http://blog.escdotdot.com/2007/02/01/creative-journal%E2%80%94roland-barthes-and-pierre-bourdieu%E2%80%94the-death-of-the-author/
This blogger discusses some of Barthes' concepts from "The Death of the Author." One concept I find interesting is the idea that when a "scriptor" engages in the process of writing, he/she is not creating, but performing.
This makes me think about the act of improvising. I always thought of improvisation as taking what you know and creating something new from it. For example, a guitarist works off of scales to create unique solos, incorporating styles from familiar styles of music and favorite songs. Barthes would say that the guitar solo is not an expression of the guitarist, but rather a mixture of sources from the "immense dictionary" (R&W, 187) of the guitarist.
I understand that a new creation is hardly and rarely new. Everything is influenced by a plethora of sources (overdetermination). However, I don't really understand how producing something that has never been produced in the past is not creating something new. Guitarists create new solos all the time...they are obviously similar to what influenced them, but the specific arrangement of notes and the rhythm is a new combination. Poets are of course influenced by past works, but they create poems that have never been written before.
I think Barthes would argue that a new poem is a new combination, but not a new creation. And the poet merely put things into a novel combination, as opposed to creating something outside of influences. So going back to improvisation, I think Barthes would say that the end result may be something new, but the improvisor did not choose the way it came out.
Yet, as much as I agree with that, I still can't fully accept that there isn't some degree of creativity. After all, not just any new combination of words makes a good poem, just as not just any new combo of notes makes a good guitar solo. The artist still retains some control over the end product. What I am writing right now is largely influenced by many factors, but I (as in the overall system of all that makes up my physiology and psychology...as opposed to the "I" of the constructed self) am choosing how to use what is influencing me to create what is being written. So I think that writing is performance, yes, but there is also creativity involved.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
i suppose i just don't agree with the word "performance" to describe the creative process. a performance implies that the action is carried out for the entertainment of others... and while i understand that authors want to be read, writing is so personal in my opinion that i just can't accept it being called a performance.
i'm by no means arguing with your use of the word.. this is just something that popped into my head that i'm having a hard time accepting; though i understand it.
The word was used by Barthes, which is why I used it...and to an extent I agree that writing is personal, but writing for publication is writing that is intended for an audience, intended for entertainment, which is indeed a type of performance. And even writing not intended for publication is probably going to be read by someone (except for a diary or something along those lines), so in a sense a writer is always thinking about how his/her writing will be received by the "other."
Post a Comment