The following link, http://www.raimes.com/camus2.htm, will bring you to Camus' Novel Prize Acceptance speech--please read this address and comment upon the message he is trying to convey. Simply, read and react.
Wow - this is such a beautiful speech, and there's so much one could comment on here.
One of the things he stresses is how difficult it is for him to strike a balance between solitude and companionship. The job of a writer is generally a pretty lonely one, and yet as Camus says, "often he who has chosen the fate of the artist because he felt himself to be different soon realizes that he can maintain neither his art nor his difference unless he admits that he is like the others." He realizes that while the award he is receiving is one for personal achievement, it is only possible for him to receive it and indeed accomplish all his work through writing about the “universal truth” of his community. For in his mind, the ultimate goal of the writer is “stirring the greatest number of people by offering them a privileged picture of common joys and sufferings.”
"By definition he cannot put himself today in the service of those who make history; he is at the service of those who suffer it." I think this is my favorite quote from the speech. It makes me think of that adage (I don't know who first said it) that, "History is written by the winners." If this is true, which I believe it often is, it means writers like Camus are needed to give voice to those who have lost. With all the wars he and his generation lived through, the defeated (and the dead) were certainly in no short supply.
This brings me to another point – how important it is to keep in mind the historical context of this speech. With all the chaos of two World Wars, multiple revolutions, and all of the craziness of imperialism and its repercussions that Camus’ homeland of Africa is undergoing at this time, it is certainly a dark time. On top of that, the Cold War is in full swing in between the US and the USSR, which is creating a huge amount of tension, given the contest threat of nuclear destruction at any moment. This is a dark time, when many are uncertain about what the future holds and even if there will be any future. I think Camus feels like it is his duty, almost, to preserve art and to record both the best and worst of human nature in this time of despair. Amazingly, he has not given into cynicism. Indeed, he says, “They have had to forge for themselves an art of living in times of catastrophe in order to be born a second time and to fight openly against the instinct of death at work in our history.”
I think the ultimate message he is trying to convey is that this award makes him feel particularly honored and yet guilty as well, given all the turmoil his world his undergoing and how many voices "condemned to silence" will go unheard and un-honored.
Unfortunately, I’m out of time. More thoughts later...
I too enjoy Camus' comments regarding how the writer interacts with history. I am left thinking about Etty Hillesum, a writer imprisoned in the Westerbrook concentration camp, and what she deemed "the relationship of literature to life." How literature can define, transform, and save your life. I am bias but perhaps, good literature is a fusion of all disciplines: history, philosophy, psychology, anthropology--because it is a still life portrait of how things were, how they are, or how things should and perhaps can be.
Commenting upon Hillesum's life, her work, and juxtaposing her literary achievements against the historical struggle she faced, Eva Hoffman said, "Etty Hillesum lived at a time when the macrocosm of historical events almost completely crushed the microcosm of individual lives. It was her enormous act of resistance, of writing, to reverse this order of importance, to assert that the microcosm of the soul can encompass the external world and, in addition, hold infinite space. By starting always with the origin of herself, she had forged an original and richly humane vision."
I think Camus would agree. I think his creation, Janine, would concur. And I truly believe that hardest battle we fight is the feud between what we do and what we wish we had done. However, by thinking we are acting and engaging—refusing to be stagnant and idle, letting experiences simply pass us by.
First off I want to say that Meg, I really like what you said about Camus and writers giving a voice to the ones who had lost in history. I agree with this and as I was reading it, I found it also true.
In Camus' speech, he brings up a lot of what we were discussing in class about the definition of world literature and how we all experience the same emotions that relate us. "And often he who has chosen the fate of the artist because he felt himself to be different soon realized that he can maintain neither his art nor his different unless he admits that he is like the others," (which I know Meg used but I think we are discussing it in different ways). No matter how different you try to be, you are always going to share situations and emotions with people and relate to them. As Camus says the job of a writer is "to unite the greatest possible number of people," and goes on later to say that we share misery and hope to make this uniting happen. By writing about suffering and losing, it's something no matter where you live or what situation you are in, you can somehow relate to those emotions.
I also thought Camus made an interesting point that each generation feels that they have to reform the world but his generation has to prevent the world from destroying itself. He even says that they may not even be able to conquer the task but they should try and learn "to know how to die for it without hate." It's like they have to get over the misery they are facing and try hard enough so the world doesn't get destroyed. They have to gain the strength to fight for it until death.
Camus talks about all these difficult times that people have had to face like torture and war and then says, "Nobody, I think, can ask them to be optimists." Just in my experience, I think that the people who have been through those tough things are the ones who end up being optimists because they see the world crashing and at the lowest point but then they also see that it can bounce back and recover. They have this faith that, I think, people who haven't been through a World War or a world of torture don't have. Even though they may be able to relate, the people who have been through it are the ones to be positive no matter what happens.
I hope this all made sense. Blogs tend to make me ramble and my words sometimes can get confusing.
These are my initial reactions to his speech, along with some analysis, as I was trying to interpret what I think he's trying to say. When he says that he "felt shock and inner turmoil" it makes me think, what kind of burden or image is it to have to hold up to after getting a Nobel Prize? He seems to be surprised, as he talks of better writers as well. He seems like a good person, since he says he won't stop writing because of it. He really has a passion for what he does, and he doesn't seem to think that he should stop at this point in his career. I find this admirable, and I can relate to this. It seems that he and Faulkner agree about writing to "grieve griefs on universal bones". They both believe in conveying a universal truth to their fellow man. So despite the idea that Camus is "foreign" and that what he writes is "world literature", each agree on that universality despite the geographical location of the making of their art. As for the "armies of tyranny", I think that he's trying to say that he doesn't want to get swept up in the current of conforming thoughts that reign over millions. If he starts to listen to those kinds of robotic conforming thoughts, he will no longer be able to write. Therefore, I suppose he is talking about the importance of individuality in writing here. He means to listen to other's opinions but not forget the one that is "exiled" from theirs; his own. He has to make that fit into his writing. It’s about the importance of individual thought. I definitely agree with this, otherwise, there would be nothing interesting to read. Thinking back to the time at which he was writing this speech, it was just after the end of the Second World War, and as he said, he had grown up when Hitler came to power. This is a recognizable influence on his writing. He, and those around him, fear a repeat. He knows that his generation will not rebuild, but only prevent destruction… this probably means that my parent's generation was the one to rebuild… what does that mean about our generation? Thinking about it, I don't relate my role in society to the holocaust and World War II at all. I suppose that means that what Camus was talking about worked; that the world was rebuilt… yet was it very successful? I don't know much about the cold war, or the Vietnam War, but I do know that we still have wars, and I can’t say that I know for sure that they are less brutal than WWII. Does anybody REALLY know what is going on in Iraq anyway? No, I'm not so sure that our parents did the greatest job rebuilding, as there are still wars over religion, oil, torture, and whatever else is going on right now. WWII does seem distant, but is all this war going on still spawning from that? In the end, he is still human, which he outlines clearly, stating that just because he won a Nobel Prize, he is no better than you or I… no different. Now for the promise… I know it, because I wrote it in my college essay or "statement of purpose" for Rhode Island School of Design. I could copy and paste all 500 words, yet I'll try to shorten what I believe the promise. I believe the one he is talking about, "the ancient promise", is the equivalent of marriage rites, only not directed toward a person, but toward the practice of the art, it’s self. Not only that but to maintain the purity of the art. In his own way, he explained the promise throughout the whole speech; I recognized it because my "statement of purpose" is similar. So as an artist, although I work through images instead of writing, I can definitely relate to Camus. I rather like this speech Ok, now for reactions to what you people said… I didn't come up with the same ideas as Meg while I was reading, but now that I've read what she has to say, I suppose I can agree with most of it, although I definitely got a different message out of the writer's solitude bit. I definitely agree with Sasha’s first two paragraphs, however the third one about optimism, is something I've not really observed…I don't really agree or disagree, but I think it depends on the person… there are some people who are affected differently by war than what Sasha says, but she does have a good point.
I found this really interesting because I too have thought about some of the points that he makes in reference to his profession and dedication to his artwork. I realized how genuine and understanding a man he must have been to accept the noble prize with such admirable modesty.
As Sasha said, much of this reminds me of our class discussion about world literature. Camus makes it clear that in his writing he makes a transformation, putting himself into the character of any given person. Making it more the literature of mankind than of the world.
Guilty of receiving a prize in a time of such terror and destruction, it is clear that Camus is deserving of this honor. However Camus does honor those who suffered and have struggled by writing the words to the stories they never had the chance to tell.I believe that artists are truly people who risk criticism to express idea's such as the past to connect people together, providing a sense of 'understanding rather than judgment' which unite those through a story or picture. Aware of the silence most people endure(as Janine certainly did), Camus not only breaks it for them but makes their sins acceptable and common.
