Art effects us by our training, our upbringing. What art is, how we interpret it, almost inevitably stems from how we are influenced and shaped by our society.
The politics of beauty, to be discussed.
The aesthetic, or art in general, can be political and still be good.
Virginia Wolfe’s essay talks about women not having a room of their own or a place to write, and thinks that because of the effects of our training/upbringing that we can’t even recognize women writers or good art. We need to be disinterested, women and men need to not think of themselves as women and men as they write, rather as a simple human soul writing.
About multiculturalism, introducing Zadie Smith – On Beauty.
A quote from Iris Murdoch and Zadie’s comment on it:
The chief enemy of excellence in morality (and also in art) is personal fantasy, the tissue of self-aggrandising and consoling wishes and dreams which prevents one from seeing what there is outside one. . . . This is not easy, and requires, in art or morals, a discipline. One might say here that art is an excellent analogy of morals or indeed that it is in this respect a case of morals.
For me, that project—not giving into personal fantasy, not being deluded, recognizing the inviolability of other people—is seriously complicated by being female. You look at life for women today, it is the very definition of personal fantasy, of self-delusion, and of a narcissism so acute that to read through your average issue of a glamorous women’s magazine is not that different from reading a porn mag.
A good work of art is not about the author (or anyone) hitting the audience over the head with a political idea. Novels are political , but they are also art. Authors should rather be truthful and honest than trying to pushing a political agenda. Just like in life, in art, it’s really difficult to be honest because of self-perception and vanity. (Especially for women apparently, see Zadie Smith’s comment above) Art is a case of morals.
Culture wars overview: A battle between the politically right and left in the academy, like the people who are overseeing the money that the academy gets, ie state legislatures. The right may say we want you to teach Shakespeare, the great books, artistic genius. The left want to look at multicultural literature, it’s heinous that women writers and people or color have been left out of that almighty canon.
Zadie Smith is from a lower class background and she’s black. She has been elevated into great literature by the multi-culturalists. What do we think when there’s reverse discrimination, elevated because of their race or gender, like in affirmative action.
“Zadie Smith” is a brand, the characters are not real. The brand has been built up by critics and other academics. She is championed on the multicultural side, it’s warped way of seeing the world on both sides because if the right holds up Shakespeare as a “genius”, the left at the same time holds up Zadie smith as a “genius.”
Moving to the thought of ripping on someone, about something, until you realize that it’s yourself. When you are attacking someone you hate, you are attacking yourself. (The invisible man book). When you get into the me vs. them thing, it turns into a mirror and you are self deceived. You can see what you hate about yourself OUTSIDE of yourself and blame something else.
So then a way to act morally is to say “in what way is it right or wrong to think about genius.” ONE way to combat the problem is to create a thoroughly likable comprehensible character on the other side, to like it, explore it, and love it.
In the reading of the novel, going in and exploring the author form of the novel is a mature, adult thing. It’s a metaphor or even a model for what we have to do in real life. Entering into a full relationship and understanding with the person or work of art before an attack.
Is Jerome going to be the bridge between the culture wars, polarized by the Besleys and the Kipps?
Thinking about genius, the sides, and multiculturalism…
Notes: Left side – no great authors, no great art. Do we believe in art? Are there some great authors and some great art? The right side believes so totally in great art they can’t let anyone else in.
There is a rivalry between Monty and Howard who are both art professors, both working on Renaissance art. Monty has published a book on a Renaissance painting, and Howard’s book is on the floor in his study. Monty’s book is going to hit the bestseller list in the NY Times, and Howards book is not, it’s just going to be an academic book. Howard attacks Monty and says this painting is horrible, he’s done a horrible reading of the painting, and Monty writes back and says he has the wrong painting! Ultimate embarrassment!
Why is Jerome working for Monty, delaying writing his dissertation, living in a different country,etc?
Rebellion! He’s doing the opposite of this parents. He could just be different! He’s a sweet boy, just constitutionally 
different. Is there room in a family to accommodate this kind of a difference? Can a family grow if they children turn out to be Christian in a secular family, or vice versa? Kiki is so upset with Howard because he has an affair. The children feel betrayed because of this, so Jerome could also be getting his father back for the betrayal and for hurting his mother.
In regards to the engagement, it’s not just about a girl, Jerome had fallen in love with a family. Does this redefine love, that it’s more than just you and him, you marry the family? Projection could be a real issue, because you project your love of the family on to the individual and make them to be someone they are not?
LOOK AT LINKS ON BB for further reading
