From: |  | [log in to unmask][log in to unmask]
10115 13 21_Re: Definition of [log in to unmask], 21 Aug 2001 23:01:18 EDT298_- In a message dated 8/21/01 4:53:20 PM Central Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
<< Hugh MacDiarmid
wrote a long essay making a comparable point called "Art and the
Unknown." I could find the citation if you are interested.
Nancy >>
yes, thanks37_21Aug200123:01:[log in to unmask]
10129 32 21_Re: Definition of art10_Nancy [log in to unmask], 21 Aug 2001 23:39:51 -0400398_- It is in _Selected Essays of Hugh MacDiarmid_, ed. Duncan Glen
(Berkeley: U California P, 1970). The following quotation, which I included
in my book on MacDiarmid, is a key part of his definition:
"The function of art is the extension of human consciousness. . . . If
consciousness be likened to a cleared space, art is that which extends it
in any direction." [...]41_21Aug200123:39:[log in to unmask]
10162 88 19_Essays In Criticism13_Ken [log in to unmask], 28 Aug 2001 13:05:22 -0400561_- --=====================_19177353==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Dear List,
The latest issue of Essays in Criticism is available online, tho it may
be that you can access it that way only if you or your employer (school)
subscribes. I'm not sure. The article that caught my eye was:
Book Review.
Eliot's Dark Angel: Intersections of Life and Art Ronald Schuchard
Jennifer Formichelli, pp. 371-377.
http://www3.oup.co.uk/escrit/hdb/Volume_51/Issue_03/510371.sgm.abs.html [...]40_28Aug200113:05:[log in to unmask]
10251 14 23_Re: Essays In [log in to unmask], 28 Aug 2001 16:44:05 EDT438_- An observation by Eliot in the essay caught my eye:
"It is the function of a literary review to maintain the autnomy and disinterestedness of literature, and at the same time to exhibit the relations of literature -- not to 'life,' as something contrasted to literature, but to all the other activities, which, together with literature, are the components of life." (From The Function of a Literary Review (1923). [...]32_28Aug200116:44:[log in to unmask]
10266 67 23_Re: Essays In Criticism14_Richard [log in to unmask], 28 Aug 2001 16:26:12 -0600504_- Tom
What do you mean by "rich oral tradition"? Is the modern urban myth part
of this rich oral tradition? When does common gossip become "rich oral
tradition", when the common gossipers are illiterate and members of a
government defined minority? Can a visually identifiable but illiterate
member of the majority have a "rich oral tradition" i.e.., are Red Necks
as good a place to find "rich oral tradition" as Hispanics in a barrio? [...]36_28Aug200116:26:[log in to unmask]
10334 38 23_Re: Essays In [log in to unmask], 28 Aug 2001 20:24:59 EDT617_- In a message dated Tue, 28 Aug 2001 6:26:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "Richard Seddon" <[log in to unmask]> writes:
> Tom
>
<<What do you mean by "rich oral tradition"?>>
I was unclear. In speaking of "communities with a rich oral tradition", I meant societies where the dominant culture relies upon an such a tradition, either entirely or as an important supplement to its literature. By "rich", I mean Homer rather than "Friends." (Granted, there's a lot in between, but y'all get to sort that out on your own terms.) [...]32_28Aug200120:24:[log in to unmask]
10373 104 23_Re: Essays In Criticism10_Nancy [log in to unmask], 28 Aug 2001 21:09:58 -0400590_- Phyllis Wheatley was a woman. She was fortunate to have been taught to
read and ò”ºwe |
