bamdad's review against another edition
4.0
حقیقتا نمیدونم از کجا شروع کنم برای نوشتن درباره این کتاب فوق العاده برای همین احتمالا با نظر بی نظمی رو به رو خواهید شد که به خاطر تنبلی بنده بعد از نوشتنش هم قطعا حوصله نخواهم داشت که مرتبش کنم.
من مدت زمان نسبتا زیادی در حال مطالعه این کتاب بودم به شکلی که بین مطالعه این کتاب جلد اول دن کیشوت با یکی دوتا کتاب دیگه رو هم خوندم. بیشتر هم به خاطر این بود که دوست داشتم به مطالبی که خوندم بتونم بیشتر فکر کنم و صرفا برای من هر چی پروسه ی خوندن یه کتابی طولانی میشه و براش خیلی وقت میذارم یه حس نزدیکی عجیبی به اون کتاب و نویسنده اش پیدا می کنم و الان یه ذره ناراحتم که کتاب تموم شد چون یه حس اعتیادی پیدا کردم به خوندن مطالب سوزان سانتاگ و قطعا سراغ باقی نوشته هاش خواهم رفت.
و می تونم بگم که این کتاب باعث ایجاد تغییرات زیادی روی دیدگاهم نسبت به هنر شد و قطعا اون آدم قبلی با اون زاویه نگاه قبل نیستم و حتی فهمیدم یا قانع شدم چه قدر در اشتباه بودم.
همینطور توی این کتاب ارجاعات فراوانی وجود داره که جستجو و پیدا کردن این مطالب و فیلم ها خودش جذابیت کاملا جداگانه ای از کتاب برای من داشت و فکر می کنم یکی از خوبی های این کتاب دقیقا همین مسئله است ولی خب تعداد قابل توجه ای از کتاب هایی که خانم سانتاگ توی این کتاب بهش اشاره می کنه ترجمه نشدن متاسفانه.
اگر به سراغ این کتاب برید احتمالا به تعدادی اسی برخورد می کنید که شاید به نظرتون بی ربط بیاد و فکر کنید خوندشون خیلی فایده ای نخواهد داشت، البته شاید واقعا هم همینطور باشه اما برای من شیوه ی نوشتن و نوع نگاه سانتاگ به خودی خود به شدت جذاب بود البته قطعا کتابی هست که نمی تونم بگم کاملا فهمیدمش و بارها بهش بعد از دیدن و خوندن ارجاعاتش باز خواهم گشت و دوباره مطالعه اش می کنم.
در کل کتابی هست که دست گرفتنش، خوندنش و زیر جمله هاش کشیدن و همینطور باز تکرار می کنم مراجعه به ارجاعات کتاب به شدت جذابه. مثلا من خودم مستند شب و مه آلن رنه رو بعد از خوندن اسمش توی این کتاب دیدم و به شدت لذت بردم همینطور باعث شد که بخوام دوباره فیلم هیروشیما عشق من به همراه دو تا فیلم دیگه از همین کارگردان رو با نگاه نسبتا جدید و شاید دقیق تری ببینم به همراه خیلی از فیلم ها و کتاب های دیگه.
فکر کنم خیلی هم بی نظم نشد.
4.5
من مدت زمان نسبتا زیادی در حال مطالعه این کتاب بودم به شکلی که بین مطالعه این کتاب جلد اول دن کیشوت با یکی دوتا کتاب دیگه رو هم خوندم. بیشتر هم به خاطر این بود که دوست داشتم به مطالبی که خوندم بتونم بیشتر فکر کنم و صرفا برای من هر چی پروسه ی خوندن یه کتابی طولانی میشه و براش خیلی وقت میذارم یه حس نزدیکی عجیبی به اون کتاب و نویسنده اش پیدا می کنم و الان یه ذره ناراحتم که کتاب تموم شد چون یه حس اعتیادی پیدا کردم به خوندن مطالب سوزان سانتاگ و قطعا سراغ باقی نوشته هاش خواهم رفت.
و می تونم بگم که این کتاب باعث ایجاد تغییرات زیادی روی دیدگاهم نسبت به هنر شد و قطعا اون آدم قبلی با اون زاویه نگاه قبل نیستم و حتی فهمیدم یا قانع شدم چه قدر در اشتباه بودم.
همینطور توی این کتاب ارجاعات فراوانی وجود داره که جستجو و پیدا کردن این مطالب و فیلم ها خودش جذابیت کاملا جداگانه ای از کتاب برای من داشت و فکر می کنم یکی از خوبی های این کتاب دقیقا همین مسئله است ولی خب تعداد قابل توجه ای از کتاب هایی که خانم سانتاگ توی این کتاب بهش اشاره می کنه ترجمه نشدن متاسفانه.
اگر به سراغ این کتاب برید احتمالا به تعدادی اسی برخورد می کنید که شاید به نظرتون بی ربط بیاد و فکر کنید خوندشون خیلی فایده ای نخواهد داشت، البته شاید واقعا هم همینطور باشه اما برای من شیوه ی نوشتن و نوع نگاه سانتاگ به خودی خود به شدت جذاب بود البته قطعا کتابی هست که نمی تونم بگم کاملا فهمیدمش و بارها بهش بعد از دیدن و خوندن ارجاعاتش باز خواهم گشت و دوباره مطالعه اش می کنم.
