The word realism has been used to describe works of art since the mid 19th century. Even today, certain kinds of painting, theater, film and literature are understood as realism by the general public. But most artists recognize how dangerous and inept such a term becomes when one seeks to describe art in the 21st century.There is nothing real about a scene painted on canvas except the canvas and the paint itself. Likewise, there is nothing real about a narrative except the paper and the ink it's printed in. Both are invented. Both rely on a medium, which is the only part of the work that is materially real.
Still, it seems somewhat absurd to limit the term to all but the entirely abstract, though some would. Better it seems, would be to recognize realism as any work of art that does not seek to create an illusion, or that consciously disrupts the illusion it creates.
But to me, only the first sort or realism has the possibility of conveying life and/or emotional weight. The problem in poetry is that so many poets choose versions of disruption (i.e. sur-realism), while ignoring all of the kinds of material realisms that could give their work life.
1 comment:
Are you proposing a hybrid between these two forms of "realism"? In the Platonic model all art is merely an immitation of the real so these two forms of realism (both of them equally lacking in the REAL) are necessarily grouped together and simultaneously stripped of value.
I wonder also about Jabés assertion that after the Holocaust we must write poetry but do so with injured words. The question for me then becomes what caused the shift? Why then is the writing of poetry even more necessary?
Post a Comment