Through his explanation detailing the reasons why and how he writes so well, I think that he reveals something about himself that also contributes to his skill. "Truth is mysterious, elusive, always to be conquered. Liberty is dangerous, as hard to live with as it is elating. We must march toward these two goals, painfully but resolutely, certain in advance of our failings on so long a road." This quote reflects greatly for me on 'The Adulterous Woman.' At the end of the story I think that Janine sought the truth and her own liberty, whether it be elating or hard to live with, with the same passion that Camus writes. Using himself as a template, he is able to create identifiable characters.
As he begins to conclude his speech, Camus recognizes the rest of the world's artists who were not as fortunate to receive the Nobel prize. Those people have not been privileged "but have on the contrary known misery and persecution," he says. I think by saying this, Camus acknowledges the truth, liberty, and understanding that artists share which those of other professions may lack. To him, those qualities are much more important and applicable than his prize.
I have a new outlook on writers as artists now. There were never so many similarities between the writing of words and the stokes of paint in terms of impact.
Camus, in his speech, does a wonderful job of conveying his intentions through his "art." From the very start of his speech the reader gains a sense of Camus' modesty in accepting such an honor. "A man almost young, rich only in his doubts and with his work still in progress [....] how would he not feel a kind of panic at hearing the decree that transports him all of a sudden, alone and reduced himself, to the centre of a glaring light?" Camus does not take all of the credit for his writing, I admire that! He is selfless in that he recognizes those who are "condemned to silence" during the difficult times of war. Camus understands and stresses the fact that he uses his "art" as an outlet to truth. "[....] two tasks that constitute the greatness of his craft: the service of truth and the service of liberty." Camus will not "compromise with lies and servitude". His writing is bold and raw with the purpose of speaking for those who are oppressed.
Camus offers hope in the midst of such a hellish time. People have lost their courage as well as their direction as they experience the throes of war. Camus recognizes the fact that a reform of the world is necessary and makes this known in his speech. He bluntly states, "[....] technology gone mad, dead gods, and wornout ideologies, where mediocre powers can destory all yet no longer know how to convince, where intelligence has debased itself to become the servant of hatred and oppression." Wow, Camus, you are quite honest there! However, once again, I commend his boldness. Camus fears that he is living in a world that could soon be "establishing forever the kingdom of death." He worries about the state of the world and urges, in his speech, the restoration through truth and liberty. Towards the end of his speech, Camus states that "we must march towards these two goals, painfully but resolutely, certain in advance of our failings on so long a road." I like that he is not sugarcoating the truth of the seemingly perpetual hardships these people have ahead of them. Once again, Camus does not "compromise with lies and servitude."
In the conclusion of Camus' speech, he leaves us with appreciation to those who are "sharing in the same fight, have not received any privlege, but have on the contrary known misery and persecution." I love that Camus is so humble in a situation in which he is being highly praised for his accomplishments. Camus shares his writing not for fame or fortunure but, for those who are oppressed. Camus selflessly accepts this award because he knows that it is a step closer to truth and liberty.
We talked about in class when discussing world literature that it doesn't matter where the text is derived, but how others may relate to it. Even in Camus' speech I, on a personal level, found something which I can relate to. Within his speech, Camus stated: "For myself, I cannot live without my art. But I have never placed it above everything. If, on the other hand, I need it, it is because it cannot be separated from my fellow men, and it allows me to live, such as I am, on one level with them." He goes on, continuing to explain, what I see as his passion for what he does. It is this passion for his art and work, the connection he has with it, that inspires me. The way he describes the role of an artist, that "often he who has chosen the fate of the artist because he felt himself to be different soon realizes he can maintain neither his art nor his difference unless he admits that he is like the others", can be very applicable to other situations in life. In order to be a writer one has to be able to connect with the people, tell their story. It's the difference that in the end ties that back to society. His ability to convey this so eloquently ties pack to his passion for the art of writing. His feelings about his writing are only one example of passion within the world, yet the reader can feel it and too experience it. This again, like the trend goes so far in this blog, relates to the class discussion of world literature. It's an example of how everyone can be connected to it, no matter where geographically they may be settled.
Anyone passionate about something can relate to how he feels about his about writting. To try and relate it to my own life, I'm passionate about the sport of hockey. I "cannot live without [it]", but "I have never placed it above everything". To understand the sport, you have to take parts of the past with ideas of the present and future of others without neglecting your own. Although, my reason for choosing to play hockey wasn't due to the fact that I found myself to be different; for awhile people told me I was different for deciding to play hockey. Now I see being different as only part of what makes people the same on one level. If all people are different then they are the same on the level that they are all different... if that statement can be followed. Difference can not be maintained "unless [it is] admit[ted] that" the one who is different is really "like the others," meaning society and how everyone is on the same level due to difference.
A smaller note, I really enjoyed coming to the realization of how complex the art of writing is. The commitment described and recognition of whom one is while being classified as a writer never really came into my mind when I think of what an author is. Personally I hold a very much Websters definition of what an author is, someone who composes literature, but in the end it is so much more. An author doesn't just sit down and write about anything, they have to in some way make what they are writing relatable so there will be connections to society and those reading it, otherwise it's pointless to sit down and write it. I now, I guess in a sense, have more respect (?)/see authors in a new way now, due to what Camus had to say in this speech. It sounds tunnel visioned of me to say that that was my view on authors originally, but to be honest I never really gave the matter any true thought until now. I'm glad this speech triggered my reassessment of this craft.
"if , on the other hand,i need it, it is because it cannot be seperated freom my fellow man." he is speeking to the purpose of literature, he is drawing conection betweween every person on the planet. he is not trying to be athe artist that sees himself above others, if he were to do that he would not have the ability to relate to other men, his writing that shows his true human nature would not be able to come through in his work. the fact that he has won a nobel prize doesnt change that. it even makes him feelthe panic of hearing the decree. he ism so consumed in his work and is immersed in the solitude of his lifes work.
the message behind this speech is that if it were not for him beeing on level with his feelow man, enjoying the common joys and sufferings. because isnt that what makes life worth living, the suffering? is it were not for the bad along with the good, wouldnt all of the worlds literature be dull and boring.the fact that you happy that something made you that sad, to let you know your human along with the rest of everyone.
in conclusion Camus' humble nature makes him an even greater writer,"treu artists scorn nothing" it is there job to interperet, to shape and make it echoe through the world when read. if he were sinical and scorn ful he would be writing the same thing over and over again.
he is flatered by this honor, yet also feels some sort of guilt of him being chisen for this award whuile he felt there were so many other deserving writers.
I think that the moment in which Vincent finds out who he really is is revealed to us very early in his speech. “True artists scorn nothing: they are obliged to understand rather than to judge.” I think that as he grew he learned who he was and what his ‘true calling’ was. I think it may have taken him awhile to characterize himself within the group of individuals whom were recognized before him as great artists or even who aren’t recognized but create incredible literature. However, he has found himself within this pool and I think that this gives him a great sense of satisfaction. “With what feelings could he accept this honor at a time when other writers in Europe, among them the very greatest, are condemned to silence…In order to regain peace I have had, in short, to come to terms with a too generous fortune.” I think that with this satisfaction comes his soft side in which he must recognize the ones who aren’t being recognized. I love how Vincent didn’t straightly say I would like to recognize all those who aren’t today. Instead, he puts it in his own world or interpretation. “But the silence of an unknown prisoner, abandoned to humiliations at the other end of the world, is enough to draw the writer out of his exile, at least whenever, in the midst of the privileges of freedom, he manages not to forget that silence, and to transmit it in order to make it resound by means of his art.” I think through his speech he reveals many things about himself and about an artist in general. Through this speech he finds himself talking about services and commitments. The services being that as an artist you must portray truth and liberty. And the commitments being that an artist you are responsible for not lying about your knowledge and to steer clear from cruelty. I think this in itself is a self-defining moment for Vincent. I think that he has grown from being a mix up in a world of people who he thought were better then him to a place where he feels he has made his own solid and personal contribution. I think here lays the answer. I think that Vincent through this speech grows and evolves into not wanting to be recognized as a shadow but wanting and knowing that he’s an amazing writer. I think that this acceptance speech not only proves Vincent’s great talents as a writer but also reveals his true self-being, a truly remarkable writer. “I would receive it as an homage rendered to all those who, sharing in the same fight, have no received any privilege, but have on the contrary known misery and persecution.” I truly fell in love with this comment because he finally recognizes his greatness but nonetheless doesn’t forget about those who he grew from. I think in his final paragraph he realizes he’s amazing but also wants to make sure that all know that he’s only human and he does sometimes mess up. I think this and the remark about the prisoner are the points in which we truly learn that Vincent has grown from a nothing to a something but he doesn’t forget that he has come from nothing but uses it to fuel him in his fame.
