Appreciation of Literature and Film 2

“The highest as the lowest form of criticism is a mode of autobiography.”
-Oscar Wilde

This aphorism from Wilde’s Preface essentially means that criticism ultimately reveals more about the critic than the work being criticized. When someone critiques a work of art, a person, place, phenomenon, or thing, they bring in their own values, experiences, and worldview to express their evaluation. Even when a critic tries to be objective, their emotional responses, personal history, and preferences inevitably shape what they see and how they interpret it. Critiquing at its core, as Wilde suggests, is never solely an interpretation of someone else’s work, and is ultimately a reflection of the self (whether subtle or obvious).

With this idea in mind, all criticism, whether thoughtful or shallow, reveals something about the person making it. When we judge or analyze, we go further than descriptions, and we show who we are, what we value, and what we’ve lived through. I agree with Wilde. The act of criticism is never neutral. I think a great example of this idea is Tupac Shakur’s 1993 song “Keep Ya Head Up”. Tupac’s background allowed him to create a powerful piece of criticism that reveals just as much about himself as it does about the world he’s addressing.

I believe that his biggest inspiration for this song was his mother, Afeni Shakur. Tupac focuses on the struggles faced by women, especially single black mothers. The line “I wonder why we take from our women… Why we rape our women, do we hate our women? is a critique of how women are treated, not just in society at large, but within the communities Tupac was raised in. He offers empathy to women raising children alone, as his own mother did. Growing up, Tupac saw how strong his mother had to be just to survive. He also saw how society, and sometimes the men around her, failed to support or protect her. That awareness made him sensitive to the ways women, especially Black women, are mistreated, both emotionally and physically. That’s where the song becomes more than commentary; it becomes personal.

Afeni Shakur was a member of the Black Panther Party and raised him on her own after struggling with poverty and addiction. His admiration for her, and for women like her, runs throughout the song. When he says “And since we all came from a woman, Got our name from a woman and our game from a woman,” he’s honoring that experience. His criticism of the way women are treated comes from a place of intimate knowledge. It’s rooted in love, pain, memory, and respect. It’s an autobiography in the form of a song.

When Tupac says “We ain’t meant to survive ’cause it’s a set-up”, he is referring to Black communities. He is making the audience aware of the fact that society, the government, and everyone has not done nearly enough to even repair the systematic racism that still puts innocent families in poverty. Tupac grew up in neighborhoods marked by violence, poverty, and neglect. These experiences gave him not only the authority to speak on these issues, but also the emotional weight behind his words. His understanding of systemic injustice came from what he lived through.

This is exactly what Wilde meant. Tupac’s critique of injustice is powerful because he’s speaking as a survivor, a son, and a witness. He’s not just pointing out what’s wrong with the world, but showing us how it’s affected him and the people he loves. I fully agree with Wilde’s aphorism. Whether it’s literary analysis or a rap song about injustice, criticism always reflects the person offering it.

Diversity of opinion about a work of art shows that the work is new, complex, and vital. 

I agree with this aphorism by Oscar Wilde. The diversity of opinion blooms through diverse perspectives. For something to make a lasting impact on people there needs to be something with a shock factor-something that challenges expectations.To be truly shocking it must include one, if not all, of these things: newness, complexity, and vitality. When people are presented with new, unique ideas, naturally a difference of opinion forms. Not everyone is going to interpret a work of art the same way, offering a diversity of opinion. Culture, religious beliefs, personal experiences, and prior knowledge all shape how people perceive and respond to a work of art. 

