/3heads.jpg)
Criticism and Imitation
It is interesting to consider “Art’s Prospect: the challenge of tradition in an age of celebrity” by Roger Kimball in relation to “Stranger Shores: literary essays, 1986-1999” by J.M. Coetzee. While quite different, and their difference is what I would like to highlight here, there are reasons to place them together for a moment: they are both non-aligned with the contemporary discourse—this is less true of Coetzee; both share a certain impatience with mediocrity; both writers have a considerable following; and they both feel it is reasonable to pass judgments on the work of others.
It is instructive to compare how they construct those judgments.
Roger Kimball usually makes his arguments by concatenating colorful sentences which are not always constrained by logic and that often sacrifice accuracy for energy. Here are two representative examples,
“A quick glance around our culture shows that the avant-garde assault on tradition has long since degenerated into a sclerotic orthodoxy. What established taste makers now herald a cutting-edge turns out time and again to be a stale reminder of past impotence.”
“It is a good rule of thumb in the contemporary art world that the level of pretension is inversely proportional to the level of artistic achievement.”
Roger Kimball is annoyed with the art world and his writings convey his annoyance through a writing style that is both ironic and bombastic. He has an extensive group of people and institutions he dislikes, and he also has a pantheon of artists he admires. The shared qualities of the former are easy to recognize—their cult of novelty, their “semi-beatified status,” their “unbearable pretentiousness”—but the latter, the pantheon, does not seem to respond to a unified philosophy, instead Kimball would most likely say they share “quality.”
What I find remarkable about Roger Kimball’s writing is how thin it is. Once the exaggerated adjectives, the insults, the condescension and the many occurrences of “undoubtedly” and “it is clear,” are removed there is very little left; and what's leftover is neither interesting nor new. This scarcity of substance is surprising considering Kimball stands for quality and lack of artifice above novelty and pretentiousness.
While I share much of Roger Kimball’s dislike for the art world, I find “Art’s Prospect” to be a weak argument in favor of or against anything. J.M. Coetzee’s “Stranger Shores,” on the other hand, is an impressive example of what is possible when seriousness, quality and originality of thought combine.
The best case against the pretentious obscurity of Rosalind Krauss’s writing is not Kimball’s essay “Feeling Sorry for Rosalind Krauss” but the lucidity and intelligence of Coetzee’s writings. Unlike Krauss or Kimball, Coetzee downplays rather than exaggerates his intellectuality, and his judgments on the work of others seem carefully assessed and measured in his effort to not be petty or arrogant. Coetzee’s writing has a distinct voice without the need for the decorative flair and it comes across as profoundly knowledgeable without pedantic poses or fancy terminology.
Although other claims are voiced, we like to imitate and in an environment like art and academia imitating intellectual stars (who Kimball is not but Coetzee and Krauss are) has significant rewards. It is easy to figure out how to write and think like Kimball. The reason we don’t read more Kimball-like writings is because the people who write like him are usually standing on soap boxes not, unlike him, editing intellectual journals. It is also easy to figure out, but harder to execute, how to write and think like Krauss, and since the Krauss-type writings fit well within the vehicles of intellectual dissemination, we often read thinkers like Krauss—for instance, in the magazine October, which Krauss helped found. Coetzee is a different story. It is easy to see how he writes and thinks but he is very difficult to imitate because at the heart of his writing there is formidable intelligence, erudition and strength of character. I expect more Coetzee imitators to continue to appear but unlike the case of Krauss or Kimball, the Coetzee imitators are easy to distinguish from the original.
It is instructive to compare how they construct those judgments.
Roger Kimball usually makes his arguments by concatenating colorful sentences which are not always constrained by logic and that often sacrifice accuracy for energy. Here are two representative examples,
“A quick glance around our culture shows that the avant-garde assault on tradition has long since degenerated into a sclerotic orthodoxy. What established taste makers now herald a cutting-edge turns out time and again to be a stale reminder of past impotence.”
“It is a good rule of thumb in the contemporary art world that the level of pretension is inversely proportional to the level of artistic achievement.”
Roger Kimball is annoyed with the art world and his writings convey his annoyance through a writing style that is both ironic and bombastic. He has an extensive group of people and institutions he dislikes, and he also has a pantheon of artists he admires. The shared qualities of the former are easy to recognize—their cult of novelty, their “semi-beatified status,” their “unbearable pretentiousness”—but the latter, the pantheon, does not seem to respond to a unified philosophy, instead Kimball would most likely say they share “quality.”
