If the desolation of art involves its ultimate dependence, that dependence in turn allows Keats to discover art's corresponding usefulness, why it is "a friend to man" (Keesey 115).
Art depends on man, man depends on art. This is something warm and happy, and makes you want to smile. Seriously, I liked this essay more than some. The point that stuck to me was this idea of dependence that Mr. Kent brought up. This idea that art is dependent on man is so simple that at first I didn't even think twice about. Then it smacked in the face and I was stuck thinking, "duh". Everything has artistic merit, it just does because man can give it. art exists because there is an audience for it, that audience is man. I really like this. I liked the way Kent broke down the overlooked third stanza, I thought he was more to the point than Mr. McDonald, but thats my opinion. But the closing got me. I agree with his idea of art being dependent. Why not? How can art be independent? I do not think it can.
Comments (1)
I just answered this question on Jay's blog! I agree with you that art is dependant on whoever is looking at it to make it so. Just think, for instance, the manuscript written by an author that just sits in a closet and is never seen by another set of eyes other than the author. Is that art (or litersture as the case may be)?
I also liked the way that the third stanza was broken down. The part that stuck me the most about that stanza was the transition that occurs in the stanza. I never noticed that before until it was pointed out to me. Great obswervations!
Posted by Tiffany | February 20, 2007 4:39 PM
Posted on February 20, 2007 16:39