A great example of this is one of my favorite shows, Lost. When Lost premiered  in September of 2004, it was unlike any series that had come before. This series was about survivors of a plane crash that landed on a tropical island. It pushed the boundaries of what has been done before and goes far beyond a survival story. The show goes through supernatural storylines, romance, and even includes connections between the survivors before the crash. What made Lost so enticing was its originality. It was unpredictable, which made viewers come up with endless theories. However, the complexity of the storyline also made it hard to predict. Minor details turned out to be major revelations; You could not miss a second of this show! The way the characters were all connected before the crash was masterfully crafted and added that shock factor. Viewers had to be very engaged in the show to try and decode and build theories. There were countless forums of disputes, involving viewers, discussing predictions and dissecting what happened each time an episode aired. When I think of a successful, vital work of art, I think about how often it gets brought up day-to-day. Since I watched Lost, I think of the show every time I board a plane. There are also many other tv shows and movies that refer to Lost in their scripts. For example, Grey’s Anatomy has an episode discussing who is going to be the one to get on the helicopter. One of the doctors says that she will not get on the helicopter because she does not want to crash on a tropical island and get eaten by polar bears (referring to Lost). The fact that Lost has contributed in daily discussions and thoughts shows beyond doubt that it is a vital piece of art. Additionally, the end of the series spiked a huge debate. There were many mixed feelings and unanswered questions following the end of Lost. I know that some catholic viewers believed that the ending referred to purgatory and some just believed the characters were dead the entire time. Clearly, this stems from the diversity of opinion. Ultimately proving that the big three-newness, complexity, and vitality- make an unforgettable work.

By: Lali Bagwell

“There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That’s all.” – Oscar Wilde

When Wilde wrote this sentiment, I fell in the middle and went back and forth between agreeing and disagreeing with Wildes’s perspective. On the one hand, there is literature that promotes and glorifies subjects such as oppression, racism, sexism, etc., which is undoubtedly immoral. However, I think why Wilde makes such a strong argument is because he presents the readers with two questions. Who is the judge of whether a piece of literature is moral or immoral, and if a piece is immoral, does that necessarily make it a bad piece of writing?

When thinking about these questions, I immediately thought of Vladimir Nabokov’s 1955 novel “Lolita”. In his novel, Nabokov explores the sexual relationship between a twelve-year-old girl, Dolores, and her stepfather, Humbert. The protagonist of his novel, Humbert, is clearly a sick-minded pedophile who ends up kidnapping, sexually exploiting, and raping Dolores multiple times after causing her mother’s death. Over the course of the novel, we see how twisted Humbert’s mind is in his desire for Dolores, going to extraordinary lengths to keep her under his control. His pedophilic nature and abuse of authority make the protagonist, Humbert, extremely corrupt. This creates a very immoral story, and some critics even say the novel romanticizes pedophilia and the dangerous relationship between Dolores and Humbert. However, in my opinion, this doesn’t necessarily mean the writing was poorly written or a bad piece of art. In fact, I think that in many cases, art aims to make readers feel uncomfortable and question certain societal dynamics. In this case Nabokov critiques the sexualization of youth and abuse of power from older authority figures. “Lolita” has kept a steady presence in literature since it was written, and many applaud the work for its portrayal and dissection of an uncomfortable topic. With Nabokov’s writing style, he makes an extremely well-told and compelling story, one of sexual exploitation and its effects on the victims. At the end of the story, Dolores doesn’t end up with a happily ever after, being broke, pregnant, and involved with an older man which is reflective of the negative impacts of her relationship with Humbert. This is Nabokov’s way of showing the audience that sometimes there are immoral people who take advantage of others and that victims may never truly find peace or reconciliation in their lives. For these reasons, I think that although some might criticize the piece for promoting pedophilia and, therefore, being immoral, the writing itself is still an important and valuable read, making it a well-written piece. Therefore supporting Wilde’s claim where he states that there is no morality in writing, instead there is just good and bad pieces of literature.

By Anna Seridge

“From the point of view of form, the type of all the arts is the art of the musician. From the point of view of feeling, the actor’s craft is the type.”

This quote from the preface of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde made me thing of the duality and complexity of artistry. The first person that came to my mind was Harry Styles, who has an accomplished music and acting career. In the first half of the quote “From the point of view of form, the type of all the arts is the art of the musician…” makes me think of the Harry Styles albums Harrys house (2022) and Fine Line (2019). Both of these albums take art forms of songs, album cover art, and music videos. The album cover art for both of these albums are very introspective Esque and remind me of something you could see in an art gallery, and even some COFC photography pieces I’ve seen. They are creative, and I believe relate to the time in his life in which he wrote the albums about. While my personal favorite out of the two is fine line, I feel the presentation of Harrys house leaves me with more to theorize about pertaining to what his goal in conveying his story was. The Harrys house album cover is a picture of a living room upside down, with the couch on the now “ceiling” and the ceiling light on the now “floor,” with harry standing and looking at the light. I think that this artistically encompasses what these songs are about, that they were written in a time his life was changing or ‘turning upside down’ so to speak, and how he’s continuing to grow as an adult into his “house” or maturing in his personality. The songs have subjective lyrics about Harry’s life experience. The most popular on the album, ‘As It Was’ has the lyrics “you know it’s not the same as it was,” and a personal favorite ‘Love of my Life,’ has the lyrics “Baby, you were the love of my life.” Both of these songs being in the past tense I think ties into the album cover concept of change.

