English 5522 - Literary Theory and Criticism
Is Modernity the Particular Beauty?
I cannot quite get at why I enjoyed Charles Baudelaire the way that I did. Certainly I cannot relate to his manner of lifestyle or his overall hedonistic philosophy. I can however appreciate much of what he said. This is true in such a great sense that I can say without a doubt he is by far my favorite theoretician thus far.
He began well by bringing attention to those poets whose praise had been deficient. And what reason does he give that we ought to give them their due admiration? Part of his answer is in the simplest of terms. He reflects on the distinction between general beauty and particular beauty. But does this idea not grate against Kant and the philosophy spelled out in Critique of Judgment?
In Baudelaire's theory of beauty, he again distinguishes between its "eternal, invariable element" and its "relative, circumstantial element" (793). The latter is the beauty that comes when the artist captures 'modernity' within the piece of art. The section comparing the genius with the child is in itself a masterful piece of writing.
He cites the individual's psychological and physiological constitution at the end of a bout of illness. Just after cheating death, we have much the same mindset as we did when we were children. He says, "[t]he child sees everything in a state of newness," and even refers to us as drunk (795). He is right! The difference between the genius and child is that the genius, who is much older and seasoned by the experiences of the world and has developed rationally, can analyze, organize, and categorize his experience.
What a wonderful way to see the artist's mind at work. This all occurs by watching and continuing to be curious in life. In this state, one will be able to capture the 'modernity' of the moment, the ephemeral aspect of the object expressed.
So, in literature, Baudelaire would advocate realism versus ornament. Was this not a highly criticized idea in his lifetime? The Victorian Era was not at its peak during his lifetime, but already the literature of his day was highly florid and colorful. What was his opposition saying to this brave but accurate view of what is important to art?
Anyone can create antiquity (as Baudelaire uses the term). But to capture 'modernity' is something that only occurs (according to Baudelaire) when the artist captures the real world. I am interested enough in the concept of 'modernity' that it is worthy of further attention in my explorations. I still think that there is a better term for it. He uses the term 'contingent' and 'ephemeral' to describe 'modernity.' I particularly think that 'contingent' captures the essence of what he says better that 'modernity.' Perhaps in his day, modernity didn't have the same connotation attached to it of society or culture.
Is the 'contingent' quality or 'modernity' captured in art the same thing as the particular beauty that Baudelaire speaks of in the beginning of his essay? This is the question I would like answered above any other.