What I understand to mean by the term “aesthetic of violence” is giving form, shape and meaning to violence, which in turn, attempts to rationalize and intellectualize what would otherwise be considered an irrational and intangible act.
Irrational because violence begets violence. There is a sort of senselessness in the cycle of violence in Fanon’s essay; “Terror, counter-terror, violence, counter-violence”. (47) An endless chain of reactions with no end in sight. This irrationality of violence is further reiterated when Fanon states that “colonialism is not a machine capable of thinking, a body endowed with reason. It is naked violence and only gives in when confronted with greater violence.” (23)
The intangibility of violence arises from its close alliance to the almost primal instincts of Man- “the colonized’s way of relaxing is precisely this muscular orgy during which the most brutal aggressiveness and impulsive violence are channeled, transformed and spirited away.” (19) Here, violence is seen as a raw impulse that escapes the bodily confines.
Modernism, in its attempts of representations and re-presentations, proceeds in a similar fashion with the aestheticizing of violence, in the sense that both seek to give form to something, which ultimately, lies beyond our grasp. There are countless blog posts about polyphonic voices and the “knowability” of things which touch on this particular aspect of modernism adequately. What I would like to add, is perhaps for us to consider Plato’s Theory of Forms (my very basic understanding of the theory, might I add, through past class seminars) into our discussion on Modernism. This is particularly so, when dealing with Forster’s A Passage to India and the notions of a “real” India (interestingly enough- all countries start with a capitalized letter). Simplifying his theory- it basically states that all objects that we see are mere copies/imitations/shadows of an original. This implies that what we perceive are mere representations of the Real- which is precisely why the “real” India eludes Adela or Mrs Moore.
Irrational because violence begets violence. There is a sort of senselessness in the cycle of violence in Fanon’s essay; “Terror, counter-terror, violence, counter-violence”. (47) An endless chain of reactions with no end in sight. This irrationality of violence is further reiterated when Fanon states that “colonialism is not a machine capable of thinking, a body endowed with reason. It is naked violence and only gives in when confronted with greater violence.” (23)
The intangibility of violence arises from its close alliance to the almost primal instincts of Man- “the colonized’s way of relaxing is precisely this muscular orgy during which the most brutal aggressiveness and impulsive violence are channeled, transformed and spirited away.” (19) Here, violence is seen as a raw impulse that escapes the bodily confines.
Modernism, in its attempts of representations and re-presentations, proceeds in a similar fashion with the aestheticizing of violence, in the sense that both seek to give form to something, which ultimately, lies beyond our grasp. There are countless blog posts about polyphonic voices and the “knowability” of things which touch on this particular aspect of modernism adequately. What I would like to add, is perhaps for us to consider Plato’s Theory of Forms (my very basic understanding of the theory, might I add, through past class seminars) into our discussion on Modernism. This is particularly so, when dealing with Forster’s A Passage to India and the notions of a “real” India (interestingly enough- all countries start with a capitalized letter). Simplifying his theory- it basically states that all objects that we see are mere copies/imitations/shadows of an original. This implies that what we perceive are mere representations of the Real- which is precisely why the “real” India eludes Adela or Mrs Moore.
(Side note: I find the idea of echoes within Forster's text particularly interesting with regards to this. An echo is a reflection/mimicry of the original sound. The echoes made in the Marabar Caves are however, unrecognizable as it sounds nothing like the original- a resounding "boum". This makes it all the more disconcerting to Mrs Moore and to me as well. And yet, I can't wrap my mind around the idea of why Forster makes the echoes as such- existential anxieties aside?)
Is it safe to suggest then, that it is with a certain sense of self-awareness that modernist writings take to only presenting traces of that which lies beyond our perception in the first place?
Posts
2 comments:
Violence is a given in any practise of art. Given, as all art is complicit with the idea of representation. There can be no art that is not at some level sensed or experienced.
- Yisa
Check plus
Post a Comment