I know this is super late but here it goes.

I found Marxism to be very one- dimensional because of the fact that everything was concerned with social structure and what is tangible. (Or maybe that was just materialism, I'm not completely sure.) But there was one thing that confused me. Marx started out a very wealthy man but as he pursued his ideals he ended up in extreme poverty. So would thst restrict his own credibility based on his social level if marxists claim that intelligence is based on social class? Maybe I missed something but I honestly do not know.

More Than Social Classes

In Beginning Theory, it mentions that "Marxist literary criticism maintains that a writer's social class, and its prevailing 'ideology' have a major bearing on what is written by a member of that class" (Barry 161). It is believed that social class has a strong power over an individual, as well ideological apparatuses mentioned later in the chapter (167). There are a lot of higher up institutions that do hold a lot of control over the choices individuals in a society have. However, do you think the emphasis of social class affecting a writer is overdramatized? Could our environment, biological influences, experiences, and social influences factor in to one's ideology as well?

Social Influences

Also, does a writer's ideology effect thier writing as much as Marxist criticist says? Creative writers can portray characters as stereotypes believed from a class point of view, or they can choose to create an original character in opposition from stereotypes.

In which Natalie rambles on about what art even is really, because Marxism..?

I found this reading really round about and confusing, so I figured the "picture" (let's be honest I only ever use quotes) I would use for this should be something straight to the point and simple. 

Perhaps this is a bit trivial, but art has come up quite a bit in our discussion and reading of Marxist criticism and I found it pretty interesting.  Warning: this is about to get philosophical fast. 

The thought has crossed my mind before, but the Benjamin reading (especially VII) talks about whether or not photography and film are art and it really bothers me.  Defining something like art is pretty much impossible, but does the intention behind a photograph it make it art? And if it does, is the subject of the photo art as well? Where do we draw the line? If I accidentally take a picture (i.e. one taken without intention) can it still be art? Does there need to be a degree of separation between what is and the art we turn it into? Is a lens all it takes to elevate the mundane to classification as art? These are just the thoughts running through my head after reading this, because it's paragraph week. Alas, I am all questions and no answers.  I'm not sure this super relates back to Marxist theory but it's all about economics, which is all about choices, and I think art is a choice and labeling something as such definitely constitutes a choice... So basically economics is everything and we should consider it when reading and analyzing literature. Yay Marxist criticism!

Marxist Theory is Confusing: Change My Mind

On page 161 of Beginning Theory, Barry states: "... instead of seeing authors as primarily autonomous 'inspired' individuals whose 'genius' and creative imagination enables them to bring forth original and timeless works of art, the Marxist sees them as constantly formed by their social contexts in ways which they themselves would not usually admit."

I think that this is not necessarily a one-or-the-other situation. If this is true, and they are not definitely independent of each other, do you think it's possible that an author's inspiration and genius come from their social contexts? They can become inspired individuals through their experiences, not necessarily just born geniuses.

(Sorry if this doesn't make sense or sounds redundant, I don't fully understand this haha).

https://imgur.com/gallery/rLs7G

Looking at Marxism from a different “Engle”

I bet you all are expecting a rant... well...

Not today actually. Today I just have a regular old quote.

Normally I like to venture outside the text for my quote, but I found one in the reading that I very much liked. It also happens to be the longest sentence I have ever read.

“Their ideas included the need for close formal analysis of literature (hence the name) the belief that the language of literature has its own characteristic procedures and effects, and is not just a version of ordinary language, Shkolovsky’s idea of “defamiliarization” or “making strange” expounded in the essay orchestra clinic, (which Lemon and Ries reprint)  which cream is that one of the chief efforts of literary language is that of making the familiar world appear new to us, as if we are seeing it for the first time, and thus laid it open to reprisal” (Barry 164).


 

Do Economics Influence All?

In Beginning Theory, Barry states that the, "simplest Marxist mode of society sees it as constituted by a base... and a superstructure, which is the 'cultural' world of ideas, art, religion, law and so on... are not 'innocent', but are 'determined'...by the nature of the economic base." (160-161) I think he's partially right.

I don't think that all art, law, religion, etc. are based on and determined by the economic base. Some can be, and is. Yet, to say that all of it is, is simply untrue. It would akin to saying that a fashion designer only designs from a single fabric. Art can be determined and influenced by anything and everything, not just the economic base.

But then again, I'm still a bit confused by the whole idea, mainly because we haven't spent much time on this topic in class.



