Pisha [she/her, they/them]

  • 2 Posts
  • 161 Comments
Joined 4 years ago
cake
Cake day: December 23rd, 2020

help-circle







  • If I had some time, I’d try and find out where our “common sense” notions of art come from. Like art being subjective, which is taken to mean that it is something like a kaleidoscope where no two people can be sure to see the same thing in it and every statement about it is just based on fleeting, un-shareable impressions. Obviously that’s nonsense, but if you try debating people on the internet over whether something is well-written or if it negotiates a certain theme, they bring out clichés like this. Or the idea that art is produced by an individual in a semi-mystic, almost unconscious act which broods no further analysis or introspection – though just as often you see this as a strawman attributed to an author’s opponents. In any case, I assure you that no notable Romantic ever believed this and that the concept of “genius” has never meant this in any serious author. These are just common sense clichés that come from nowhere and are seemingly everywhere.













  • I believe character descriptions became a big thing in the time of physiognomy – when Balzac narrates someone’s physical appearance, he wants you to extrapolate the character’s personality from that. Physiognomy fell out of fashion and if there is no other motivation to provide a description, like signalling someone’s class position or injecting a bit of lyricism, it’s simply economical to leave it out. To provide a counter-example, Mary Gaitskill always writes exactly one paragraph of description in her short stories which you can just skip because it’s not properly integrated into the story as a whole.