Showing papers on "Realism published in 1968"

The Dehumanization of Art and Other Essays on Art, Culture, and Literature

Abstract: No work of Spanish philosopher and essayist Jose Ortega y Gasset has been more frequently cited, admired, or criticized than his defense of modernism, "The Dehumanization of Art." In the essay, originally published in Spanish in 1925, Ortega grappled philosophically with the newness of nonrepresentational art and sought to make it more understandable to a public confused by it. Many embraced the essay as a manifesto extolling the virtues of vanguard artists and promoting their efforts to abandon the realism and the romanticism of the nineteenth century. The "dehumanization" of the title, which was meant descriptively rather than pejoratively, referred most literally to the absence of human forms in nonrepresentational art, but also to its insistent unpopularity, its indifference to the past, and its iconoclasm. Ortega championed what he saw as a new cultural politics with the goal of a total transformation of society. Ortega was an immensely gifted writer in the best belletristic tradition. His work has been compared to an iceberg because it hides the critical mass of its erudition beneath the surface, and because it is deceptive, appearing to be more spontaneous and informal than it really is. Princeton published the first English translation of the essay paired with another entitled "Notes on the Novel." Three essays were later added to make an expanded edition, published in 1968, under the title The Dehumanization of Art and Other Essays on Art, Culture and Literature .

The Originality of Terence and his Greek Models

Abstract: Terence’s use of Greek originals was careful and original, and less aimed at sentimentality or at realism than has been thought.

Realism of Aspiration Levels in Indian and American College Students

Abstract: (1968). Realism of Aspiration Levels in Indian and American College Students. The Journal of Social Psychology: Vol. 75, No. 2, pp. 169-173.

Symbol and Metaphor in the Transformation of Reality into Art

Abstract: LL DEFINITIONS of reality can be classified in three groups: (1) Reality is that which exists independent of man and remains largely beyond even man's potential perception of it; the object exists irrespective of the subject. (2) Reality is that which exists independent of man, but is meaningful only if perceived or is potentially perceivable; the object and subject are engaged in a transactional or dialectical relationship. (3) Reality is man's internal construct; the subject exists irrespective of object. Few sophisticated persons are any longer totally committed to the purely metaphysical position (which, even if true, is irrelevant) or to the solipsistic (which is impossible). But it is surprising how often contemporary thinkers ostensibly committed to the transactional position push it toward either extremethe purely physical or the purely idealistic. In this paper, I want to discuss the theories of two of the most prominent contemporary realists, Georg Lukacs and Alain Robbe-Grillet, in order to point out some of their distortions of the transactional position. And I wish also to show how various philosophers, psychologists, and poets regard the transactional position to be the most viable one for literary art. Rene Wellek has recently observed that "the discussion of the concept of realism is today again topical," and he attributes the revival of the issue chiefly to Georg Lukacs, whose literary credo he judges to be "the most coherent theory of realism: it starts with the Marxist dogma that literature is a 'reflection of reality' and that it will be the truest mirror... if the author shows an insight into the structure of

The Political Scientist and Popular Political Fallacies

Abstract: T IS ALWAYS difficult to speak with proper judicial balance concerning either an institution or a profession with which one is deeply identified. One is somewhat in the position of the monk at an obscure monastery in France, who was showing a visitor from the United States about and endeavoring to explain with due modesty the characteristics of his order. "We're not as famous for our scholarship as the Jesuits," he said rather haltingly, "or as the Trappists for our silence and good works but, when it comes to humility, we're the tops." I do not happen to be one of those who views Political Science as being in quite such a low estate as some of our colleagues are fond of doing, but no doubt all of us have certain goals, approaches, or emphases we would wish to see given greater attention. It would be my contention that political scientists know a great deal more about political behavior, motivations, processes, etc., than the public has any real awareness of, or than we ourselves commonly concede. We, of course, are the most conscious of the shortcomings; of the unexplored or inadequately explored vistas. But we have gone to extremes in selling ourselves and our profession short. Collectively we possess a notable fund of information and potential for the guidance of public action, often more appreciated by knowledgeable persons outside the profession than within it. It is surely not perfect, nor unchanging but neither are the current positions of the physicists. Both may be feasible bases of action at least until more advanced investigation results in modifications that are persuasive as a slightly closer approximation of ultimate truth. If we are to await perfection before seriously advancing our ideas, it is likely to be a long wait, and none of us really operates on that principle in practice. It is no derogation of the obvious need for continuing and greatly improved research to suggest that we do a better job of teaching, in the very broad context I have implied. One small facet is my concern today. We whose professional lives are devoted to study, teaching, and writing about politics commonly agree that one of our purposes is helping those whom we reach to achieve a greater depth and realism of understanding of political processes and behavior. I would argue that one of the too frequently neglected ways of advancing this social realism about politics lies in each of us assuming responsibility, both in our teaching and in public utterances, for demolishing wherever possible some of the multitude of popular fallacies that so permeate American thinking in this field. It is of course obvious that there will not be universal agreement among us about the nature of these fallacies, yet I suspect that a remarkably high degree of such agreement is perfectly possible. In any case each individual will be guided by his own wisdom and understanding. It is, after all, one of the obligations of a professor to profess his beliefs, hopefully arrived at through serious thought and the

Georg Lukacs: The Problems of Dialectical Criticism

Abstract: In the entire history of literary criticism, it is doubtful whether any professional critic has tried to circumscribe literature within such radically narrow limits as those set down by the Hungarian critic Georg Lukacs.1 The literary achievements of the past, the aspirations of the present and future have been, are, and will be the result of a single mode, realism,2 and, to all intents and purposes, a single genre, the novel. Moreover, so far as the achievements of the past are concerned, there are only a very few authors who can be truly said to have realized the critical ideals espoused by Lukacs. Among the authors of the last century and a half, these giants include only Scott, Balzac, Tolstoy, Mann, and to a lesser degree Goethe, Keller, Stendhal, Dostoevsky, and Gorky. The historical, personal, and intellectual reasons underlying Lukacs' espousal of so circumscribed a critical system have been traced by Peter Demetz in his excellent book, Marx, Engels, and the Poets,3

Censorship and Buero Vallejo’s Social Consciousness

Abstract: In the January, 1965, issue of the UNESCO publication, World Theatre, the editors invited the world’s leading dramatists and directors to contribute their thoughts to an open forum on the problems of realism and reality in the theatre. Among the Spanish dramatists to respond in the following issue, was Antonio Buero Vallejo, now considered the logical successor to the late Alejandro Casona as Spain’s foremost living playwright. In the concluding statement of his reply, Buero suggests that more important than the portrayal of reality in the theatre, is that of human problems and suffering: “Another of my interests is to reexamine problems that have never been properly solved. What interests me above all is the relationship between necessity and freedom and for this reason my plays are often tentative tragedies in suspense. Above all, I am interested in my country and in its sufferings and problems.”1