Thanks. This is an important article. I myself avoid self-consciously "modernized" interpretations of earlier works of art or myth. They are done with the idea that they, i.e., liberal modernists, are viewing the past from a superior height and have a much better understanding of human nature. Mainly because of technological advancements I would think, but also bizarre ideas about race, sex, drugs and even the weather. It's quite possible they're all mad.
I suppose there is some interest in finding out about the life of an artist but in the end you should look at the work for what it is – the form and content. Would Michelangelo be a Hollywood director if he were alive today? Say, doing things like Ridely Scott maybe? I think he would so there's the idea that nobody can escape being "modern." This particular modern world is mass-materialist. You swim in it regardless of how you want to deal with it as an artist. Self-consciously trying to engage with the past is hubris.
I think that I followed you right until the end. I agree that modernized interpretations of earlier works are a farce. They cannot help but project foreign categories back onto the past, and so we are stuck just looking at ourselves.
I also think I see what you mean for the most part in the second paragraph; if the greats from the past were alive today, would they help themselves to our crasser mediums? I used to think not...but I'm more open to that now. I remember the first time someone told me an anonymous blogger was "philosophic" and I scoffed! But I was wrong.
Could you spell out what you mean by: "Self-consciously trying to engage with the past is hubris."
I appreciate your comment. Writing is not my forte. I was attempting to circle back to my original premise that modernists reinterpreting the past is, as you say, projecting foreign categories (not to mention unnatural ones), and it's a kind of arrogance. If human nature hasn't changed much in the past 600 or 6,000 years then I would imagine someone like Michelangelo doing a comparative type of bombastic art form today, like Hollywood blockbusters, by utilizing the most powerful medium available.
So, my idea – being an artist is also a kind of business on the one hand and on the other, you can't fake it in the long run either. However, I think they will conform because that's where the money is and they will go for it. I wonder what Francis Ford Coppola thinks of Michelangelo? I'd say he's probably conflicted, but I honestly don't know. While someone like, say, Quentin Tarantino would feel superior because he has no humility, no respect for the racist, sexist, etc. etc. past.
But fwiw I think Hawthorne is something of an outlier. He really was exceptionally “unstuck in time.” I agree that we can’t assume that the historical context tells us what an author thinks — but it can’t hurt to learn, and often it will help us to perceive when the author is tacking against the winds of his age. Great post, great topic.
Thanks. And I agree; when I said in the first paragraph that I was almost "allergic" to learning history I meant that it was a kind of defect. I'm allergic to a lot of cats, so I can't function as well in their presence for an extended period of time, meaning that I am less capable than humans who can. In this case, I don't have to take Zyrtec to remedy things as a kind of palliative, instead, I can read history with the problem of historicism in mind so go beyond a mere palliative to my alleged allergy.
Thanks. This is an important article. I myself avoid self-consciously "modernized" interpretations of earlier works of art or myth. They are done with the idea that they, i.e., liberal modernists, are viewing the past from a superior height and have a much better understanding of human nature. Mainly because of technological advancements I would think, but also bizarre ideas about race, sex, drugs and even the weather. It's quite possible they're all mad.
I suppose there is some interest in finding out about the life of an artist but in the end you should look at the work for what it is – the form and content. Would Michelangelo be a Hollywood director if he were alive today? Say, doing things like Ridely Scott maybe? I think he would so there's the idea that nobody can escape being "modern." This particular modern world is mass-materialist. You swim in it regardless of how you want to deal with it as an artist. Self-consciously trying to engage with the past is hubris.
I think that I followed you right until the end. I agree that modernized interpretations of earlier works are a farce. They cannot help but project foreign categories back onto the past, and so we are stuck just looking at ourselves.
I also think I see what you mean for the most part in the second paragraph; if the greats from the past were alive today, would they help themselves to our crasser mediums? I used to think not...but I'm more open to that now. I remember the first time someone told me an anonymous blogger was "philosophic" and I scoffed! But I was wrong.
Could you spell out what you mean by: "Self-consciously trying to engage with the past is hubris."
I appreciate your comment. Writing is not my forte. I was attempting to circle back to my original premise that modernists reinterpreting the past is, as you say, projecting foreign categories (not to mention unnatural ones), and it's a kind of arrogance. If human nature hasn't changed much in the past 600 or 6,000 years then I would imagine someone like Michelangelo doing a comparative type of bombastic art form today, like Hollywood blockbusters, by utilizing the most powerful medium available.
So, my idea – being an artist is also a kind of business on the one hand and on the other, you can't fake it in the long run either. However, I think they will conform because that's where the money is and they will go for it. I wonder what Francis Ford Coppola thinks of Michelangelo? I'd say he's probably conflicted, but I honestly don't know. While someone like, say, Quentin Tarantino would feel superior because he has no humility, no respect for the racist, sexist, etc. etc. past.
The final paragraph of the Preface to House of Seven Gables deserves mention here!!
I completely agree! I recently read it. I talked about that quote in a space recently so I decided against it.
But fwiw I think Hawthorne is something of an outlier. He really was exceptionally “unstuck in time.” I agree that we can’t assume that the historical context tells us what an author thinks — but it can’t hurt to learn, and often it will help us to perceive when the author is tacking against the winds of his age. Great post, great topic.
Thanks. And I agree; when I said in the first paragraph that I was almost "allergic" to learning history I meant that it was a kind of defect. I'm allergic to a lot of cats, so I can't function as well in their presence for an extended period of time, meaning that I am less capable than humans who can. In this case, I don't have to take Zyrtec to remedy things as a kind of palliative, instead, I can read history with the problem of historicism in mind so go beyond a mere palliative to my alleged allergy.