I have been chewing on a similar set of ideas for a piece I'm working on, specifically related to writers. This reminds me of a passage in /Normal People/ where Connell attends a book reading and feels sickened by how literature "is fetishised for its ability to take educated people on false emotional journeys, so that they might afterwards feel superior to the uneducated people whose emotional journey they like to read about."
When asked about this in an interview, Rooney says that there's a part of her that will never feel happy knowing she's just writing entertainment and "making decorative aesthetic objects at a time of historical crisis." But, she says this is THE one thing she's good at and that she *can't* do anything else. This highlights to me an interesting tension between being aware of the exploitation (this doesn't feel like quite the right word, but I can't think of anything else right now) and the tendency to keep making art about the world.
ughhhh this is so well put! taking educated people on false emotional journeys, so that they might afterwards feel superior to the uneducated people whose emotional journey they enjoy. it feels warranted to dive into your own traumas but not so much into the traumas you haven’t experienced yourself. but then again - diving into those traumas is what makes you empathetic and human. such a fine line between all these things!
totally love how you put ‘This highlights to me an interesting tension between being aware of the exploitation (this doesn't feel like quite the right word, but I can't think of anything else right now) and the tendency to keep making art about the world’ — as a writer, as a human, we reach into our own trauma and experiences of marginalisation perhaps to better understand others’, in some way pre-empting the desired impact of our own art. But the more we do so, the more fraught that tension grows, the more we empathise, the more we grow wary of that empathy being sympathy in disguise. Exploitation masquerading as homage.
Perhaps leaning into what Kissick says in the essay Viktoriia directed us to, maybe the way forward is not to be overwhelmed by this cerebral approach (ie: the existential tension a writer in the priveleged position of worrying over these things has, a constant analysis of the give and take between portrayer and portrayed) but to exist and create in good faith and with the genuine desire to amplify, humanise and celebrate those who you portray. My tutor at university always asks, ‘who are you writing for?’ And while he probably is speaking in terms of the market but I also want to think of those who would read our work and feel seen, uplifted. To let the heart take the reins for a little while — which perhaps is a little bomenian, but I mean to lean into the tendencies through which we create “deranged” art — to allow that authenticity and genuine love for others to come through. Which sounds a great deal nicer than it is easy and at the same time, we cannot create art without considering its impacts beyond something as elusive as what we deem to be human connection. These things require deftness and delicateness, which in turn demands a degree of consideration of the portrayer and the portrayed.
So maybe I’m writing myself in circles here, I just wanted to chime in because Buket’s comment and Viktoriia’s essay were so thought provoking and I know I’m going to be mulling over this sort of thing forever, as long as I have the fortune to create ♥️
I have been chewing on a similar set of ideas for a piece I'm working on, specifically related to writers. This reminds me of a passage in /Normal People/ where Connell attends a book reading and feels sickened by how literature "is fetishised for its ability to take educated people on false emotional journeys, so that they might afterwards feel superior to the uneducated people whose emotional journey they like to read about."
When asked about this in an interview, Rooney says that there's a part of her that will never feel happy knowing she's just writing entertainment and "making decorative aesthetic objects at a time of historical crisis." But, she says this is THE one thing she's good at and that she *can't* do anything else. This highlights to me an interesting tension between being aware of the exploitation (this doesn't feel like quite the right word, but I can't think of anything else right now) and the tendency to keep making art about the world.
ughhhh this is so well put! taking educated people on false emotional journeys, so that they might afterwards feel superior to the uneducated people whose emotional journey they enjoy. it feels warranted to dive into your own traumas but not so much into the traumas you haven’t experienced yourself. but then again - diving into those traumas is what makes you empathetic and human. such a fine line between all these things!
totally love how you put ‘This highlights to me an interesting tension between being aware of the exploitation (this doesn't feel like quite the right word, but I can't think of anything else right now) and the tendency to keep making art about the world’ — as a writer, as a human, we reach into our own trauma and experiences of marginalisation perhaps to better understand others’, in some way pre-empting the desired impact of our own art. But the more we do so, the more fraught that tension grows, the more we empathise, the more we grow wary of that empathy being sympathy in disguise. Exploitation masquerading as homage.
Perhaps leaning into what Kissick says in the essay Viktoriia directed us to, maybe the way forward is not to be overwhelmed by this cerebral approach (ie: the existential tension a writer in the priveleged position of worrying over these things has, a constant analysis of the give and take between portrayer and portrayed) but to exist and create in good faith and with the genuine desire to amplify, humanise and celebrate those who you portray. My tutor at university always asks, ‘who are you writing for?’ And while he probably is speaking in terms of the market but I also want to think of those who would read our work and feel seen, uplifted. To let the heart take the reins for a little while — which perhaps is a little bomenian, but I mean to lean into the tendencies through which we create “deranged” art — to allow that authenticity and genuine love for others to come through. Which sounds a great deal nicer than it is easy and at the same time, we cannot create art without considering its impacts beyond something as elusive as what we deem to be human connection. These things require deftness and delicateness, which in turn demands a degree of consideration of the portrayer and the portrayed.
So maybe I’m writing myself in circles here, I just wanted to chime in because Buket’s comment and Viktoriia’s essay were so thought provoking and I know I’m going to be mulling over this sort of thing forever, as long as I have the fortune to create ♥️
'who are you writing for?' is such a great question to ask yourself!!
Reminds me of Sally Mann’s photographs which were also considered so controversial and poverty porn.
yeaaa read a lot of think pieces about her while working on this