Contextual Criticism

Okay, so Hamlet's all well and good, but what if it was set in SPACE?!?! Or what if Odysseus were Japanese? Would the Christ story be as significant if it had occurred in colonial America? 

For those of you who don't know, I'm currently in a production of Macbeth at Baylor University. Our iteration is set in a vague modern era. The swordfights are played out with katanas. Duncan wears a leather trench coat and aviators. All in all, it's a very hip, cool, artsy concept.

But is it valid? 

Shakespeare's contemporary actors would have worn fancier versions of their everyday Elizabethan garb and would have used few if any set pieces. The Bard obviously never intended for his play to be reinterpreted in this way, which raises interesting questions regarding the relationship between artists and their work. Should authorial intent guide our understanding of art, or should each play, painting, song, etc. stand alone and be endowed with meaning by the viewer?

I've never been a huge proponent of modern art. In general, I think it assumes too much about the obscurity of meaning and opens the door to purposeless imitations of true artistic depth. That being said, I accept the postmodern notion that an artist's work is larger than the artist and assumes an identity all its own. 

Once again, I'm going to take the moderate position on this issue. I respect those who incorporate other works into their art. Iphigenia 2.0 by Charles Mee (which was performed at Baylor last year) is an excellent example of intertextual dialogue. Michelangelo's supposed first painting, The Torment of St. Anthony, is a near-perfect copy of a German engraving of the same subject. These artists are not stealing, they are paying homage, adapting, and adding new layers of meaning to other works and the stories and themes they represent. As an artist, one must be comfortable with personal interpretation and application of one's corpus. However, it seems disrespectful to me to subvert or ignore an artist's intentions when evaluating their art. If someone publishes a play with obvious Islamic overtones, I think it would be a mistake to present that play as though it were purely a Christian allegory. If another artist wished to write a new version of this play with a central Christian message, I would have no problem with that. In fact, I wouldn't mind if someone analyzed the play as though it were a Christian allegory as an academic pursuit. I just find it foolish to pretend that an artist could somehow become possessed by a universal spirit that has its own purposes and produce some magnum opus that transcends their limited perspective.

The point of my ramblings is this: transporting works of art into a new context is perfectly acceptable. If it makes it more accessible or highlights aspects of the piece that interest you, then go for it. But don't assume that you have been chosen to recieve mystical insight into the spirit of the work that enables you to unlock its true meaning. That's both arrogant and unjustified.

Listening to: A random mix of indie college rock (Ben Kweller, Brand New, The Shins, et al)

Reading: Other people's blogs