Although Nietzsche is not one of my all-time favorite philosophers, I think his discussion of the balance between Apollo and Dionysus is quite fascinating. Just to remind you, the "History of Modernism" article we read stated, "Apollo represented the essence of light, rationality, civility, culture, and restraint. In contrast, Dionysus suggested wine, the primitive urge, all that was uncivilized. Although these two gods existed in opposition to one another, they were both, nevertheless, revered equally, thus striking a balance between form (the Apollonian) and creative impulse (Dionysus)."
Basically, the modernists wanted to bring back Dionysus, as he was getting lost in a sea of Apollo.
I was wondering if y'all prefer reading literature that leans more toward the Apollo or Dionysus ends of spectrum. For me, it kind of just depends what I am in the mood for. For example, sometimes reading a poem with rigid form and strong emphasis on details and perfection is very pleasing and impressive. At other times, Apollonian poetry seems stuffy, and I'll prefer reading a more free-flowing and sporadic poem. Regardless, I disagree with Nietzsche's implication that Apollonian works are less creative than their Dionysian counterparts. I simply think that different types of creativity are employed to create different kinds of literature. I don't think either type necessarily takes more talent or expertise. Just like the modernists said, I think we shouldn't always group everything together; sometimes it's better to judge works of art individually, based on their own merit.
7 comments:
I definitely agree with you (and, therefore, disagree with Nietzche) that Apollonian works are not any less creative than Dionysian works. Just because a work is more restrained and civil does not necessarily mean it is any less creative than a more free flowing work. That being said, I think I am more of a Dionysian guy. Who isn’t, though, when you think of it? Raunchy stories sell! I appreciate the modernists pushing to bring back Dionysian. I think a modern-ish day equivalent of the modernist movement (at least in this aspect) would be people pushing for less censorship in movies and/or on tv. Much like how the modernists worked towards more primal works of literature, those advocating less media censorship believe in complete expression.
Hahaha! So true. We do live in New Orleans after all... I'm pretty sure most of us would rather hang out with Dionysus ;)
That was Jessie's post^ (My computer keeps switching to my other gmail for some reason)
I definitely would say I prefer Apollonian works when it comes to poetry and literature. I am typically not a fan of poetry- especially the kind that is sporadic and makes your head confused not in an analytical or philosophical way. Therefore the Apollonian approach is much more appealing to me because I can appreciate the structure and form of it which makes it a more pleasing art to enjoy. That being said, I agree with the both of you in that neither of the types of works are less artistic than the others simply because they vary. In fact I think their differences help to make them both more appreciated for everyone involved.
I am going to disagree and say that the form of artwork associated with Dionysus is more creative. There is only so much one can do when bound by rules. In the case of literature "good form" suggests you have followed the rules instituted by others. However, with a piece of work that is bound by nothing, a whole new layer of creativity can be achieved. At that point instead of being bound by things like grammar and form, you can break the rules to add a whole new level of meaning that simply can't be attained otherwise.
I agree with your last comment that goes to say you really can't judge art together or in groups! For the sake of an answer, however, I would say Dionysian art form would take my vote. Ritchie explained his point well and I concur with his argument.
It is nice to compare and contrast but, all in all, art really is a limitless spectrum. Off-ish topic rant: I recently had a conversation with a friend about the different degrees of art and how there truly is no definition of "artistic" or "creative" because there are SO many styles and outlets you can portray your imagination through. Since taking the class Research in Art and Design, I have really learned to broaden my scope of creativity outside the limits of pen and paper, or anything 2D for that matter, and I think that could be an analogy relating to your argument. Painting and printing, for example, could be Apollo and interior design and architecture could be your Dionysus (depending on perspective).
This is an interesting topic to bring up considering how different the two types of literature can be. I definitely agree that they are both acceptable types of creativity. My stance on this is that I believe some topics or settings may work better with Apollonian style while others may work better with the Dionysius style. For example, more serious poems that relate to say, society (I.e. on non-personal level) may work better with Apollonian style because of the structured form. After all, Apollo does represent civility and culture like you say so societal concerns would most likely be written in Apollonian. Furthermore, I believe that more personal/emotional poems like perhaps an ode to the death of a loved one or even a love poem can be better written in the Dionysus style because it focuses less on form but rather on creative content. Emotions I feel are better represented this way. Otherwise, the speaker of the poem might sound like a robot haha.
Post a Comment