Monday, October 26, 2009

All the world's a production (with apology to Will)

The Eagleton reading confirmed my speculation that Marxist theory relates to art as a product, and the interplay of history/ideology and text/production serves to identify the "internal relations to its 'world' ." As I read, I could not help but envision this relationship in terms of the Greek drama mask. The mask was both the signifier and, to some degree, the signified. It served to give the audience a point of reference. Beneath the mask was the human actor. If this person had removed the mask, the audience would have been at least a little confused. They would not immediately understand the intention or the message behind the action. The threads of the play would be lost, and the actor would not be recognized because he had been know only as that entity signified by the mask. In reference to Balzac,"..his art drives him to transcend his reactionary ideology and perceive the real historical issues at stake" (172). Perhaps all ideologies are merely masks that lend meaning to the cosmological audience. In that case, theoretical constructs are intended to be predominately referential . Maybe.

1 comment:

  1. I like your analogy of Greek drama masks to the nebulous division between the signified and signifiers in text. Eagleton's use of Dickins echos your example as his version of London is clearly a different animal than the same London of Jane Austen, despite what should be similarities in "reporting."

    ReplyDelete