After reading some previous posts and thinking about what we talked about in class last week, I think there should be some debate over whether a play is art or literature, whether literature is an art, whether a playwright is an artist or writer, whether a playwright is an artist for art's sake or businessman/woman selling a product, whether...well I'll stop there.
There are people who enjoy art, in its most common connotation, for the lack of effort it takes to enjoy the art. For example, an casual art gallery attendee may go to simply enjoy the aethetics of the "pictures", rather than toil in trying to interpret its subliminal meanings. However, other attendees may go in search of trying to understand how exactly, in terms of techniques and styles, the artist produced the "picture".
In literature, there are those who enjoy reading and those who do not. Personally, I am one of those people who would never read the book after seeing the movie, nor would I read the book before the movie if I knew that a movie for that book existed.
My point is this: I am a finance major. I like things that are presented to me in clear, concise formats. I do not enjoy trying to interpret and extrapolate ideas in a language I do not understand. I honestly can't say that I understand the language of plays (yet), so I do not see merit in me reading them (at this point in the semester). On the contrary, any of you theatre majors would hate reading financial statements and trying to deduce what they meant.
I understand the author's point in the article, and I will hold off judging whether or not everyone should or should not read plays until I read more myself.
No comments:
Post a Comment