As I’ve continued to read Literary Theory, I’ve come to the conclusion (like many of my classmates) that once I had gotten over the initial shock of not being able to really definite literature, the answers I’ve gotten seem to make a whole lot more sense than really trying to define it. Everyone has different tastes in clothes, music, cars, and art. So why should we not have different definitions of what real “literature” is considered to be? I kind of see this as 2 people arguing over Ford and Chevrolet trucks. (I’m from a small town so don’t judge. Haha) they can each argue until they’re blue in the face about which truck is better than the other. When in reality, people who drive cars couldn’t care less for what the other 2 are saying. The same can go to Literature or any of the other things I’ve listed.
As for the modern art subject, Emily hit the nail on the head. I don’t understand what makes art, “art”, but other people do, so I don’t complain. Some things make sense to me, while others look like 3 year olds make them. The first time I saw the big red/orange structure across the street from the RLM on campus, I just thought our school decided to waste money on some random “art” object that could have gone to some other more important cause. While I still believe part of that, I’ve realized that somewhere, someone is really enjoying the thought of showing their art to all of the University of Texas.
Like I said in my first blog, “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder” fits the topics we’ve been going over. To one person maybe that Madonna song is literature; to me it’s just a crazily catchy song that really woke me up last Thursday. J