When Jon says 'Can we read poetry without theory?' he means 'Does "theory"
help or hinder us in appreciating art?', implying that either we can better
*appreciate* art 'with theory' or we can better appreciate it without
theory, or both, at different times and in different circumstances. In
other words, does 'theory' help or hinder us in appreciating art?
'With theory' means two things: 1) having read/heard/seen explanations and
analyses of various components of art; and 2) having experienced those
arts. We often mean both, of course, because theorists frequently give
examples of the art in their analyses, though some, unfortunately, do not.
If theory shows us the various things the artist is doing in creating, it
helps us understand what other artists are doing. Crucially, then, the
question becomes "Do we better appreciate an artist's work when we know more
about what she has done to create it?" Yes, we better appreciate what it
takes for the artist to create the work; and this better appreciation may
lead us to like or to dislike the work [ie, more highly value or devalue the
work].
Now to what Jon *probably* was proposing: "We can sometimes [or always]
LIKE an artwork better if we have NOT first engaged with 'theory'."
Damned if I know.
Best,
Judy the Libran
|