Thursday, October 15, 2009
Monday, October 12, 2009
The Contemporary Sublime
After reading Longinus, I thought it'd be fun to dig around two current
popular "arts" and decide whether or not they are sublime, employing
Longinus' criteria as much as possible:
1.) The power to conceive great thoughts
2.) Strong and inspired emotion
3.) Figures of thought and figures of speech
4.) Noble diction (metaphorical and artificial language)
5.) Dignified and elevated word arrangement
I tried to pick one major “artistic” statement in music and another in
film that has sold well, as Longinus discusses that the sublime should
resonate cross-culturally among all people.
Pop Music: Paramore
Fact:
Their album, Brand New Eyes debuted at #2 on the Billboard charts this
week, one notch below Barbara Streisand, who I couldn’t bring myself to
discuss.
On with the analysis:
1.) Paramore does not seem to have the power to conceive great thoughts,
as they too strongly mimic their pop punk predecessors. There is nothing
original about their music, from the instrumentation on down to their
lyrics.
2.) Strong and inspired emotion: as the band is frequently labeled
"emo," I’ll have to give this one a thumbs up.
3.) Is there thought in these lyrics:
“We still live in the same town, well, don't we?
But I don't see you around anymore.
I go to all the same places, not even a trace of you...
Your days are numbered at 24.
And I'm getting bored waiting round for you,
We're not getting any younger, and I
Won't look back 'cause there's no use
It's time to move forward!”
I think not.
4.) As for noble uses of diction:
“Can't make my own decisions or make any with precision
Well maybe you should tie me up so I don't go where you don't want me
You say that I been changing, that I'm not just simply aging
Yeah how could that be logical?
Just keep on cramming ideas down my throat
Oh oh oh ohhhh”
The rhyme scheme here is rather silly and forced. Thumbs down.
5.) Do I really need to check out the “elevated word arrangement?” I’ll
return instead to the band’s simplistic chord progressions, drumming and
vocal stylings (all of which are ARRANGED) and simply say: it’s been
done before. So, thumbs up for imitation. (Not.)
VERDICT: 1/5 = NOT SUBLIME
Film:
Since I just saw Zombieland this weekend and it’s the number 1 movie in
the nation this week, I might as well analyze this one as well:
1.) Although this film lacks the social consciousness of George A.
Romero’s zombie films, it does achieve a high level of comedy and a
serviceably unique love story. It also continues pushing forward the
film’s genre, picking up where “Diary of the Dead” and “Shaun of the
Dead” leave off—thereby achieving more actuality in imitation than Paramore.
2.) Well, the woman next to me jumped three times. Additionally, the
film does a great job of creating fun, albeit unrealistic character
types who draw the viewer into their world. This creates a high level of
attachment, or emotion for each character.
3.) Figures of thought: eh. Not so much. Figures of speech: There are
more than a few catchy one-liners, typified by the main character’s list
of rules, such as “Double-tap” and “Don’t be a hero.”
4.) Noble Diction: Rated “R” for language.
5.) Any writing constructed to make people laugh in a world surrounded
by blood and death that succeeds in making people laugh has achieved
elevated word arrangement.
VERDICT: 4/5 = PRETTY DAMN SUBLIME
popular "arts" and decide whether or not they are sublime, employing
Longinus' criteria as much as possible:
1.) The power to conceive great thoughts
2.) Strong and inspired emotion
3.) Figures of thought and figures of speech
4.) Noble diction (metaphorical and artificial language)
5.) Dignified and elevated word arrangement
I tried to pick one major “artistic” statement in music and another in
film that has sold well, as Longinus discusses that the sublime should
resonate cross-culturally among all people.
Pop Music: Paramore
Fact:
Their album, Brand New Eyes debuted at #2 on the Billboard charts this
week, one notch below Barbara Streisand, who I couldn’t bring myself to
discuss.
On with the analysis:
1.) Paramore does not seem to have the power to conceive great thoughts,
as they too strongly mimic their pop punk predecessors. There is nothing
original about their music, from the instrumentation on down to their
lyrics.
2.) Strong and inspired emotion: as the band is frequently labeled
"emo," I’ll have to give this one a thumbs up.
3.) Is there thought in these lyrics:
“We still live in the same town, well, don't we?
But I don't see you around anymore.
I go to all the same places, not even a trace of you...
Your days are numbered at 24.
And I'm getting bored waiting round for you,
We're not getting any younger, and I
Won't look back 'cause there's no use
It's time to move forward!”
I think not.
4.) As for noble uses of diction:
“Can't make my own decisions or make any with precision
Well maybe you should tie me up so I don't go where you don't want me
You say that I been changing, that I'm not just simply aging
Yeah how could that be logical?
Just keep on cramming ideas down my throat
Oh oh oh ohhhh”
The rhyme scheme here is rather silly and forced. Thumbs down.
5.) Do I really need to check out the “elevated word arrangement?” I’ll
return instead to the band’s simplistic chord progressions, drumming and
vocal stylings (all of which are ARRANGED) and simply say: it’s been
done before. So, thumbs up for imitation. (Not.)