Meg - I really like what you said about “history being written by the winners,” and how Camus’ job is to show the losers ‘side of things. Ps.I’m not used to seeing you without you police hat on, but I’ll get used to it.
Beth: “I believe the one he is talking about, "the ancient promise", is the equivalent of marriage rites, only not directed toward a person, but toward the practice of the art, it’s self.” I love that comparison to marriage rites and the way you phrased it. It was also neat reading about how it was similar to your own purpose statement.
Sasha: I never really thought of people coming from war as being optimists, but I definitely see what you’re saying.
To summaraize, I think Camus’ central purpose is to shake off the 50’s disillusionment and reinvigorate the people of this generation into searching for universal truth, liberty and meaning in their lives, to force them to examine and learn from the hardships of their past instead of hiding from them.
The 50’s, when the speech was written, was a decade where the search for truth was abandoned, as people were overcome by disillusionment and denial of their past full of war and turmoil (as meg mentioned) In America, I always think of that happy, picture perfect 50’s suburban family, which is really just an extension of their disillusionment, an act to hide their fear and inability to face the past. Camus urges the artists to go against the natural tendency at the time of conforming, and to instead open their eyes to not just the past, but the future which they hold, to think beyond the surface, and not act like that dumb always-smiling Brady bunch family. Resisting conformity is the only way for an artist to stay an artist. “And often he who has chosen the fate of the artist because he felt himself to be different soon realizes that he can maintain neither his art no his difference unless he admits that he is like the others.” A truly good artist is born with an ability to look at the world in a way that no one else does and then translate what they see through writing, music, painting, or whatever other form. Only by maintaining this unique view and resisting conformity can they remain a unique artist.
Not only does Camus urge artists to go against the groove and look at the world in a unique perspective, but to also share the purpose of uniting “the possible number of people” in order to “prevent the world from destroying itself.” Camus advises to save the world by pursuing “the service of truth and the service of liberty.” My favorite line was when he described truth as “mysterious elusive, always to be conquered” and liberty as “dangerous, as hard to live with as it is elating.” To Callus, writing is not just an occupation or a pastime, but a commitment to the world. Writers must “reconcile anew labor and culture, and remake with all men the Ark of the Covenant.” Camus clearly wasn’t happy with the culture of the period. Like I said early, he wants to reinvigorate this generation into searching and expanding their understanding of the world in a “quest of legitimacy”. He wants this quest to be incorporated in the culture and work of daily life. His reference to the Ark of Covenant, I don’t think has anything to do with Christianity, but just to in general have a strong set of moral principles.
Another commitment he brings up is the “refusal to lie about what one knows the resistance to oppression.” Even though writers carry such a great weight in their words, they still must remain humble and carry on with their work without “shame or pride in view of everybody.” They must remain, unlike the rest of generation, outside the cloud of disillusionment, and display the world through their work as accurately as possible. They must write with a pure pen, not for their own means, but for the sake of enlightening people to the truths of the world, to draw from his “double existence the creations that he obstinately tries to erect in the destructive movement of history.”
If there’s one thing I complete agree with Camus on, it’s that “Every man, and for stronger reasons, every artist, wants to be recognized. So do I.” While I know there are people who divert attention away from themselves, everyone like to be praised and to feel like they are valuable as an individual, and a successful one at that. The desire for some sort of recognition depends on acceptance; for Camus, it was the acceptance and resulting praise of his work. This whole chain is kind of like a chemical reaction- one thing leads to another and so on and so forth. I think this whole chain is the reason why we’re constantly struggling with our own identity and how to present ourselves in a way that’s accurate and “acceptable.” Camus’ quote “But I have not been able to learn of your decision without comparing its repercussions to what I really am” shows this connection because Camus received recognition after going through the process of finding himself, therefore this one award is a mirror of the million little subtleties that make up Camus as both an artist and as a man. The partnership between one’s art and one’s self comes up again when Camus says “For myself, I cannot live without my art.” Any artist will describe their art as an extension of him or herself, and Camus appears to be no different. An artist’s work isn’t merely a reflection of their identity, it’s a part of it; to take away one’s work is to take away a major piece of them, and that would only lead the artist into a maddened frenzy, again struggling to make up for or replace what they’ve lost. Picture an athlete who is paralyzed sometime during their athletic career; they’ve invested so much of themselves into becoming “the athlete” and now they’re suddenly robbed of that identity. Art is Camus identity, and he continues his statement by saying: “But I have never placed it above everything. If, on the other hand, I need it, it is because it cannot be separated from my fellow men, and it allows me to live, such as I am, on one level with them.” This shows Camus as a humble man; with his art serving as a symbol of himself, he explains that he never views himself as the most important person in the world, a belief that many people get caught up in, sometimes even unconsciously. Camus only needs his art and needs his individuality when he feels lost in the sea of his “fellow men,” only to realize that it is his individuality that allows him to be equal to his others because in the end: we are all individuals. This is a truth that is threatening to some, although Camus seems to embrace it quite nicely. There comes a time when we realize that we really don’t matter in the great scheme of things; we’re one of 6 billion others, and when viewed in that perspective you start to see how little you matter. But again, Camus is humbled by this and not discouraged because, although there are billions of other people out there who likely carry some similar traits as you do, they are not you. I know I’m starting to sound a little bit like a children’s book author right here but you are the only you, and the answer isn’t to fear your place in the world or to lament over the fact that you aren’t always number one (considering our current reality of college admissions this seems particularly relevant). The answer is to embrace who you are in the grand scheme of things, and work to better yourself and gain the recognition you want, as a reward to finished puzzle of an identity that you’ve pieced yourself into.
From the beginning of Camus’ speech, his underlying message is clear, which he conveys by saying, “A man almost young, rich only in his doubts and with his work still in progress, accustomed in the solitude of work or in the retreats of friendship: how could he not feel a kind of panic at hearing the decree that transports him all of the sudden, alone and reduced to himself, to the centre of glaring light?” He is saying that although people think it’s best to be just yourself and be aware of only who you are, he views it as negative, especially using the wording “reduced to himself”. Camus’ message is clear, and he believes the higher state of being is not when you are reduced to yourself, but you are everyone around you and even those not around you, and you are conscious of much more than just the physical body you are living in. Another way Camus proves his point is by stating, “The artist forges himself to the others, midway between the beauty he cannot do without and the community he cannot tear himself away from.” He says that the art of writing isn’t even about you; it is about allowing yourself to empathize and almost become other people, and a part of the community.
Camus is also says that although he is delighted to receive such an honor, he enjoys the fact that writing keeps him connected to all other people, so he is also experiencing anxiety because now he is in the spotlight alone, just himself. He says of his art, “If, on the other hand, I need it, it is because it cannot be separated from my fellow men, and it allows me to live, such as I am, on one level with them.” He’s articulating that the reason he needs his art is because it allows him to be connected with other men by such deep emotions like joy and suffering. Camus says that part of maintaining such art as writing is part realizing that you are not different from others, and part accepting that fact. His point even says that by admitting you are like the others is one way to be different, because many others cannot do this.
Camus also describes some of the hardships of being a writer, saying about a writer, “By definition he cannot put himself today in the service of those who make history; he is at the service of those who suffer it.” It’s like saying that a writer cannot be a part of the history that goes on, but instead has a duty to watch history happen and write about those going through it, and without doing so himself, Camus has nothing to write about.
I like where Camus describes the problems facing generation. He’s so in touch with the reality and accepts it for what it is, no matter how bad. He realizes that his generation may not be able to turn back the clock and restore peace, but is able to achieve liberty and truth without bringing the hatred that often comes with them. Again, the central theme of writing not being about the differences between you and others, but about the similarities is shown. Camus says that though writers can be great, they cannot claim to have accomplished anything other than what they shared with others without shame and pride, and without being divided. He says only then can a writer be credited with creating characters from this history.
Camus asks why any writer would try to make himself an example of virtue in life, and he knows that he had a free and privileged life, and accepting this helps him better understand and relate to the other men who must remain silent and have only experienced a small bit of happiness. He feels free because he is willing to admit that he should share the honor he is receiving with the others who have not shared the privileges he has and have experienced pain and misery instead. Camus knows that these “artists” are not above anyone in any way, although some have been more fortunate, they cannot make themselves something to be modeled after. He is aware that everyone makes similar mistakes, but some people just come out of them more fortunate.
Camus sees no boundaries to his writing, and doesn’t define himself as only a writer of his own country, but a universal writer. I admire how he can so easily forget about the small differences between him and others, and instead savor the larger similarities, in terms of human emotions, which are in fact the core of his and others’ writings.
shelby, i don't know if it's what u meant, but from your post i got the impression that you think camus wrote solely for the recognition or acceptance, or even wrote just to define himself. i disagree. i'm not saying that recognition wasn't in the back of his mind or that through his writing he did not find himself, but that it was not his main goal. i think more of his purpose can be seen in the sentence, "Each generation doubtless feels called upon to reform the world." I think he's using his talents as an artist not to speak for himself, not to gain popularity with his fellow writers or whatever, i think he's using it to aid his generation in its calling i guess...to reform the world. i don't think you're giving him enough credit to say his writing is merely an extension of himself, because i think its its more an extension of man kind, as cheesy as that sounds,
"but i have never placed it [writing] above everything. If, on the other hand, i need it, it is because it cannot be separated from my fellow men, and it allows me to live, s uch as i am, on a level with them." (oh oops i just realized u used this quote)
i don't think that quote shows how much of a conceited person he isn't...but more that he sees himself as a part of mankind and his writing talents just allow him to speak out for them. wow i feel like an asshole spending that much time disagreeing with you, but i agree there was still some individual aspect to it too...
Hey guys, sorry for the late response. We had a very far away basketball game. Anyway, here is what I wrote about what I thought was an amazing speech.
While reading Camus’ speech, I was struck by how little I know about something I thought I knew very well. Camus talks of a kind of writing I have never experienced. He talks about a kind of writing that isn’t what you do but who you are, a kind of writing that is done simply because that the author literally cannot exist without putting his ideas to paper. His is a kind of writing that both serves humanity and defines it. Camus speaks of man’s identity as being inseparable from his writing and his fellow men, stating that “the artist forges himself to the others, midway between the beauty he cannot do without and the community he cannot tear himself away from.” While I write school assignments and poetry, Camus’ work articulates the hope and despair of a besieged generation. The idea that there is so much more to write about both scares me and gives me hope. It is pieces like this that put to rest the stereotype of a writer as simply a dreamy intellectual, mainly with respect to the discussion of a writer’s courage. This speech was written in 1957, a year in the heat of an age of conformity and fear. A writer like Camus, who states “a commitment to bear…the misery and the hope” of a generation, volunteers to sign his name to a document that promotes controversial ideas. While historians protest the mistakes of past people, writers proclaim a society’s mistakes to its living leaders. An act like that requires a special sort of either stupidity or bravery, but it is ironically not until these writers offer to analyze us that we ever truly examine ourselves. Again, this is a kind of passion in writing that I do not know. With this courage comes the writer’s ability to write about controversial subjects. Camus suggests that a writer himself cannot be perfect, because a perfect man would have nothing to write about. “What writer,” Camus asks, “would from now on in good conscience dare set himself up as a preacher of virtue?” He then goes on to say that all that “explains many of [his] errors and [his] faults…has doubtless helped [him] toward a better understanding of [his] craft.” Everyone always says that you write better about the things you know, implying that only an imperfect man can write effectively about an imperfect society if he desires to have any impact. It must the combination of passion and courage and flaws that allows a writer to write something capable of change. I will admit that I would usually call myself a writer. However, after reading this speech, I feel sort of like a hollow outline of the writer I hoped I might be. While I write to understand myself, writers like Camus do so in order to help all of us understand ourselves. A written speech about writing that causes another writer to question his or her own work is, undoubtedly, a very fine one. Camus’ humble brand of brave and selfless writing inspires me to find enough writer’s courage to hope that, someday, I’ll have something that is imperfect and meaningful enough to write about.
Over the course of my life, I have concluded that a good work of art is one that moves by disturbing, delighting, saddening, and revealing, whether it be through a pen, a paintbrush, a guitar, a voice, or any other form of expression. It may not necessarily be visually pleasing upon first glance or hearing, because it is an unknown idea. It touches upon a new discovery and cuts to the core of an idea that is a universal truth.
Often, truth is not pleasing, as Camus emphasized in his speech regarding a time chock-full of wars between people who, ironically, were ruthlessly battling for freedom. However, it is much easier to avoid the truth, and much less painful to venture on to another path in which judging, instead of understanding, is settled on. It is in this area that war begins to breed rapidly; we compete over power (over other people) and money and flourish in a disgusting world of materialism, "mingled fallen revolutions, technology gone mad, dead gods, and worn-out ideologies," for these are our ways of coping with differences and, ultimately, the truth (my God is better than your God). Likewise, Janine could be considered "adulterous" in her affairs with freedom because she settled with what she could get, even though it wasn't what she wanted or needed, and this eventually led to a great deal of suffering a tad too late. Good thing ol' Camus was around to give us this speech and remind us that the pursuit of art requires the ability to object to or be subjected to an axiom.
In the latter case, we fall to the silence that Camus speaks of, the silenced truth that may grant us freedom. Then, we are no longer together; the truth is no longer universal, and the art serves no purpose. Then, there are only a select few people that experience compassion, sacrifice, and sadness, and must endure "turmoil" and "humiliations" in complete isolation. As some of my feller classmates have mentioned, we are individuals, but no one should ever have to be brought down to a level in which conformity is the only solution to our everyday problems. Unfortunately, it is recognized that some freedom and some happiness is only a fix, and such conformity and settling allows such a thing to happen. Personally, I'd rather have my happiness be a constant, let alone freedom. If we had freedom, we could say anything we wanted to, and not received the stink eye, or a bomb, in return. The unknown is such a widely feared concept, and we often choose to defend ourselves from it instead of embracing the new idea or opinion simply because it's initially different.
I agree with some of my feller classmates in that he certainly is a humble dude in bringing himself both up and down to the level of other artists and other people. It's easy to have a vision hammered into your mind of yourself standing in front of a big block of marble, chisel handy, and ready to just carve away at who and what you want to be, and if you really feel a certain way, you can be exactly that!! You can BE YOUR OWN PERSON. I'm different, I don't care, I don't have to try to understand your views or opinions because in the end, I'm the one that matters here. It's my fate, isn't it? Don't I control my fate?...
... Now let's be honest, that's a little selfish, and a little narcissistic. We all suffer tragedies in our lives, some greater than others. We can all feel passion for one thing or another (let's hope so). And, we've all felt at least once in our lives that we cannot be understood and that our ideas were not accepted or considered. Surely after experiencing something like the World Wars, this statement holds true. But through this common suffering of what one may call "bad times," particularly in Camus's time and even today when there is plenty of malice, sadness, and tension to go around, we can relate through expressing ourselves as Camus proves in his literature and as anyone can do in their own art.
Oh, and just for the run, it can be noted that I shrug at people who say they're "not good at art." If you have a passion, I'm sure you're "good at art," for that passion can be shared with others.
Oh, and just for the other run, when I used the pronoun "we," I was doing my best to speak as a large and important group of individually tiny little people, who make up about a six billionth of the group each. Each six billionth is human. Each six billionth makes mistakes. Each six billionth can feel what the others do. Each six billionth has a view, and together, that makes six billion views, which is rather hefty, but universal nonetheless.
Alex, I think you might have misunderstood me. By quoting his part about wanting recognition I didn't mean to imply that he became a writer solely to be recognized. I was trying to say that in order to be recognized you have to be accepted, and in order to be accepted to need to "find yourself" ( I hate using that phrase, I think it's so lame). Constructing a solid identity and truly discovering who you are is hard, and I was trying to say that the award represents more than just him as a writer.
When I quoted the "everyone wants to recognized" quote, I mean that I believe that it's human nature to want to receive praise. It makes us feel good about ourselves. I was pointing out that we can't really be praised until we get over the hurdle of creating an identity for ourselves, which Camus has done.
Also, by calling his art an extension of himself I wasn't trying to make an understandments, in fact i thought as I was writing it that it seemed a little overstated. His art is a part of him because he created it and put "himself" into it. I write and I view my writing as a piece of myself because it's something 100% created by me. He could use it to represent mankind I guess, but I mean lets just not designate him the automatic "Voice of the people." Saying he represents mankind acutally makes him look a little full of himself. It would be like saying I represent everyone at Berwick, which clearly isn't the case. Leading to my last point, I didn't mean to say he was conceited in that quote about living on level with other men, in fact I described him as humble after that. He realizes he's just one of many, yet he's the one who's been honored. He is proud without cockiness, which is respectable.
ok so I'm glad I got this out of the way because we pretty much agree on all of the points, just a little miscommunication somewhere along the way.
17 comments:
Wow - this is such a beautiful speech, and there's so much one could comment on here.
One of the things he stresses is how difficult it is for him to strike a balance between solitude and companionship. The job of a writer is generally a pretty lonely one, and yet as Camus says, "often he who has chosen the fate of the artist because he felt himself to be different soon realizes that he can maintain neither his art nor his difference unless he admits that he is like the others." He realizes that while the award he is receiving is one for personal achievement, it is only possible for him to receive it and indeed accomplish all his work through writing about the “universal truth” of his community. For in his mind, the ultimate goal of the writer is “stirring the greatest number of people by offering them a privileged picture of common joys and sufferings.”
"By definition he cannot put himself today in the service of those who make history; he is at the service of those who suffer it." I think this is my favorite quote from the speech. It makes me think of that adage (I don't know who first said it) that, "History is written by the winners." If this is true, which I believe it often is, it means writers like Camus are needed to give voice to those who have lost. With all the wars he and his generation lived through, the defeated (and the dead) were certainly in no short supply.
This brings me to another point – how important it is to keep in mind the historical context of this speech. With all the chaos of two World Wars, multiple revolutions, and all of the craziness of imperialism and its repercussions that Camus’ homeland of Africa is undergoing at this time, it is certainly a dark time. On top of that, the Cold War is in full swing in between the US and the USSR, which is creating a huge amount of tension, given the contest threat of nuclear destruction at any moment. This is a dark time, when many are uncertain about what the future holds and even if there will be any future. I think Camus feels like it is his duty, almost, to preserve art and to record both the best and worst of human nature in this time of despair. Amazingly, he has not given into cynicism. Indeed, he says, “They have had to forge for themselves an art of living in times of catastrophe in order to be born a second time and to fight openly against the instinct of death at work in our history.”
I think the ultimate message he is trying to convey is that this award makes him feel particularly honored and yet guilty as well, given all the turmoil his world his undergoing and how many voices "condemned to silence" will go unheard and un-honored.
Unfortunately, I’m out of time. More thoughts later...
I too enjoy Camus' comments regarding how the writer interacts with history. I am left thinking about Etty Hillesum, a writer imprisoned in the Westerbrook concentration camp, and what she deemed "the relationship of literature to life." How literature can define, transform, and save your life. I am bias but perhaps, good literature is a fusion of all disciplines: history, philosophy, psychology, anthropology--because it is a still life portrait of how things were, how they are, or how things should and perhaps can be.
Commenting upon Hillesum's life, her work, and juxtaposing her literary achievements against the historical struggle she faced, Eva Hoffman said,
"Etty Hillesum lived at a time when the macrocosm of historical events almost completely crushed the microcosm of individual lives. It was her enormous act of resistance, of writing, to reverse this order of importance, to assert that the microcosm of the soul can encompass the external world and, in addition, hold infinite space. By starting always with the origin of herself, she had forged an original and richly humane vision."
I think Camus would agree. I think his creation, Janine, would concur. And I truly believe that hardest battle we fight is the feud between what we do and what we wish we had done. However, by thinking we are acting and engaging—refusing to be stagnant and idle, letting experiences simply pass us by.
First off I want to say that Meg, I really like what you said about Camus and writers giving a voice to the ones who had lost in history. I agree with this and as I was reading it, I found it also true.
In Camus' speech, he brings up a lot of what we were discussing in class about the definition of world literature and how we all experience the same emotions that relate us. "And often he who has chosen the fate of the artist because he felt himself to be different soon realized that he can maintain neither his art nor his different unless he admits that he is like the others," (which I know Meg used but I think we are discussing it in different ways). No matter how different you try to be, you are always going to share situations and emotions with people and relate to them. As Camus says the job of a writer is "to unite the greatest possible number of people," and goes on later to say that we share misery and hope to make this uniting happen. By writing about suffering and losing, it's something no matter where you live or what situation you are in, you can somehow relate to those emotions.
I also thought Camus made an interesting point that each generation feels that they have to reform the world but his generation has to prevent the world from destroying itself. He even says that they may not even be able to conquer the task but they should try and learn "to know how to die for it without hate." It's like they have to get over the misery they are facing and try hard enough so the world doesn't get destroyed. They have to gain the strength to fight for it until death.
Camus talks about all these difficult times that people have had to face like torture and war and then says, "Nobody, I think, can ask them to be optimists." Just in my experience, I think that the people who have been through those tough things are the ones who end up being optimists because they see the world crashing and at the lowest point but then they also see that it can bounce back and recover. They have this faith that, I think, people who haven't been through a World War or a world of torture don't have. Even though they may be able to relate, the people who have been through it are the ones to be positive no matter what happens.
I hope this all made sense. Blogs tend to make me ramble and my words sometimes can get confusing.
These are my initial reactions to his speech, along with some analysis, as I was trying to interpret what I think he's trying to say.
When he says that he "felt shock and inner turmoil" it makes me think, what kind of burden or image is it to have to hold up to after getting a Nobel Prize? He seems to be surprised, as he talks of better writers as well. He seems like a good person, since he says he won't stop writing because of it. He really has a passion for what he does, and he doesn't seem to think that he should stop at this point in his career. I find this admirable, and I can relate to this.
It seems that he and Faulkner agree about writing to "grieve griefs on universal bones". They both believe in conveying a universal truth to their fellow man. So despite the idea that Camus is "foreign" and that what he writes is "world literature", each agree on that universality despite the geographical location of the making of their art.
As for the "armies of tyranny", I think that he's trying to say that he doesn't want to get swept up in the current of conforming thoughts that reign over millions. If he starts to listen to those kinds of robotic conforming thoughts, he will no longer be able to write. Therefore, I suppose he is talking about the importance of individuality in writing here. He means to listen to other's opinions but not forget the one that is "exiled" from theirs; his own. He has to make that fit into his writing. It’s about the importance of individual thought. I definitely agree with this, otherwise, there would be nothing interesting to read.
Thinking back to the time at which he was writing this speech, it was just after the end of the Second World War, and as he said, he had grown up when Hitler came to power. This is a recognizable influence on his writing. He, and those around him, fear a repeat. He knows that his generation will not rebuild, but only prevent destruction… this probably means that my parent's generation was the one to rebuild… what does that mean about our generation? Thinking about it, I don't relate my role in society to the holocaust and World War II at all. I suppose that means that what Camus was talking about worked; that the world was rebuilt… yet was it very successful? I don't know much about the cold war, or the Vietnam War, but I do know that we still have wars, and I can’t say that I know for sure that they are less brutal than WWII. Does anybody REALLY know what is going on in Iraq anyway? No, I'm not so sure that our parents did the greatest job rebuilding, as there are still wars over religion, oil, torture, and whatever else is going on right now. WWII does seem distant, but is all this war going on still spawning from that?
In the end, he is still human, which he outlines clearly, stating that just because he won a Nobel Prize, he is no better than you or I… no different.
Now for the promise… I know it, because I wrote it in my college essay or "statement of purpose" for Rhode Island School of Design. I could copy and paste all 500 words, yet I'll try to shorten what I believe the promise. I believe the one he is talking about, "the ancient promise", is the equivalent of marriage rites, only not directed toward a person, but toward the practice of the art, it’s self. Not only that but to maintain the purity of the art. In his own way, he explained the promise throughout the whole speech; I recognized it because my "statement of purpose" is similar.
So as an artist, although I work through images instead of writing, I can definitely relate to Camus. I rather like this speech
Ok, now for reactions to what you people said…
I didn't come up with the same ideas as Meg while I was reading, but now that I've read what she has to say, I suppose I can agree with most of it, although I definitely got a different message out of the writer's solitude bit.
I definitely agree with Sasha’s first two paragraphs, however the third one about optimism, is something I've not really observed…I don't really agree or disagree, but I think it depends on the person… there are some people who are affected differently by war than what Sasha says, but she does have a good point.
WOW I wrote a lot o_O
I found this really interesting because I too have thought about some of the points that he makes in reference to his profession and dedication to his artwork. I realized how genuine and understanding a man he must have been to accept the noble prize with such admirable modesty.
As Sasha said, much of this reminds me of our class discussion about world literature. Camus makes it clear that in his writing he makes a transformation, putting himself into the character of any given person. Making it more the literature of mankind than of the world.
Guilty of receiving a prize in a time of such terror and destruction, it is clear that Camus is deserving of this honor. However Camus does honor those who suffered and have struggled by writing the words to the stories they never had the chance to tell.I believe that artists are truly people who risk criticism to express idea's such as the past to connect people together, providing a sense of 'understanding rather than judgment' which unite those through a story or picture. Aware of the silence most people endure(as Janine certainly did), Camus not only breaks it for them but makes their sins acceptable and common.
Through his explanation detailing the reasons why and how he writes so well, I think that he reveals something about himself that also contributes to his skill. "Truth is mysterious, elusive, always to be conquered. Liberty is dangerous, as hard to live with as it is elating. We must march toward these two goals, painfully but resolutely, certain in advance of our failings on so long a road." This quote reflects greatly for me on 'The Adulterous Woman.' At the end of the story I think that Janine sought the truth and her own liberty, whether it be elating or hard to live with, with the same passion that Camus writes. Using himself as a template, he is able to create identifiable characters.
As he begins to conclude his speech, Camus recognizes the rest of the world's artists who were not as fortunate to receive the Nobel prize. Those people have not been privileged "but have on the contrary known misery and persecution," he says. I think by saying this, Camus acknowledges the truth, liberty, and understanding that artists share which those of other professions may lack. To him, those qualities are much more important and applicable than his prize.
I have a new outlook on writers as artists now. There were never so many similarities between the writing of words and the stokes of paint in terms of impact.
Camus, in his speech, does a wonderful job of conveying his intentions through his "art." From the very start of his speech the reader gains a sense of Camus' modesty in accepting such an honor. "A man almost young, rich only in his doubts and with his work still in progress [....] how would he not feel a kind of panic at hearing the decree that transports him all of a sudden, alone and reduced himself, to the centre of a glaring light?" Camus does not take all of the credit for his writing, I admire that! He is selfless in that he recognizes those who are "condemned to silence" during the difficult times of war. Camus understands and stresses the fact that he uses his "art" as an outlet to truth. "[....] two tasks that constitute the greatness of his craft: the service of truth and the service of liberty." Camus will not "compromise with lies and servitude". His writing is bold and raw with the purpose of speaking for those who are oppressed.
Camus offers hope in the midst of such a hellish time. People have lost their courage as well as their direction as they experience the throes of war. Camus recognizes the fact that a reform of the world is necessary and makes this known in his speech. He bluntly states, "[....] technology gone mad, dead gods, and wornout ideologies, where mediocre powers can destory all yet no longer know how to convince, where intelligence has debased itself to become the servant of hatred and oppression." Wow, Camus, you are quite honest there! However, once again, I commend his boldness. Camus fears that he is living in a world that could soon be "establishing forever the kingdom of death." He worries about the state of the world and urges, in his speech, the restoration through truth and liberty. Towards the end of his speech, Camus states that "we must march towards these two goals, painfully but resolutely, certain in advance of our failings on so long a road." I like that he is not sugarcoating the truth of the seemingly perpetual hardships these people have ahead of them. Once again, Camus does not "compromise with lies and servitude."
In the conclusion of Camus' speech, he leaves us with appreciation to those who are "sharing in the same fight, have not received any privlege, but have on the contrary known misery and persecution." I love that Camus is so humble in a situation in which he is being highly praised for his accomplishments. Camus shares his writing not for fame or fortunure but, for those who are oppressed. Camus selflessly accepts this award because he knows that it is a step closer to truth and liberty.
We talked about in class when discussing world literature that it doesn't matter where the text is derived, but how others may relate to it. Even in Camus' speech I, on a personal level, found something which I can relate to. Within his speech, Camus stated: "For myself, I cannot live without my art. But I have never placed it above everything. If, on the other hand, I need it, it is because it cannot be separated from my fellow men, and it allows me to live, such as I am, on one level with them." He goes on, continuing to explain, what I see as his passion for what he does. It is this passion for his art and work, the connection he has with it, that inspires me. The way he describes the role of an artist, that "often he who has chosen the fate of the artist because he felt himself to be different soon realizes he can maintain neither his art nor his difference unless he admits that he is like the others", can be very applicable to other situations in life. In order to be a writer one has to be able to connect with the people, tell their story. It's the difference that in the end ties that back to society. His ability to convey this so eloquently ties pack to his passion for the art of writing. His feelings about his writing are only one example of passion within the world, yet the reader can feel it and too experience it. This again, like the trend goes so far in this blog, relates to the class discussion of world literature. It's an example of how everyone can be connected to it, no matter where geographically they may be settled.
Anyone passionate about something can relate to how he feels about his about writting. To try and relate it to my own life, I'm passionate about the sport of hockey. I "cannot live without [it]", but "I have never placed it above everything". To understand the sport, you have to take parts of the past with ideas of the present and future of others without neglecting your own. Although, my reason for choosing to play hockey wasn't due to the fact that I found myself to be different; for awhile people told me I was different for deciding to play hockey. Now I see being different as only part of what makes people the same on one level. If all people are different then they are the same on the level that they are all different... if that statement can be followed. Difference can not be maintained "unless [it is] admit[ted] that" the one who is different is really "like the others," meaning society and how everyone is on the same level due to difference.
A smaller note, I really enjoyed coming to the realization of how complex the art of writing is. The commitment described and recognition of whom one is while being classified as a writer never really came into my mind when I think of what an author is. Personally I hold a very much Websters definition of what an author is, someone who composes literature, but in the end it is so much more. An author doesn't just sit down and write about anything, they have to in some way make what they are writing relatable so there will be connections to society and those reading it, otherwise it's pointless to sit down and write it. I now, I guess in a sense, have more respect (?)/see authors in a new way now, due to what Camus had to say in this speech.
It sounds tunnel visioned of me to say that that was my view on authors originally, but to be honest I never really gave the matter any true thought until now. I'm glad this speech triggered my reassessment of this craft.
"if , on the other hand,i need it, it is because it cannot be seperated freom my fellow man."
he is speeking to the purpose of literature, he is drawing conection betweween every person on the planet. he is not trying to be athe artist that sees himself above others, if he were to do that he would not have the ability to relate to other men, his writing that shows his true human nature would not be able to come through in his work. the fact that he has won a nobel prize doesnt change that. it even makes him feelthe panic of hearing the decree. he ism so consumed in his work and is immersed in the solitude of his lifes work.
the message behind this speech is that if it were not for him beeing on level with his feelow man, enjoying the common joys and sufferings. because isnt that what makes life worth living, the suffering? is it were not for the bad along with the good, wouldnt all of the worlds literature be dull and boring.the fact that you happy that something made you that sad, to let you know your human along with the rest of everyone.
in conclusion Camus' humble nature makes him an even greater writer,"treu artists scorn nothing" it is there job to interperet, to shape and make it echoe through the world when read. if he were sinical and scorn ful he would be writing the same thing over and over again.
he is flatered by this honor, yet also feels some sort of guilt of him being chisen for this award whuile he felt there were so many other deserving writers.
I think that the moment in which Vincent finds out who he really is is revealed to us very early in his speech. “True artists scorn nothing: they are obliged to understand rather than to judge.” I think that as he grew he learned who he was and what his ‘true calling’ was. I think it may have taken him awhile to characterize himself within the group of individuals whom were recognized before him as great artists or even who aren’t recognized but create incredible literature. However, he has found himself within this pool and I think that this gives him a great sense of satisfaction. “With what feelings could he accept this honor at a time when other writers in Europe, among them the very greatest, are condemned to silence…In order to regain peace I have had, in short, to come to terms with a too generous fortune.” I think that with this satisfaction comes his soft side in which he must recognize the ones who aren’t being recognized. I love how Vincent didn’t straightly say I would like to recognize all those who aren’t today. Instead, he puts it in his own world or interpretation. “But the silence of an unknown prisoner, abandoned to humiliations at the other end of the world, is enough to draw the writer out of his exile, at least whenever, in the midst of the privileges of freedom, he manages not to forget that silence, and to transmit it in order to make it resound by means of his art.” I think through his speech he reveals many things about himself and about an artist in general. Through this speech he finds himself talking about services and commitments. The services being that as an artist you must portray truth and liberty. And the commitments being that an artist you are responsible for not lying about your knowledge and to steer clear from cruelty. I think this in itself is a self-defining moment for Vincent. I think that he has grown from being a mix up in a world of people who he thought were better then him to a place where he feels he has made his own solid and personal contribution. I think here lays the answer. I think that Vincent through this speech grows and evolves into not wanting to be recognized as a shadow but wanting and knowing that he’s an amazing writer. I think that this acceptance speech not only proves Vincent’s great talents as a writer but also reveals his true self-being, a truly remarkable writer. “I would receive it as an homage rendered to all those who, sharing in the same fight, have no received any privilege, but have on the contrary known misery and persecution.” I truly fell in love with this comment because he finally recognizes his greatness but nonetheless doesn’t forget about those who he grew from. I think in his final paragraph he realizes he’s amazing but also wants to make sure that all know that he’s only human and he does sometimes mess up. I think this and the remark about the prisoner are the points in which we truly learn that Vincent has grown from a nothing to a something but he doesn’t forget that he has come from nothing but uses it to fuel him in his fame.