Source: https://giphy.com/gifs/obama-michelle-obama-3otPoyyLkZFsAofO0M

The Superstructure and Art: A Love-Hate Relationship

      As I read Walter Benjamin's article, I was surprised by his deep focus on art and how the different types gained favor through time. These two quotes stood out to me:
      "Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be. This unique existence of the work of art determined the history to which it was subject throughout the time of its existence. This includes the changes which it may have suffered in physical condition over the years as well as the various changes in its ownership,"
and
      "During long periods of history, the mode of human sense perception changes with humanity’s entire mode of existence."
       Both of these passages seem to incite a conversation about the human condition and how well art is received and used during certain times. Marxism seeks to find elements of classicism and oppression in works of literature, but this article seemed more focused on peoples' perception of art in general and its relation to the public. How does this focus on the human condition reflect the principles of the other theories we've looked at in class? Do you agree with these quotes? And do you agree with Marxist criticism that "proletarianization" is sometimes/often embedded in literature?

https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*vVTL2Ad-qMq5-nMfVzdt0w.jpeg

What IS the Approach?

Though I read Benjamin’s article I am still slightly confused about the Marxism approach to literature. Is it like viewing a piece of work (literature or artwork) as a product of the period? Or, as a product of revolt against certain institutions or class differentials that the artist has experienced and created in response? Or is Marxist view a very rigid type of looking at literature through a view of pro-communist views? I fully understood the section about the cult surrounding an object and giving it a certain life, but is that also a product of the time of publishing or does this come after the works creation?

This is like when someone talks about "The Cloud"

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/reactiongifs/comments/5hr54q/mrw_someone_asks_me_why_i_dont_like_a_christmas/

Still Waiting in 2018 for Benjamin to Get to His Point

I really wish we had more time to discuss Marxism in Literature. Marx's ideas are some of the more interesting that I've learned about in my political science classes, mainly because they upend the traditional discourses on liberty, equality, and justice. He says those are all well and good, but they all boil down to economics, which is a fascinating, acerbic challenge to the way we tend to prefer our philosophy—lyrical and inspirational.

I hoped Benjamin would be the conduit that translated political theory into literary theory, our guide in foreign terrain.
Google informs me that he actually did succeed in doing so, but those revelations have certainly escaped me.

I can only conclude that what Benjamin was saying in The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction is that the mass replication of art is really a good thing because it lets more people (the proletariat?) experience those pieces of art that were formerly only hoarded by the creators, the privileged, and the few (the bourgeoisie?). But then he gets into some discussion in his Epilogue on Fascism—an ideology to which I thought Communism is vehemently opposed, but on which his comments were puzzling.

In other words, I'm suffering from some mild confusion, and I would love to be enlightened by my esteemed classmates.

So I'll conclude with actual footage of me reading that essay:

"Failed, I Have" 

(and yes I know that quote happens after Palpatine defeats Yoda in the Senate on Coruscant  and Bail Organa is picking him up to escape in his lil speeder car thing but I thought it still worked for this in relation to my experience with Benjamin)

Source: https://i.redd.it/052tx2jpubn01.jpg

Quotes & Questions post info

What makes certain lines from a text jump off the page and fill you with interest and curiosity? Why do some passages carry more meaning and significance than others?

For example, Roland Barthes tells us:

The modern writer (scriptor) is born simultaneously with his text; he is in no way supplied with a being which precedes or transcends his writing, he is in no way the subject of which his book is the predicate; there is no other time than that of the utterance, and every text is eternally written here and now.
― Roland Barthes, The Death of the Author

This idea, that there is no Great and Powerful Author behind every text that we read, that the writer of a text has no special authority (see how the word author works there?) over our reading of that text, was a little mind-blowing when Barthes first proposed it. But it's an awesome, liberating idea - one that acknowledges our power and freedom as readers to not just interpret but also create a text as we read and understand it. In short: there's a lot to discuss about this passage, isn't there?

Book and tablet photo by Engin_Akyurt on Pixabay.com

On the Fridays that you don't have paragraphs due, we'll have what I call Quotes and Questions. Your responsibility will be to post a quotation that seems to merit in-depth discussion OR a question that you think we all need to consider about our recent readings - one that will enrich our thinking or help us consider the texts we've discussed in a useful way.

As with the paragraphs, we will both post them here and read them aloud in class.

You are required to give your post two labels 1) the name of the theory for the day (they are listed below in my labels on this post), and 2) Quotes & Questions. If you are posting a quotation, you must give a correct citation for it (line numbers for poetry; page numbers for prose). You do not have to post anything other than your quote or question - no elaboration is required here unless you choose to offer some.

Although you are not required to post an image in your Quotes & Questions posts, you are highly encouraged to include one that illustrates the idea expressed (if you do, please be sure to credit the image source, as in your paragraph posts).