later.
I'm not sure if I'm entirely correct in my understanding of the object/thing distinction, but I think I'm on the right track.. if anyone has a clarification please share.