Abstracts of Papers
Jakob Bertzbach:
What Good Are the Notions of 'Real', '(Social) Reality', and 'Realism' for Critics of Art and Literature?
"I am sorry, but your 'poietic spaces' are really unrealistic!" - "Oh yeah? So what are they?" - "Enjoyment, experiences, and perhaps subjective illusions. They don't carry any intrinsic value, and certainly no down-to-earth society concern. Aren't you interested in your social realities and objective knowledge?" - "What's your mission? Do you have an universal truth-machine that detects high measurements of reality?" Here is an argument that really occurred: in his theater theory, Berthold Brecht polemicized retroperspectively against Georg Lukács that the "literarischen Sachverwalter" would heavily trim the works to fit them in drawers. And Brecht adds that this would remind him of a Chaplin movie in which Chaplin packs a suitcase and cuts off with scissors everything that sticks out. Brecht argues against Lukács' stand on realism, a stand that Lukács took in a debate of the 1930s in the journal Das Wort), a stand in sharp opposition to expressionism. But Brecht did not side the expressionist group either: expressionists could drivel and the basic concern of the literary critics standing around the communist Lukács were serious. Brecht saw the fascistic danger at his time and claimed that the realism that was connected with the literature of the antifascists was necessarily fundamental for this literature and for critics as well. For Brecht, realism is an affair not only of literature but a political, philosophical, and practical affair too. One should treat it as a great and generally human affair. Hence, everyone should be mindful about realism, see one's responsibilities towards realism, and act accordingly. But where does Brecht's position lead to if he wants both social responsibility and the playful development of art? If we write, play, and criticize in other worlds beyond the rainbow, are we still in need for social, political, or philosophical guidance? My paper presentation is taking up this question without suggesting certain guidance, without going into details of the above-mentioned theorists, and without … . Instead, I will discuss the use and the limits that literary critics face in applying the concept of reality. My examples will be drawn form American artists/writers of the 30s such as John Dos Passos, James Farell, Zora Neale Hurston and/or the next generation such as Alice Walker, Malcom X, Spike Lee. As a result, I am explaining, suggesting, and defending a somewhat deconstuctivist view on the matter of 'real this' and 'real that'.
|
