He refers to the reported cases where the indecency or even came to the public criminal acts of recognized artists, the tendency of the young intelligentsia to judge creators primarily according to the specific principles shaped by global leftist thought, and claims that “yesterday’s geniuses today do not have it easy.”
Indeed, it is impossible not to notice the change in the attitude towards the artist and in general the cultural climate. A decade ago, was it possible to imagine that, for example, in literary criticism it would become a standard complaint that female characters are treated disrespectfully in works, that not all of them have a feminist self-awareness? We have to agree with Yakučiūnas that the name of a genius usually meant not only recognition of creation, but also ordination to a certain caste to which everything is allowed and forgiven, which is wrong not only from a modern point of view, but also from a universal point of view. Let’s add that a similar thing happened with works – once that level was reached, any work from the hands of a genius was automatically evaluated positively, even though a slightly different opinion was accepted as blasphemy. As you can imagine, this usually did not have a positive effect on the artist himself, his work and life.
But has the situation really changed drastically? After looking at the popular media articles about the artists, we won’t hesitate to question this. A pompous, adoring tone prevails here, and we will not find a trace of a more sober approach, greater criticality. If the scandals and moral controversies caused by the hero are mentioned, they are presented as evidence of his greatness, as perhaps the most important steps on the way to the cultural Olympus. After all, the creator’s genius, according to the popular media, is shown by the following signs:
1) traumatized childhood and poor youth;
2) sudden success on an extraordinary scale (there is no shortage of statements like “the whole world was shocked”, the words “cult”, “icon”, the same “genius” with all its derivatives, etc.);
3) more and stronger addictions, alcohol and drugs;
4) breaking sexual taboos.
In its most concentrated form, this cocktail is found in texts about pop culture stars, for example, rock musicians, although representatives of serious art are described without sparing either salt or pepper – so that sometimes even the image of a Soviet-era genius, a misunderstood but noble dreamer with a beret and a long scarf begins to appear not so shallow.
A considerable part of society has been feeding on such stories for many years. So is it any wonder that some younger writers, for example Akvilė Kavaliauskaitė believes in this unconditionally and calls herself “the rock stars of literature”. scolding contemporary Lithuanian authors that their biographies are too decent, not scandalous, and therefore unattractive to the consciousness developed by pop legends? This is a good illustration of the infantilization of culture diagnosed by Yakučiūnas and the replacement of ideas with communication tricks, but as we can see, the reason for this is not the sunset of genius, but on the contrary, the disenchantment of this concept.
If the lives of the writers themselves don’t reach rock and roll heights, at least their characters should. This is how I would paraphrase the requirement for contemporary arts floating in our sky – to present a positive hero, a special personality who, as one director said, would be the best in the world in some field. It is understandable that it is difficult to do without a superman in genre cinema or literature, but in the Lithuanian context this requirement applies without any exceptions and hindsight to the genre – specifically in Lithuanian, because world works are evaluated in a more differentiated way. Some time ago, it seems that this desire was best met by a spiritual Lithuanian who came from the depths of history or suffered the cataclysms of the 20th century, now – a tough professional who conquered the modern West or, as they say, an artistic genius who crossed moral boundaries and (therefore) was showered with glory.
Only at first glance it seems paradoxical that they never experience the desired satisfaction. After reaching one prestigious peak, another, even more prestigious one emerges – or maybe it’s because it’s supposed to be talked about? Here are the characters of Gabija Grušaitė’s latest novel “Mushroom Dream” successfully working in an international real estate company or managing a fashionable restaurant, but still “despair runs through the veins like a waterfall”.
By the way, the cult of genius is not limited to the sphere of art. We rarely think that analogous figures abound in other areas as well. Aren’t the type that reigned in the same media for a long time – a businessman with a “winner’s mentality” who brings the fire of prosperity to the (ungrateful) country, or the incessant talk of politicians about leadership (without specifying in any way what qualities and traits constitute it) not late shoots of the same root?
Trying to describe the reasons for the spread of this phenomenon, I would first mention the suppressed, binary version of romanticism, as well as memories of the special status that artists had in the Soviet system; and, most likely, a sense of inferiority, cultural no less than personal. After all, it is symptomatic how often the opposite of the genius appears in our media – the loser, as well as the fact that recently he is more often exploited by the authors of the pop culture “background” (novels by Kastytis Sarnickas, Ben Lastauskas). True, the latter portray him with a certain sympathy, unlike some public figures, for whom the flow of losers has become one of the most important activities, and at the same time, apparently, a kind of psychotherapy.
Not only that, it seems that the concept of a loser is applied very widely here: it is considered not only a lazy and a jerk, a type who has failed more than once, but also every person who has experienced failure or who competed sincerely but did not win (I can’t help but mention that this has happened to me in chrestomatous circumstances – after losing a basketball game). This is probably the reason why, as more than one acquaintance who has seen the world testifies, Lithuanians stand out against the background of other cultures with a special fear of “doing something wrong”, of making a mistake – of course, not from their own point of view, but from the point of view of others, neighbors or the environment.
Therefore, the worst consequence of the legend of genius is falling into magical thinking, where the fullness of life depends only on the whims of fate, and efforts and works are completely underestimated.
Therefore, the worst consequence of the legend of genius is falling into magical thinking, where the fullness of life depends only on the whims of fate, and efforts and works are completely underestimated. While adoring the “lifestyle” of “those who are successful” (Kavaliauskaitė), what is most real in their biographies, what guarantees their name – in the case of artists, their works – disappears. In such a mindset, they become secondary facts about which all you need to know is that they are “cult masterpieces”, only means to achieve the goal, which is easily predictable, popularity.
Therefore, I do not think that the situation should be reacted to in the way that the film-making community (or part of it, my impression may be subjective) reacts – that is, by accepting and using the popular discourse with all the superlatives. Of course, collegial solidarity and a word of support are necessary, but it is much more important to strengthen a different way of talking about contemporary arts. This is achieved by focusing not on the biographies of personalities or the public impact, but on the works themselves – by reading, watching, listening to them, verbally, without pretending to be interested, arguing about them, praising and criticizing them (not to be confused with “sending on three letters”).
This is achieved by quoting and retelling them, illustrating life situations – for example, it always seemed to me that “Fishes and Dragons” conveys the customs and peculiarities of the Lithuanian government much better than the often mentioned “The House of Cards”, regardless of the fact that they are dressed in oriental clothes. In the end, this is achieved by rediscovering the old truth that every time a new book (picture, film, music) is read, it opens up new layers of meaning. In this way, the abandonment of “genius” would not mean the leveling and the disappearance of hierarchies, which some older culturalists seem to fear, but rather more precise and nuanced assessments of talent, in which biographical details would also find their place.
In my native field, this work does not only belong to the academy, where current literature is very rarely studied, preferring the “safe” canon or literature of the Soviet era, somehow still presented too modern, not only to the media – several of them recently show decent shifts, strengthened by current culture reflection, distinguishing entertainment and quality content more fundamentally. It is also a task for the writers themselves – not to give in to the habit of closing in on one’s own circle and ignoring those who do not belong to it, which we observe in literary everyday life and festivals, not to lose faith in the public representation of one’s art, no matter how small the audience sometimes seems.
Understandably, this is not a departmental project to be completed by a set deadline, it happens daily and constantly, in many voices and genres (critical and essayistic alongside purely journalistic). Overestimating one’s strength and hoping, to gently paraphrase Sigitas Parulskis, to cut through the tabloid wind would be as counterproductive as resigning that nothing will ever change here. Obviously an alternative already exists and is created by specific people whose efforts are rarely properly appreciated. But at the same time, we feel that it lacks intensity and scope – whether measured in words and pages, or minutes, or gigabytes.
And the most important thing would be to get rid of fixation on the fatal pair of genius-loser – both in the cultural discourse and in the creation itself. The most serious contemporary works, which gain popularity overnight, do not come from megalomaniac dreams, but from real people with their own strengths and weaknesses, from their imperfect and therefore unique life stories. Looking without prejudice, Lithuanian creators would see in them not only gray townspeople or vengeful mediocrity, as they say in genius circles. Indeed, abandoning this primitive classification would not only make the atmosphere of the community of artists healthier; it would be a sign of the maturity of our society as a whole.
Laurynas Katkus – writer, artistic director of “Kaunas Literary Week”. His latest book is “Night in Berlin”.
#Laurynas #Katkus #Whats #genius #Culture
2024-09-02 00:30:54
