08 April 2009

Rush Write 3.23 (on 4.08)

In response to this post:

1. Artists gratify men’s urge for immortality by demonstrating that it is possible. An artist may not necessarily capture my visage in oils, or my deeds in verse, etc. (let alone become famous enough to make his rendering of me known to the world). However. The fact that some Italian lady who once sat for Da Vinci can capture the heart of the world, inspire songs, and cause all to bemusedly wonder about her smirk, that tells me that some of us are immortal. That some of us do live forever. And if it’s possible for some Italian lady, then why not me? Why not all of us?

2. “Joyce” is telling us that Homer’s art (specifically the Iliad and the Odyssey) , and the myriad works of art that it inspired did more to preserve the memory of Troy and the war that brought Greece to it than any formal history ever did. That without Homer’s works, Troy would be insignificant and unremembered. I must agree. What other evidence do we have, aside from ruins that were only discovered and identified centuries after the fact and recognized because we knew what Homer told us?

3. I would say that according to “Joyce,” Homer’s telling of the Trojan War is even more valuable/valid because of its inaccuracies. And here I mostly agree with him. The inaccuracies are, arguably, the artistic license of Homer. The myths that are mixed with the history are the things that enrich us, in “Joyce’s” view. The embellishments of Ulysses’ character are what make us relate to him and treasure his tale. Accuracy may affect a work of art’s value as a history, but since when has historical worth been the ultimate standard of value?

No comments: