I have thought a lot about the recent discussion about how difficult it
has been for some artists to "finish" individual works. This implies a
flaw where the work itself is not adequately designed as a whole, whose
structure itself amplifies the meaning imparted by the individual
subsections of the work.
I would select the Commedia as a work where the entire structure is
consistent with and amplifies the import of each subsection. With
Spenser, and many others -- they seemed to write, and to be able to
create beautiful lines and sentences, but the "inability to end" results
in them almost not really having works that can be called "complete".
The Shepheardes Calendar has a structure, certainly. Epithalamion too.
Both of these impose time-related constraints. It seems to me that
Spenser had an excellent plan in his design of the Faerie Queene, but to
me he didn't really follow through. By the end, a hero in the book was
actually trying to leap out of FQ, having been lured by the call of
lyric poetry. So it seems to me, anyway...
The question is: how much of a deficiency is this? Is the insight in a
single verse what matters most? Quotations from Horace and Shakespeare
become commonplace sayings and influence society for centuries to come.
Is the brilliant line what matters most, or is the interior consistency
of a large-scale work the best measure of artistic genius and success?
By nature, I'd argue the latter, but ... I too have often posted brief
snippet quotes near my work area, as though they encapsulated a very
complete representation of the meaning and significance of a work, or
even an artist's entire vision.
Does anyone on the list want to offer an opinion on this?
|