Meg - I really like what you said about “history being written by the winners,” and how Camus’ job is to show the losers ‘side of things. Ps.I’m not used to seeing you without you police hat on, but I’ll get used to it.
Beth: “I believe the one he is talking about, "the ancient promise", is the equivalent of marriage rites, only not directed toward a person, but toward the practice of the art, it’s self.” I love that comparison to marriage rites and the way you phrased it. It was also neat reading about how it was similar to your own purpose statement.
Sasha: I never really thought of people coming from war as being optimists, but I definitely see what you’re saying.
To summaraize, I think Camus’ central purpose is to shake off the 50’s disillusionment and reinvigorate the people of this generation into searching for universal truth, liberty and meaning in their lives, to force them to examine and learn from the hardships of their past instead of hiding from them.
The 50’s, when the speech was written, was a decade where the search for truth was abandoned, as people were overcome by disillusionment and denial of their past full of war and turmoil (as meg mentioned) In America, I always think of that happy, picture perfect 50’s suburban family, which is really just an extension of their disillusionment, an act to hide their fear and inability to face the past. Camus urges the artists to go against the natural tendency at the time of conforming, and to instead open their eyes to not just the past, but the future which they hold, to think beyond the surface, and not act like that dumb always-smiling Brady bunch family. Resisting conformity is the only way for an artist to stay an artist. “And often he who has chosen the fate of the artist because he felt himself to be different soon realizes that he can maintain neither his art no his difference unless he admits that he is like the others.” A truly good artist is born with an ability to look at the world in a way that no one else does and then translate what they see through writing, music, painting, or whatever other form. Only by maintaining this unique view and resisting conformity can they remain a unique artist.
Not only does Camus urge artists to go against the groove and look at the world in a unique perspective, but to also share the purpose of uniting “the possible number of people” in order to “prevent the world from destroying itself.” Camus advises to save the world by pursuing “the service of truth and the service of liberty.” My favorite line was when he described truth as “mysterious elusive, always to be conquered” and liberty as “dangerous, as hard to live with as it is elating.” To Callus, writing is not just an occupation or a pastime, but a commitment to the world. Writers must “reconcile anew labor and culture, and remake with all men the Ark of the Covenant.” Camus clearly wasn’t happy with the culture of the period. Like I said early, he wants to reinvigorate this generation into searching and expanding their understanding of the world in a “quest of legitimacy”. He wants this quest to be incorporated in the culture and work of daily life. His reference to the Ark of Covenant, I don’t think has anything to do with Christianity, but just to in general have a strong set of moral principles.
Another commitment he brings up is the “refusal to lie about what one knows the resistance to oppression.” Even though writers carry such a great weight in their words, they still must remain humble and carry on with their work without “shame or pride in view of everybody.” They must remain, unlike the rest of generation, outside the cloud of disillusionment, and display the world through their work as accurately as possible. They must write with a pure pen, not for their own means, but for the sake of enlightening people to the truths of the world, to draw from his “double existence the creations that he obstinately tries to erect in the destructive movement of history.”
If there’s one thing I complete agree with Camus on, it’s that “Every man, and for stronger reasons, every artist, wants to be recognized. So do I.” While I know there are people who divert attention away from themselves, everyone like to be praised and to feel like they are valuable as an individual, and a successful one at that. The desire for some sort of recognition depends on acceptance; for Camus, it was the acceptance and resulting praise of his work. This whole chain is kind of like a chemical reaction- one thing leads to another and so on and so forth. I think this whole chain is the reason why we’re constantly struggling with our own identity and how to present ourselves in a way that’s accurate and “acceptable.” Camus’ quote “But I have not been able to learn of your decision without comparing its repercussions to what I really am” shows this connection because Camus received recognition after going through the process of finding himself, therefore this one award is a mirror of the million little subtleties that make up Camus as both an artist and as a man.
The partnership between one’s art and one’s self comes up again when Camus says “For myself, I cannot live without my art.” Any artist will describe their art as an extension of him or herself, and Camus appears to be no different. An artist’s work isn’t merely a reflection of their identity, it’s a part of it; to take away one’s work is to take away a major piece of them, and that would only lead the artist into a maddened frenzy, again struggling to make up for or replace what they’ve lost. Picture an athlete who is paralyzed sometime during their athletic career; they’ve invested so much of themselves into becoming “the athlete” and now they’re suddenly robbed of that identity. Art is Camus identity, and he continues his statement by saying: “But I have never placed it above everything. If, on the other hand, I need it, it is because it cannot be separated from my fellow men, and it allows me to live, such as I am, on one level with them.” This shows Camus as a humble man; with his art serving as a symbol of himself, he explains that he never views himself as the most important person in the world, a belief that many people get caught up in, sometimes even unconsciously. Camus only needs his art and needs his individuality when he feels lost in the sea of his “fellow men,” only to realize that it is his individuality that allows him to be equal to his others because in the end: we are all individuals.
This is a truth that is threatening to some, although Camus seems to embrace it quite nicely. There comes a time when we realize that we really don’t matter in the great scheme of things; we’re one of 6 billion others, and when viewed in that perspective you start to see how little you matter. But again, Camus is humbled by this and not discouraged because, although there are billions of other people out there who likely carry some similar traits as you do, they are not you. I know I’m starting to sound a little bit like a children’s book author right here but you are the only you, and the answer isn’t to fear your place in the world or to lament over the fact that you aren’t always number one (considering our current reality of college admissions this seems particularly relevant). The answer is to embrace who you are in the grand scheme of things, and work to better yourself and gain the recognition you want, as a reward to finished puzzle of an identity that you’ve pieced yourself into.
From the beginning of Camus’ speech, his underlying message is clear, which he conveys by saying, “A man almost young, rich only in his doubts and with his work still in progress, accustomed in the solitude of work or in the retreats of friendship: how could he not feel a kind of panic at hearing the decree that transports him all of the sudden, alone and reduced to himself, to the centre of glaring light?” He is saying that although people think it’s best to be just yourself and be aware of only who you are, he views it as negative, especially using the wording “reduced to himself”. Camus’ message is clear, and he believes the higher state of being is not when you are reduced to yourself, but you are everyone around you and even those not around you, and you are conscious of much more than just the physical body you are living in. Another way Camus proves his point is by stating, “The artist forges himself to the others, midway between the beauty he cannot do without and the community he cannot tear himself away from.” He says that the art of writing isn’t even about you; it is about allowing yourself to empathize and almost become other people, and a part of the community.
Camus is also says that although he is delighted to receive such an honor, he enjoys the fact that writing keeps him connected to all other people, so he is also experiencing anxiety because now he is in the spotlight alone, just himself. He says of his art, “If, on the other hand, I need it, it is because it cannot be separated from my fellow men, and it allows me to live, such as I am, on one level with them.” He’s articulating that the reason he needs his art is because it allows him to be connected with other men by such deep emotions like joy and suffering. Camus says that part of maintaining such art as writing is part realizing that you are not different from others, and part accepting that fact. His point even says that by admitting you are like the others is one way to be different, because many others cannot do this.
Camus also describes some of the hardships of being a writer, saying about a writer, “By definition he cannot put himself today in the service of those who make history; he is at the service of those who suffer it.” It’s like saying that a writer cannot be a part of the history that goes on, but instead has a duty to watch history happen and write about those going through it, and without doing so himself, Camus has nothing to write about.
I like where Camus describes the problems facing generation. He’s so in touch with the reality and accepts it for what it is, no matter how bad. He realizes that his generation may not be able to turn back the clock and restore peace, but is able to achieve liberty and truth without bringing the hatred that often comes with them. Again, the central theme of writing not being about the differences between you and others, but about the similarities is shown. Camus says that though writers can be great, they cannot claim to have accomplished anything other than what they shared with others without shame and pride, and without being divided. He says only then can a writer be credited with creating characters from this history.
Camus asks why any writer would try to make himself an example of virtue in life, and he knows that he had a free and privileged life, and accepting this helps him better understand and relate to the other men who must remain silent and have only experienced a small bit of happiness. He feels free because he is willing to admit that he should share the honor he is receiving with the others who have not shared the privileges he has and have experienced pain and misery instead. Camus knows that these “artists” are not above anyone in any way, although some have been more fortunate, they cannot make themselves something to be modeled after. He is aware that everyone makes similar mistakes, but some people just come out of them more fortunate.