The second part of the quote “From the point of view of feeling, the actor’s craft is the type.” Make me think about a movie Harry Styles was a lead in, “Don’t Worry Darling,” a psychological thriller. While I think his artistic vision in music, art, and videos portrays emotion of course, I personally didn’t see how capable he was of very intense, profound feeling that wasn’t his own (per usual) but a character ‘Jack Chambers’, that he became through crafting this other point of view to express Jack’s feelings.

I Agree and Disagree with this statement of Wilde’s. I think it depends on the instance and the artist. I think Harry styles is a great example of how I agree with this quote. That often times musicians use multiple mediums to express themselves through, with their music telling you how to feel about it all. But Actors make you feel what they feel, if they are good, that is their expertise. But I think in different instances, where I might disagree with this, I know singular songs have made me feel more than a whole movie. So, I think the quote is subjective, but I don’t think in any sense it is wrong.

Audrey Kelly

“No artist has ethical sympathies. An ethical sympathy in an artist is an unpardonable mannerism of style.” – Oscar Wilde

I chose this aphorism because it stuck out to me the most. I find myself drawn to complex subject matter that acts as a character study. I enjoy trying to understand and analyze why people make the decisions they make, and learning more about the human psyche and soul in the process.

This led me to this aphorism by Wilde. On the surface, I agreed with him. Bad people exist; their ethics may not be something you agree with, but not being honest that they are there is a falsehood and a lie to the audience. Writing a villain into a story doesn’t mean that writer agrees with the villain, nor does it mean the writer needs to worry about implementing them, for not every choice the writer makes needs to be a lesson to the viewer.

However, the more I thought about the meaning of this phrase, the more I second guessed my full agreement. While yes, the writer makes those decisions to create the best story/art, I do not believe that they are relieved of ethical responsibility in all ways. Some artists create or sat very disagreeable things that does not always add to the art.

So while the writer may not agree with the ethics in their work, it is irresponsible to assume others won’t create their own interpretation of the art, perhaps in a more sinister  way. And yes, that is not necessarily on the writer to  nor, honestly, do we ever truly know an artists intentions. Black and white statements such as this one- at least to me – are rarely true in the world of art.

This had me thinking about the film American Psycho. Originally a book by Bret Easton Ellis which was adapted into the 2001 movie (Dir. Mary Harron), the story follows Patrick Bateman, a deranged serial killer (or at least in his mind.) In the film, Bateman is a very unsympathetic character – killing dogs, women, strangers in the street, colleges of him, etc. At the end, we as an audience discover that he really has just been imagining the killings, resulting in one of my favorite character analysis for discussion.

Now I imagine that when Ellis was writing the story of American Psycho that he was not condemning Bateman’s actions, nor wanting the audience to either. He separated general ethics from his art in order to tell the best story. There was no redemption arc for Bateman, nor was there any real lesson related to “hey, murder is bad” – rather it acts as a satirical mocking of the alpha male phenomenon and the materialistic mindset.

And this is not a critique of the story of American Psycho – like I said, these stories, narratives, and characters are important for understanding the world around us.But there are those out there who watch the movie for the glamorization of violence and murder. And while I don’t think the writer should not put out their art because there are people who would twist it into something it’s not, it’s just also irresponsible to separate themselves and their ethics completely from their creation.

I did not use generative AI to write this blog post.

Patrick Farrell 

“All art is quite useless.”