در کل کتابی هست که دست گرفتنش، خوندنش و زیر جمله هاش کشیدن و همینطور باز تکرار می کنم مراجعه به ارجاعات کتاب به شدت جذابه. مثلا من خودم مستند شب و مه آلن رنه رو بعد از خوندن اسمش توی این کتاب دیدم و به شدت لذت بردم همینطور باعث شد که بخوام دوباره فیلم هیروشیما عشق من به همراه دو تا فیلم دیگه از همین کارگردان رو با نگاه نسبتا جدید و شاید دقیق تری ببینم به همراه خیلی از فیلم ها و کتاب های دیگه.
فکر کنم خیلی هم بی نظم نشد.
4.5
maeveaickin's review against another edition
challenging
funny
informative
reflective
slow-paced
"An approach which considers works of art as living, autonomous models of consciousness will seem objectionable only so long as we refuse to surrender the shallow distinction of form and content. For the sense in which a work of art has no content is no different from the sense in which the world has no content. Both are. Both need no justification; nor could they possibly have any."
aristosakaion's review against another edition
5.0
absolutely in love with sontag and her writing and her essays, and the last leg of criticisms made me swoon over everything. the postscript, written 30 years later, is absolutely breathtaking. i've quoted sontag multiple times and i take to heart the structure of her arguments, how convincing they are, how much it propels you to encircle her syntax with the tip of a pencil. i'll definitely pick it up and its entirety again. along with didion, sontag is one of the most compelling 60s writers of anerica.
notmckinzie's review against another edition
informative
reflective
slow-paced
5.0
Wouldn’t recommend for anyone not familiar with Sontag’s writing or any interest in the topics covered, but I had a great time! If you’re like me, you’ll love this.
exhausted_hedgewitch's review against another edition
Of particular note: 'Against interpretation', 'On style', 'Nathalie Sarraute and the novel', 'Spiritual style in the films of Robert Bresson', 'Piety without content', 'Happenings: am art of radical juxtaposition', 'Notes on "Camp"', 'One culture and the new sensibility'.
I highly recommend that all readers who do not have the 1996 Afterword in their edition seek it out.
I highly recommend that all readers who do not have the 1996 Afterword in their edition seek it out.
gvenezia's review against another edition
4.0
Sontag’s Evergreen—If Overstated—Aesthetic Sense
The famous essays bookending this 1966 collection are still relevant to the way art, literature, and aesthetics are currently talked about, especially in pop culture.
I immediately recognized in “Against Interpretation” a persistent obsession in the current art world: meaning which can (and should) be interpreted from every element of an artwork (example: X element stands for the author’s Y, Z element stands for the culture’s oppression of minority A). Sontag makes a compelling case for a more immediate and ineffable stance towards art, if not to supplant interpretation than at least to offer an alternative and an escape from the obsession with represented meaning that we’ve inherited from traditional, representational art. At the same time, I had a time picturing what this ineffable, immediate response and criticism of art would look like. Sontag does give us general examples in several artists and works, but she doesn’t do any criticism of these examples or pull out specific instances of what she is talking about. I was left uncertain what would differentiate high art and low art when approaching artworks as immediate objects of sensory perception. I thought Sontag might have in mind the technicality of a work or extension of a form or practice, but she ends the essay calling for an erotics of art—which suggested the opposite of analytic, dry description and perplexed me even further. Regardless, the fact that I read the essay twice, and was challenged in different ways each time points to Sontag’s incisive critical eye.
“On Style” argues for a more cohesive understanding of form and content. Style or form is an inevitable part of a work and critics who ignore it by focusing primarily on content miss vital aspects of what the author is trying to convey.
One stylistic choice that bothered me in these two opening essays was Sontag’s very strong opinions about debates that seemed more nuanced or complex to me. In both she rails against generalized, opposing views which seem oversimplified. Even though much of the art world has been concerned with interpretation and content over style, I think she would need more support to claim that this view is over-represented (especially given the ambiguity in her prescriptions, as I described above). Her arguments also weaken when straying from the field of aesthetics—like ethics: her view doesn’t seem couched in an established ethical view and there is no attempt to acknowledge why this departure is justified (and for my part as someone well-versed in the history of moral philosophy, Sontag’s ethics seems an unusual and unsustainable one).
In contrast, the closing essay “Notes on ‘Camp'” is without fault. Sontag aesthetic taxonomy here is extremely prescient given the rise of camp gay culture and the Millenial and Gen Z subcultures obsessed with reappraising the sincerely bad and over-the-top as aesthetically good and laudatory. Sontag spells out several intricate aspects of the aesthetic sense and contrasts it with Modernism and postmodernism. Plus, she gives copious examples for further investigation ;)
The penultimate essay, "One culture and the new sensibility," also sketches out an important development in the arts, although more ambiguous and difficult to assess than "camp." Sontag uses the traditional distinction between the arts and science/technology to argue that the "new sensibility" exemplified by the work of John Cage, Buckminster Fuller, Marshal McCluhan, Roland Barthes, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Artaud, etc. are more influenced by advances in science and technology and "cold" disciplines than by the previous "warm" sensibility of literature, Romanticism, and early Modernism.