What I find remarkable about Roger Kimball’s writing is how thin it is. Once the exaggerated adjectives, the insults, the condescension and the many occurrences of “undoubtedly” and “it is clear,” are removed there is very little left; and what's leftover is neither interesting nor new. This scarcity of substance is surprising considering Kimball stands for quality and lack of artifice above novelty and pretentiousness.
While I share much of Roger Kimball’s dislike for the art world, I find “Art’s Prospect” to be a weak argument in favor of or against anything. J.M. Coetzee’s “Stranger Shores,” on the other hand, is an impressive example of what is possible when seriousness, quality and originality of thought combine.
The best case against the pretentious obscurity of Rosalind Krauss’s writing is not Kimball’s essay “Feeling Sorry for Rosalind Krauss” but the lucidity and intelligence of Coetzee’s writings. Unlike Krauss or Kimball, Coetzee downplays rather than exaggerates his intellectuality, and his judgments on the work of others seem carefully assessed and measured in his effort to not be petty or arrogant. Coetzee’s writing has a distinct voice without the need for the decorative flair and it comes across as profoundly knowledgeable without pedantic poses or fancy terminology.
Although other claims are voiced, we like to imitate and in an environment like art and academia imitating intellectual stars (who Kimball is not but Coetzee and Krauss are) has significant rewards. It is easy to figure out how to write and think like Kimball. The reason we don’t read more Kimball-like writings is because the people who write like him are usually standing on soap boxes not, unlike him, editing intellectual journals. It is also easy to figure out, but harder to execute, how to write and think like Krauss, and since the Krauss-type writings fit well within the vehicles of intellectual dissemination, we often read thinkers like Krauss—for instance, in the magazine October, which Krauss helped found. Coetzee is a different story. It is easy to see how he writes and thinks but he is very difficult to imitate because at the heart of his writing there is formidable intelligence, erudition and strength of character. I expect more Coetzee imitators to continue to appear but unlike the case of Krauss or Kimball, the Coetzee imitators are easy to distinguish from the original.
Labels: Caution
posted by EMC at
12:53 PM
3 Comments:
it is unfortunate that kimball and the cranky neo-conservative crowd associated with the new criterion has become the dominant 'perspective' for critiquing the contemporary discourse. when those express dissatisfaction with the shallowness of the contemporary discourse, it is too easy to dismiss them as simply 'reactionary' and 'conservative' responses. we need to find more coetzees who can show us by the power of their prose that the contemporary discourse and its 'cultured despisers' are two sides of the same superficial coin. more writers like coetzee and writers like krauss and kimball simply fall away....they dont' need to be whined and railed against.
I am not familiar with JM Coetzee's writings, but your comments are a powerful recommendation. And in regard to the trend toward the bombastic and colorful style that has evolved over the last twenty years, I suppose— I have found myself pondering it. First of all, it's an example of how forms and fashions change over time. It seems something of the norm now. It can certainly be entertaining. And then on to the next moment.
Your observations re Rosalind Krauss ring a bell, too. By accident I was introduced to her writing and struggled through an essay included in the book published by the Whitney Museum of American Art to accompany their Agnes Martin exhibit in 1992. The book was put together by Barbara Haskell. The book, quite fine, included three essasys— one eash by Haskell, Anna Chave and Rosalind Krauss. The first two essays were reasonable and helpful, as I recall, but the one by Krauss left me wondering what had gone wrong.
The book, besides containing the essays also features many pieces of Martin's own writings which stand like mountain peaks above the rest.
Just to imagine Agnes Martin's response to the Krauss piece produced a strong moment of cognitive dissonance. Here is Martin:
I would rather think of humility than anything else.
Humility, the beautiful daughter
She cannot do either right or wrong
All of her ways are empty
Infinitely light and delicate
She treads an even path
Sweet, smiling, uninterrupted, free.
I've been enjoying reading Coetzee's "Stranger Shores". No horsing around here-straightforward and honest language that introduces and examines writers in a way that provides a real invitation to their work. The subject of imitation is interesting-I am guessing that it is a force in the marketplace because there is a presumed understanding and acceptance of that sort of work. Then, there is no need to really examine the work on one's own.
Post a Comment
<< Home