File spoon-archives/nietzsche.archive/nietzsche_1998/nietzsche.9807, message 520


Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 01:08:44 GMT
From: cornets-AT-2005.bart.nl (cornets de groot)
Subject: "we", the artist and his art


Malgosia:

>> (Mutatis mutandis Malgosia, we're not
interested in the artist, but in his work). 

>Is this "we" analogous to LC's "we", or is it meant to encompass all 
of humanity?  Me, what I am interested in is art, which is to me a network 
of processes of production intertwined with other processes of production.  
I am not sure which horn of your dichotomy this would find a resting place on.


No, it's not analogous to LC's "we", nor is it concordiae, let alone
majestatis. It would be nice if it were analogous to Nietzsche's own "We,
Hyperboreans..." - but then I'm not sure if I would be admitted in that
circle. So I guess it indeed means humanity, the way I see it. I do not mean
to speak for anyone else but myself.
I guess a network involves a great many things - the art and the artist to
begin with. I cannot make up from what you say which of the two you would
emphasize. I should make it clear however that I don't believe in a
criticism that only takes the work of art into account, as if the artist
wouldn't matter - as if art was an autonomous phenonemon. I'm interested in
the artist's personality, as it can be perceived in his style. However I
don't care much about the artist's motives. In other words: I like Jung
better than Freud.

Rutger Cornets.



	--- from list nietzsche-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005