The lesser-known essays filling the middle of the collection too often explore the minutiae of theatre production in the 1960’s. I still found these essays to be enjoyable because of Sontag’s style, but after a while I felt I wasn’t getting anything out of references to recent productions of X, Y, and Z by directors A, B, and C. To be fair, there are also essays about existentialist novels, famous arthouse film directors, and other references to important mid-century art works. And there are more general critical insights scattered throughout. For example, in “The artist as exemplary sufferer” Sontag diagnoses a deeper problem with the West’s infatuatation with romantic love:
However, these middle essays serve best as critical reviews of works the reader is already familiar with. There isn’t enough exposition to understand what’s at stake in the individual work or the discipline otherwise.
Regardless, Sontag’s voice and aesthetic sense remains acute and original throughout. Although she does occasionally overstep measured critique with oversimplifications and idiosyncratic taste, her perspective in each essay remains worthy of consideration and application to our present moment.
The famous essays bookending this 1966 collection are still relevant to the way art, literature, and aesthetics are currently talked about, especially in pop culture.
I immediately recognized in “Against Interpretation” a persistent obsession in the current art world: meaning which can (and should) be interpreted from every element of an artwork (example: X element stands for the author’s Y, Z element stands for the culture’s oppression of minority A). Sontag makes a compelling case for a more immediate and ineffable stance towards art, if not to supplant interpretation than at least to offer an alternative and an escape from the obsession with represented meaning that we’ve inherited from traditional, representational art. At the same time, I had a time picturing what this ineffable, immediate response and criticism of art would look like. Sontag does give us general examples in several artists and works, but she doesn’t do any criticism of these examples or pull out specific instances of what she is talking about. I was left uncertain what would differentiate high art and low art when approaching artworks as immediate objects of sensory perception. I thought Sontag might have in mind the technicality of a work or extension of a form or practice, but she ends the essay calling for an erotics of art—which suggested the opposite of analytic, dry description and perplexed me even further. Regardless, the fact that I read the essay twice, and was challenged in different ways each time points to Sontag’s incisive critical eye.
“On Style” argues for a more cohesive understanding of form and content. Style or form is an inevitable part of a work and critics who ignore it by focusing primarily on content miss vital aspects of what the author is trying to convey.
One stylistic choice that bothered me in these two opening essays was Sontag’s very strong opinions about debates that seemed more nuanced or complex to me. In both she rails against generalized, opposing views which seem oversimplified. Even though much of the art world has been concerned with interpretation and content over style, I think she would need more support to claim that this view is over-represented (especially given the ambiguity in her prescriptions, as I described above). Her arguments also weaken when straying from the field of aesthetics—like ethics: her view doesn’t seem couched in an established ethical view and there is no attempt to acknowledge why this departure is justified (and for my part as someone well-versed in the history of moral philosophy, Sontag’s ethics seems an unusual and unsustainable one).
In contrast, the closing essay “Notes on ‘Camp'” is without fault. Sontag aesthetic taxonomy here is extremely prescient given the rise of camp gay culture and the Millenial and Gen Z subcultures obsessed with reappraising the sincerely bad and over-the-top as aesthetically good and laudatory. Sontag spells out several intricate aspects of the aesthetic sense and contrasts it with Modernism and postmodernism. Plus, she gives copious examples for further investigation ;)
The penultimate essay, "One culture and the new sensibility," also sketches out an important development in the arts, although more ambiguous and difficult to assess than "camp." Sontag uses the traditional distinction between the arts and science/technology to argue that the "new sensibility" exemplified by the work of John Cage, Buckminster Fuller, Marshal McCluhan, Roland Barthes, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Artaud, etc. are more influenced by advances in science and technology and "cold" disciplines than by the previous "warm" sensibility of literature, Romanticism, and early Modernism.
The lesser-known essays filling the middle of the collection too often explore the minutiae of theatre production in the 1960’s. I still found these essays to be enjoyable because of Sontag’s style, but after a while I felt I wasn’t getting anything out of references to recent productions of X, Y, and Z by directors A, B, and C. To be fair, there are also essays about existentialist novels, famous arthouse film directors, and other references to important mid-century art works. And there are more general critical insights scattered throughout. For example, in “The artist as exemplary sufferer” Sontag diagnoses a deeper problem with the West’s infatuatation with romantic love:
For 2000 years among Christians and Jews it has been spiritually fashionable to be in pain. Thus, it is not love which we overvalue but suffering. More precisely, the spiritual merits and benefits of suffering.
However, these middle essays serve best as critical reviews of works the reader is already familiar with. There isn’t enough exposition to understand what’s at stake in the individual work or the discipline otherwise.
Regardless, Sontag’s voice and aesthetic sense remains acute and original throughout. Although she does occasionally overstep measured critique with oversimplifications and idiosyncratic taste, her perspective in each essay remains worthy of consideration and application to our present moment.