Posted on 02/23/2015 9:41:24 AM PST by Borges
One of Lolita’s first supporters, the great critic Lionel Trilling, addressed what is perhaps a central issue at the heart of this controversial novel, when he warned of the moral difficulty in interpreting a book with such an eloquent narrator: “We find ourselves the more shocked when we realize that, in the course of reading the novel, we have come virtually to condone the violation it presents… We have been seduced into conniving in the violation, because we have permitted our fantasies to accept what we know to be revolting.”
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
And this is praiseworthy?
Art is supposed to challenge. Not tell you what you already know about yourself or the world.
Ping to the Binger.
You’re defending this as exemplary art?
That book by Nabokov.
“The only believable love story ever written.”
I am not reading a book about a pedophile
definitely not praiseworthy IMO
Yeah, if it’s done right. You accept it, then you’re repelled by it, but you get repelled by yourself because you accepted it. This kind of art points a mirror at a part of yourself you usually think (hope) doesn’t exist, and it forces you to say “yes, I see I have the ability to be evil”, and reminds you how successful you are at not. To draw a comparison that I’m sure will make some roll their eyes it’s the reason why Alice Cooper is the king of shock rock, many can write shocking lyrics, but only Alice makes you stop and think “I’m singing along with a song about cannibalism, that’s just wrong”. You don’t really know how good a person you are until you come to grips with how bad a person you’re not.
All I can say is that I hope “Catcher in the Rye” didn’t make the list. (or even the list of the 1000 best novels)
“Art is supposed to challenge. Not tell you what you already know about yourself or the world.”
I think your two sentences are non-sequitar.
The first one, art is to challenge.
Says who?
Love that song.
But does being art also prevent challenging with their statement as also being corrupt propaganda?
As for the notion that "art is supposed to challenge", that's like saying "everyone should be equal": it's meaningless.
Art is supposed to express the truth.
I've never read the book and never will, so I don't know if this "art" redeems itself. I gather not.
I prefer not to be "challenged" "to accept what we know to be revolting" nor do I think such an experience is the mother of virtue. In fact, I argue it's the opposite.
Artists. At least most of the good ones.
My guess is that is precisely what Lolita does for you.
And Trilling too, the old carbuncle.
Which artist. Name one.
A quote would be good.
Is “challenging” the only role of art?
Art is supposed to challenge.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I am an artist. I disagree.
If a creation of an artist doesn’t challenge does that mean it isn’t art? There is a lot of highly acclaimed art hanging in the halls of respected museums that doesn’t challenge but instead affirms, uplifts, and even soothes the senses.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.