From: Pablo <pablod@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 03:40:48 -0800
Well Becky, I think Foucault would agree that 'art' connot be
'truly' subversive. As I've read him, he would argue that any art, text,
discourse, narrative, etc. is both subversive and oppressive, it includes
and excludes symmultenously. What is included in the 'art' sets up limits
and it is those limits which should be examined. Whether the art is good
or bad is a value judgement by the interpretors.
I believe that the 'codes' of art which you speak about are borders
that through repetitions have confined an identity that attempts to be
wholesome. Literature, Cinema, music, etc. are reference points to
particular modes for producing meaning and although we may decide to call
them separate disciplines, their interconnections are obvious.
Well, it is late. I just felt like typing a few words and hoping
that my articulations spark up some polylogues!
pablo from 'The Franciscan Circle'
>Hi, you probably know this already but 'What is an Author?' is a pretty good
>intro to Foucault on society's reaction to literature and the
>this is off the wall I'm sorry and I'd be really interested in any other
>references to this sort of power / resistance relationship. It seems that
>people often come down to the fact that art cannot be truly subversive as
>it followsthe 'codes' of art (or lit. or film or whatever) in order to be
>perceived assuch in the first place. Is there any good points agaimst this
>arguement or am I just having a down day?! :)