When Oscar Wilde said, “all art is quite useless,” he is correct in some respect. Art is useless in that it serves no purpose to meet basic human requirements for survival, like it will not feed people, provide water or shelter. Art does not provide safety or protection. Art has no useful purpose like a construction tool or a telephone. In this respect, art is useless. Wilde wants art to be useless and to be for enjoyment only. He does not want art to be used as a tool to promote political ideas or have social messages. 

However, when one considers the street artist, Banksy, and his artwork, “Girl with Balloon”, art can capture the hearts and souls of people. Art can strongly affect people and society, their thought process and bring attention and education. For example, Banksy 2015 “Dismaland” is a n 2015—an exaggerated dark farce version of Disneyland. It made fun of capitalism, the way humans ruin the environment. It brings social inequality to light. It makes one question society’s values. His art was used to make one think if the “happiest place on earth” is that happy after all and what can society do to make change. So, in this respect, Wilde is incorrect, because art is useful and profound for that lives on throughout time. Bansky’s art is not just to look at for beauty and move on. It serves a societal purpose. I agree with Wilde that art can serve no purpose other than to provide art, however, it is a tool for artists and thinkers to speak to society. 

In a letter explaining his statement, he wrote: “A work of art is useless as a flower is useless. A flower blooms for its own joy. We feel joy by looking at it.” Wilde wants art to be useless for the sake of art, without hidden messages. In contrast, a strong message is conveyed in Banksy’s painting “Show Me the Monet,” where he took Monet’s peaceful water lily scene and added shopping carts and trash in the pond. This artwork is not beautiful but screams a strong message about waste and pollution. Its purpose is to bring attention to society about what is happening to the environment. When Banksy painted on the wall between Israel and Palestine, these images did not fix the conflictWilde but helped me understand the human suffering better than news reports. 

Banksy once said, “Art should comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable.” This helps explain how some artists like Banksy do their art. His art is not lovely but makes one uncomfortable. Wilde wanted art to be soothing.  

In today’s world where everything needs to be useful, I like Wilde’s reminder that some things are valuable just because they do not have to be useful. Banksy’s work—often temporary, thought-provoking, and not easily bought and sold—shows this perfectly. 

So, I cannot completely agree that “all art is quite useless”—because I have felt art change how I think. But I also cannot completely disagree. I like some art just because it is nice to look at and there is no hidden message. I agree with Wilde that art doesn’t have to have a purpose, however, some artists have the ability to change the world.

Blog Post 2

Isabella Sierra

Beautiful Things

From Oscar Wildes preface to Dorian Gray, I chose the aphorism: “Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming. This is a fault.”

This was the aphorism that stuck to me, the most at least, because they were all interesting. When I first read that, it sort of sounded like something I had heard before. The more I re- read it, the more it starts to sound like something personal, and the more it relates to how people talk about art and creativity. My take on what this Aphorism means is that when someone can look at a beautiful piece of art, and they take that and turn it into something negative, most of the time without even trying, that is just where those certain peoples mind takes them. That also can really show you the person on a deeper level, rather than the art. Wilde also says, “are corrupt without being charming” Meaning if they don’t go into detail about their negativity (being charming), they are corrupt, and it is fully their fault. Everyone sees everything differently, as do they put their own twist on everything.

This reminds me of Taylor Swift. Taylor swift has become one of the biggest artists in the world. Her fan club is unmatchable. She is seen completely differently by so many people around the world. There are people that love her, yet there are people that hate her. In Taylor swift’s songs, she pours out her emotions. She is vulnerable to some, yet to others, it is dramatic.  That resonates to what Oscar Wilde meant in the aphorism I chose. For most of Taylor’s personal songs, a lot of people loved them, but there is always that group of people that simply bash on her and her heartfelt lyrics. As some say for art, you need to truly understand it to like it. That’s why for some people, they just can’t accept that it is good music, real art.

Especially in Taylor Swifts songwriting, in most of her albums and songs, she uses poetry as her lyrics, poetry is real art. Some people can’t appreciate that. Taylor is especially known for creating stories through her songs, she uses real names, real scenarios that most of her audience can relate to, but again, the ones who don’t relate, think her music is childish, dramatic and unnecessary. Thats where the people who are not “ready to appreciate” her music come in, relating to the aphorism once again.

