> I can't imagine any art that does not confront what > it is to be human. > To me, this is unclear. It's unclear in three places. I'll willingly go with the flow on two of them: the notions behind the words 'art' and 'to be human'. The third is the notion behind 'confront'.
For some time now I've been revising a play that has had a working title of INCOMPLETENESS. The central character is a former academic, a philosopher whose final work-in-progress is titled 'An Incompleteness TTheorem for Language'. But the more fundamental "incompleteness" is reflected in the lives of all four characters in the play. Almost all of us die leaving behind a life that has been "incomplete". I would not protest a critic's line that says, "This play confronts what it is to be human." What unsettles me is the realizetion that I would protest that line if it were applied to the vast majority of other plays -- plays by me and by others -- that focus on, for example, an idiosyncratic flaw or predicament in a central character (or more than one). Almost any play by Shakespeare will do: RICHARD III, OTHELLO, ROMEO AND JULIET. Only in a trivial sense would I claim these plays "confront what it is to be human". That phrase suggests that the problem/predicament presented applies to ALL humans. Yes, Williams's STREETCAR is about humans, but their motivations and problems are idiosyncratic in that they are "A structural or behavioral characteristic peculiar to an individual or group." If the notion behind "confronts what it is to be human" can be stretched to include LONG DAY'S JOURNEY, SALESMAN, THE GREAT GATSBY, and even an "aids" drama like PHILADELPHIA, then the phrase "I can't imagine any art that does not confront what it is to be human" is equivalent to "I can't imagine any art that does not have humans in it". Which is either false or uninformative. Google this: [daniel dennett deepity].