Camus sees no boundaries to his writing, and doesn’t define himself as only a writer of his own country, but a universal writer. I admire how he can so easily forget about the small differences between him and others, and instead savor the larger similarities, in terms of human emotions, which are in fact the core of his and others’ writings.
shelby, i don't know if it's what u meant, but from your post i got the impression that you think camus wrote solely for the recognition or acceptance, or even wrote just to define himself. i disagree. i'm not saying that recognition wasn't in the back of his mind or that through his writing he did not find himself, but that it was not his main goal. i think more of his purpose can be seen in the sentence, "Each generation doubtless feels called upon to reform the world." I think he's using his talents as an artist not to speak for himself, not to gain popularity with his fellow writers or whatever, i think he's using it to aid his generation in its calling i guess...to reform the world. i don't think you're giving him enough credit to say his writing is merely an extension of himself, because i think its its more an extension of man kind, as cheesy as that sounds,
"but i have never placed it [writing] above everything. If, on the other hand, i need it, it is because it cannot be separated from my fellow men, and it allows me to live, s uch as i am, on a level with them." (oh oops i just realized u used this quote)
i don't think that quote shows how much of a conceited person he isn't...but more that he sees himself as a part of mankind and his writing talents just allow him to speak out for them. wow i feel like an asshole spending that much time disagreeing with you, but i agree there was still some individual aspect to it too...
Hey guys, sorry for the late response. We had a very far away basketball game. Anyway, here is what I wrote about what I thought was an amazing speech.
While reading Camus’ speech, I was struck by how little I know about something I thought I knew very well. Camus talks of a kind of writing I have never experienced. He talks about a kind of writing that isn’t what you do but who you are, a kind of writing that is done simply because that the author literally cannot exist without putting his ideas to paper. His is a kind of writing that both serves humanity and defines it. Camus speaks of man’s identity as being inseparable from his writing and his fellow men, stating that “the artist forges himself to the others, midway between the beauty he cannot do without and the community he cannot tear himself away from.” While I write school assignments and poetry, Camus’ work articulates the hope and despair of a besieged generation. The idea that there is so much more to write about both scares me and gives me hope.
It is pieces like this that put to rest the stereotype of a writer as simply a dreamy intellectual, mainly with respect to the discussion of a writer’s courage. This speech was written in 1957, a year in the heat of an age of conformity and fear. A writer like Camus, who states “a commitment to bear…the misery and the hope” of a generation, volunteers to sign his name to a document that promotes controversial ideas. While historians protest the mistakes of past people, writers proclaim a society’s mistakes to its living leaders. An act like that requires a special sort of either stupidity or bravery, but it is ironically not until these writers offer to analyze us that we ever truly examine ourselves. Again, this is a kind of passion in writing that I do not know.
With this courage comes the writer’s ability to write about controversial subjects. Camus suggests that a writer himself cannot be perfect, because a perfect man would have nothing to write about. “What writer,” Camus asks, “would from now on in good conscience dare set himself up as a preacher of virtue?” He then goes on to say that all that “explains many of [his] errors and [his] faults…has doubtless helped [him] toward a better understanding of [his] craft.” Everyone always says that you write better about the things you know, implying that only an imperfect man can write effectively about an imperfect society if he desires to have any impact. It must the combination of passion and courage and flaws that allows a writer to write something capable of change.
I will admit that I would usually call myself a writer. However, after reading this speech, I feel sort of like a hollow outline of the writer I hoped I might be. While I write to understand myself, writers like Camus do so in order to help all of us understand ourselves. A written speech about writing that causes another writer to question his or her own work is, undoubtedly, a very fine one. Camus’ humble brand of brave and selfless writing inspires me to find enough writer’s courage to hope that, someday, I’ll have something that is imperfect and meaningful enough to write about.
Over the course of my life, I have concluded that a good work of art is one that moves by disturbing, delighting, saddening, and revealing, whether it be through a pen, a paintbrush, a guitar, a voice, or any other form of expression. It may not necessarily be visually pleasing upon first glance or hearing, because it is an unknown idea. It touches upon a new discovery and cuts to the core of an idea that is a universal truth.
Often, truth is not pleasing, as Camus emphasized in his speech regarding a time chock-full of wars between people who, ironically, were ruthlessly battling for freedom. However, it is much easier to avoid the truth, and much less painful to venture on to another path in which judging, instead of understanding, is settled on. It is in this area that war begins to breed rapidly; we compete over power (over other people) and money and flourish in a disgusting world of materialism, "mingled fallen revolutions, technology gone mad, dead gods, and worn-out ideologies," for these are our ways of coping with differences and, ultimately, the truth (my God is better than your God). Likewise, Janine could be considered "adulterous" in her affairs with freedom because she settled with what she could get, even though it wasn't what she wanted or needed, and this eventually led to a great deal of suffering a tad too late. Good thing ol' Camus was around to give us this speech and remind us that the pursuit of art requires the ability to object to or be subjected to an axiom.
In the latter case, we fall to the silence that Camus speaks of, the silenced truth that may grant us freedom. Then, we are no longer together; the truth is no longer universal, and the art serves no purpose. Then, there are only a select few people that experience compassion, sacrifice, and sadness, and must endure "turmoil" and "humiliations" in complete isolation. As some of my feller classmates have mentioned, we are individuals, but no one should ever have to be brought down to a level in which conformity is the only solution to our everyday problems. Unfortunately, it is recognized that some freedom and some happiness is only a fix, and such conformity and settling allows such a thing to happen. Personally, I'd rather have my happiness be a constant, let alone freedom. If we had freedom, we could say anything we wanted to, and not received the stink eye, or a bomb, in return. The unknown is such a widely feared concept, and we often choose to defend ourselves from it instead of embracing the new idea or opinion simply because it's initially different.
I agree with some of my feller classmates in that he certainly is a humble dude in bringing himself both up and down to the level of other artists and other people. It's easy to have a vision hammered into your mind of yourself standing in front of a big block of marble, chisel handy, and ready to just carve away at who and what you want to be, and if you really feel a certain way, you can be exactly that!! You can BE YOUR OWN PERSON. I'm different, I don't care, I don't have to try to understand your views or opinions because in the end, I'm the one that matters here. It's my fate, isn't it? Don't I control my fate?...
... Now let's be honest, that's a little selfish, and a little narcissistic. We all suffer tragedies in our lives, some greater than others. We can all feel passion for one thing or another (let's hope so). And, we've all felt at least once in our lives that we cannot be understood and that our ideas were not accepted or considered. Surely after experiencing something like the World Wars, this statement holds true. But through this common suffering of what one may call "bad times," particularly in Camus's time and even today when there is plenty of malice, sadness, and tension to go around, we can relate through expressing ourselves as Camus proves in his literature and as anyone can do in their own art.
Oh, and just for the run, it can be noted that I shrug at people who say they're "not good at art." If you have a passion, I'm sure you're "good at art," for that passion can be shared with others.
Oh, and just for the other run, when I used the pronoun "we," I was doing my best to speak as a large and important group of individually tiny little people, who make up about a six billionth of the group each. Each six billionth is human. Each six billionth makes mistakes. Each six billionth can feel what the others do. Each six billionth has a view, and together, that makes six billion views, which is rather hefty, but universal nonetheless.
Alex, I think you might have misunderstood me. By quoting his part about wanting recognition I didn't mean to imply that he became a writer solely to be recognized. I was trying to say that in order to be recognized you have to be accepted, and in order to be accepted to need to "find yourself" ( I hate using that phrase, I think it's so lame). Constructing a solid identity and truly discovering who you are is hard, and I was trying to say that the award represents more than just him as a writer.
When I quoted the "everyone wants to recognized" quote, I mean that I believe that it's human nature to want to receive praise. It makes us feel good about ourselves. I was pointing out that we can't really be praised until we get over the hurdle of creating an identity for ourselves, which Camus has done.
Also, by calling his art an extension of himself I wasn't trying to make an understandments, in fact i thought as I was writing it that it seemed a little overstated. His art is a part of him because he created it and put "himself" into it. I write and I view my writing as a piece of myself because it's something 100% created by me. He could use it to represent mankind I guess, but I mean lets just not designate him the automatic "Voice of the people." Saying he represents mankind acutally makes him look a little full of himself. It would be like saying I represent everyone at Berwick, which clearly isn't the case. Leading to my last point, I didn't mean to say he was conceited in that quote about living on level with other men, in fact I described him as humble after that. He realizes he's just one of many, yet he's the one who's been honored. He is proud without cockiness, which is respectable.
ok so I'm glad I got this out of the way because we pretty much agree on all of the points, just a little miscommunication somewhere along the way.
Post a Comment