And I think this is something worth noting: as I've done the readings for the first month of this course, I've simultaneously been looking for blogging topics. This is a problem because I haven't really been paying attention to the story that each individual author is trying to tell. I guess you could say that my reading experience, so far, has been tainted by my constant search for interesting concepts or ideas to write about in my blog. In doing this, I almost missed the point of Davidson's first few chapters, and it wasn't until I got to the end of chapter two when I realized that she was setting up her entire argument with some very important information about the history of the novel in America.
Reading about this history (the ways audiences received and responded to books, the struggles of the book industry, the role of printers and copyright laws, etc) seemed, to me, like unnecessary information in Davidson's attempt to describe the sociological impact of the novel in America. It was almost as if I were asking her to "cut to the chase." I even wrote in the margins at the end of chapter 2, when Davidson begins to discuss the relationship between virtue and economic reward, "here we go", meaning that I was pleased to find the she was starting to connect the dots.
But of course, I only felt this way because I was looking for something new to write about, instead of paying attention to Davidson's intentions. She writes at the end of Chapter 2 that the novel found success in the early republic despite a lack of economic reward. Davidson sees this as "a classic example of the ways in which art sometimes circumvents the economic facts that ostensibly determine it" (99). There needs to be an awareness, according to Davidson, of the novel's history and its economic obstacles in order to understand that there were social and psychological factors that contributed to its ultimate success (100).
Needless to say, I felt a little foolish after reading Davidson's conclusion to Chapter 2. I missed the point, and it is certainly an important one, especially with how it relates to so many of my previous posts. I've constantly been referring to the power of art in a society and how the changes in which we're consuming art will effect what we expect from art and from one another. Davidson uses these two chapters to make that very same point: the role art plays in a society (the novel in Davidson's case) almost transcends the economic and societal factors that attempt to pull against its success.
When I took the GRE last fall, my essay question asked me to make an argument for or against the claim that a struggling economy should cut government funding for the arts unless it can adequately support "more important"issues (like healthcare, education, etc). I won't get into what my response was, but this question, along with Davidson's book, asks a very though provoking and difficult question. At what point does the value of art surpass those other needs that a society requires?
Your final question is one that I was just debating with my Mom... but in terms of what public education should focus on to give students what they need to be successful (however you define success) in the future. I'm going to confess that I was arguing for practical skills because of the economy rather than a focus on arts and that is a complete 180 from where I was a few years ago.
ReplyDeleteThe need for art does not surpass other needs. What should change in our country is the government's irresponsible spending in all areas -- but that is a topic for another day. It does not seem to me that spending on art or medicine has to be an either/or thing. Art is not something that must have money thrown at it to grow. Look at all the women who, for years and years, made beautiful quilts out of scraps of fabric (see Alice Walker's short story "Everyday Use"). What about my grandfather who would arrange scavenged pieces of petrified wood in his vegetable garden? What about the storytelling and singing that goes on when friends meet? And I guess I could argue that if we don't have good health and good health care, we can't appreciate any art. If I don't have glasses, how can I read? Probably what I am saying here is that art can flourish even if the Market doesn't support it -- so I guess I am agreeing with you, Klay (and Davidson too)
ReplyDeleteFrom a structural standpoint, your post is so intriguing--I hadn't thought about what impact reading for content/ideas/queries while also reading for topics about which to blog would have on the overall reading experience. Thanks for sharing. (I admittedly read for only the former and develop the latter later.)
ReplyDeleteI think, if nothing else, that Davidson certainly sets up Chapter two to lead us to see the truth in her conclusion: that art is powerful, moving, able to transcend and persevere even when the odds are against it.
It seems to me that now, too, we need art, despite what the naysayers may be saying (or naying). Though--as you've noted in your previous posts--what form that art may take is in a state of constant flux. As is the definition of art, if ever a clear cut definition there could/should be.
I read one of Roger Ebert's blog entries a couple weeks ago--and Neil mentioned him in class today, too--and he spoke of how film is what heals him and keeps him alive. Art is literally his life force. If that's not a sign of art's power, then I don't know what is.
Hi Klay, Fascinating blog, and equally interesting responses. I must say, I never stopped to think that asking you all to write blogs about your reading would affect, or even infect, your reading. But of course this is quite true, one way or another. I suppose if I gave quizzes, or required nothing, your reading would be affected as well. Interesting. As for Davidson's chapters, I think your first response is not unjustified. There's a lot of information that deals more with the business of books, and not books. As someone trained by the New Critics in close textual analysis, I always want to get to the analysis. But I agree with your last point--that Davidson is carefully setting up her argument to talk about the sociological function of the early novels, what Jane Tomkins once called the "cultural work" of literature. Davidson is interested, and I confess I am too, in how the early novels functioned within their historical contexts, and to do this she needs to outline the whole socio-econimic framework. What's equally interesting is the question you raised about the cost and value of art. This is obviously a relevant question today, with the possibility of lost federal support for the arts. Good post. dw
ReplyDelete