VERDICT: 1/5 = NOT SUBLIME
Film:
Since I just saw Zombieland this weekend and it’s the number 1 movie in
the nation this week, I might as well analyze this one as well:
1.) Although this film lacks the social consciousness of George A.
Romero’s zombie films, it does achieve a high level of comedy and a
serviceably unique love story. It also continues pushing forward the
film’s genre, picking up where “Diary of the Dead” and “Shaun of the
Dead” leave off—thereby achieving more actuality in imitation than Paramore.
2.) Well, the woman next to me jumped three times. Additionally, the
film does a great job of creating fun, albeit unrealistic character
types who draw the viewer into their world. This creates a high level of
attachment, or emotion for each character.
3.) Figures of thought: eh. Not so much. Figures of speech: There are
more than a few catchy one-liners, typified by the main character’s list
of rules, such as “Double-tap” and “Don’t be a hero.”
4.) Noble Diction: Rated “R” for language.
5.) Any writing constructed to make people laugh in a world surrounded
by blood and death that succeeds in making people laugh has achieved
elevated word arrangement.
VERDICT: 4/5 = PRETTY DAMN SUBLIME
Monday, October 5, 2009
Aristotle...
Aristotle:
I found the Aristotle reading to be incredibly intriguing, if for the
simple fact that his arguments seemed so common-sensical, from his
separation of artistic proofs and nonartistic proofs to his
differentiation between political, forensic and ceremonial speech.
Aristotle, it turns out, seems to be the father, primarily, of forensic
rhetoric, which he employs here to explain rhetoric (much like how Plato
uses rhetoric to decry rhetoric.)
In particular, I enjoyed the following quote from page 181: "Rhetoric is
not bound up with a single definite class of subjects, but is as
universal as the dialectics. ...its function is not simply to succeed in
persuading, but rather to discover the means of coming as near such
success as the circumstances of each particular case allow." Here
Aristotle lays the groundwork for contemporary defense-attorneying (for
better or for worse.) Artful rhetoric, then, is not simply winning
through logic, it's winning through logic in the logic's context.
Lunsford and Ede:
I appreciated this article more than last week's from the same text, if
only because this text offered a self-reflective approach to Composition
theory. Coming from a high school system that breeds self-centered
teachers who have little desire to grow and develop--it's refreshing to
read an article by two people as they critique a previous article they
wrote. The critique possesses the eye of writers ten years in the
future, who now see what flaws existed in their original text.
On page 819, the two discuss the "place of struggle" within rhetorical
theory and how divergent voices and theories have place within
composition studies despite ivory tower voices. I have a hard time
agreeing with theorists who always talk complete deconstruction and
"building new ways of speaking." The idea of building from within seems
much more realistic.
I found the Aristotle reading to be incredibly intriguing, if for the
simple fact that his arguments seemed so common-sensical, from his
separation of artistic proofs and nonartistic proofs to his
differentiation between political, forensic and ceremonial speech.
Aristotle, it turns out, seems to be the father, primarily, of forensic
rhetoric, which he employs here to explain rhetoric (much like how Plato
uses rhetoric to decry rhetoric.)
In particular, I enjoyed the following quote from page 181: "Rhetoric is
not bound up with a single definite class of subjects, but is as
universal as the dialectics. ...its function is not simply to succeed in
persuading, but rather to discover the means of coming as near such
success as the circumstances of each particular case allow." Here
Aristotle lays the groundwork for contemporary defense-attorneying (for
better or for worse.) Artful rhetoric, then, is not simply winning
through logic, it's winning through logic in the logic's context.
Lunsford and Ede:
I appreciated this article more than last week's from the same text, if
only because this text offered a self-reflective approach to Composition
theory. Coming from a high school system that breeds self-centered
teachers who have little desire to grow and develop--it's refreshing to
read an article by two people as they critique a previous article they
wrote. The critique possesses the eye of writers ten years in the
future, who now see what flaws existed in their original text.
On page 819, the two discuss the "place of struggle" within rhetorical
theory and how divergent voices and theories have place within
composition studies despite ivory tower voices. I have a hard time
agreeing with theorists who always talk complete deconstruction and
"building new ways of speaking." The idea of building from within seems
much more realistic.
Casablanca and Aristotle
In Casablanca, Rick employs an enthymeme based on premises from probability. He argues the logical stance that if the two lovers stay in Casablanca, nine out of ten times the two will end up in a concentration camp. While this could be an exaggeration of the danger, the two certainly exist in difficult times in the movie. additionally, Rick employs ethos, arguing that he, "has a job to do," as why he can't go with Elsy, and why she can't stay. Lastly, he employs pathos, reminding Elsy that they'll, "always have Paris," reminding her of their special times--which taken as a snapshot proves their love. But that love may have run its course due to circumstances out of their control. The use of these appeals all prove that Rick employed an artistic proof, under the realm of enthymeme, from the Aristotelian structure argued for in "Rhetoric."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