When Wilde says this, I also think he means that not everyone has the mindset to really take the meanings of the music and lyrics to their personal life. Some people can take things and try to turn them into something they are simply not. Some things (and some songs) are given to us to just enjoy, and to not read so deeply into everything. These songs make certain people feel things, and make other people feel nothing. Those people Oscar Wilde could be talking about, are just here to criticize.

To conclude, Wilde just tries to show us that not everyone is built for the artistic world. Not everyone has the ability to really take these deep, meaningful things, and turn them into something deeper, rather than twist it and bash on it. When in reality, they don’t feel what is meant to be felt. Art is beautiful, those who turn it into something ugly are just not mature enough, at least in my opinion.

In the preface of Oscar Wilde’s The Picture of Dorian Gray he makes note in his aphorisms that “To reveal art and to conceal the artist is art’s aim.” When it comes to that phrase and its meaning, I can agree and disagree with said statement. Why I am in the middle in regard to Wilde’s statement is because I understand that sometimes the artist separates themselves from their work in order to project their livelihood without having to give up living regular lives, look at the people who does street art for example. It can be a personal choice with the desire to say to create what they want without having to stand in the spotlight for as not everyone feels like they are cut for that position. Or it could be from higher management deciding that its best not to reveal the artist’s identity, such was the case for Stan Lee himself as his name was a pseudonym that he later adopted as his own. It could be so that the focus is on the art itself, instead of the person behind it. It can also be used to protect themselves from potential confrontations if their art is controversial depending on the content or the place its published. On the other hand, I can see why some go against the concept of anonymity in regard to their forms of art as some would want people to understand them to better understand the art for themselves. Some cases, it would be mandatory depending on the art form, as acting on screen or on stage would require a physical presence in which would give a public appearance. Another reason why that is so they could put themselves out there to expand their artistic careers and capabilities. Ultimately, it is up to the artist themselves to choose whatever to conceal or reveal their identity along with their art for whatever reason that they may choose. It could be personal, or business-relation, or otherwise.

By Maddie Whiting

“The highest as the lowest form of criticism is a mode of autobiography.” – Oscar Wilde

The Aphorism, “The highest as the lowest form of criticism is a mode of autobiography” stands out to me in relation to the 1986 film Stand By Me directed by Rob Reiner, inspired by Stephen King’s book The Body. I’ve seen this film a number of times over the years. The first time I ever watched it was with my family as a kid, when my dad picked it out for us to watch. The film is about a group of young boys living in a small town who go on an adventure in the woods to search for the body of a missing boy in their small town. I remember heavily criticizing it upon the first watch, it was too gory and masculine for my taste. At the time, I didn’t watch films with the intent to overanalyze them, I took them at surface-level value for what they were. My younger brothers, on the other hand, loved Stand By Me. I interpret Oscar Wilde’s phase as a declaration that when people interpret or criticize art, in a way, they’re revealing more about themselves than the art itself. Oftentimes, personal experiences play a significant role in the way we relate to art and how we discuss it. 

Years later, in high school, my sophomore year English class watched Stand By Me. After the second time watching it, I felt as though I had seen a completely different film than the one I’d seen years ago. This was a film about the loss of childhood innocence, the significance of friendships made at a young age, and how they have the power to change the trajectory of our lives. In the film, there are four boys in the friend group, and two of them end up making it out of their small town when they grow up, while the other two do not. Having experienced more of life and my childhood, the way I critiqued this film was entirely different than before. Nothing is perfect, but I had very few bad things to say about the film. This relates to the aphorism because the way the film made me feel about my own life experiences impacted how much I related to it and therefore enjoyed it. When I asked my close friends in our class if they enjoyed it, they told me that they did not. This is them sharing an aspect of who they are, meaning that perhaps they did not relate to the film as much as I did, or did not connect to the characters, whereas I was able to compare some of them to real people in my life.

The last time I watched the film was this year, and it had the biggest impact on me yet. I believe this to be true because of my personal life, learning to experience and accept loss, in relation to the ending of Stand By Me. I somewhat agree with Oscar Wilde’s statement, but can also understand that professional critics are meant to be objective, having no personal opinions sway their views on a work of art. But, it’s extremely difficult not to let our past, the way we were raised, and our morals dictate the way that we critique, or do not critique, a work of art.