In the Trial of Allen Ginsberg “Howl”, Mr. McIntosh, the
Prosecutor uses single words and phrases and excerpts from the poem to ask
questions to the witness: <e Ehrlich. The first witness is an English
Professor that is questioned about the merit of his judgment right out. As if
he were just some no on off the street, his word would be worth nothing. The
prosecutor put a lot of emphasis on how much merit the witness had through his
literary accomplishments such as papers, stories, critiques in newspapers.
Somehow I don’t see how the importance of the witness’s accomplishments matter.
He says he can’t translate the poem literally(138) when
asked what he though a certain excerpt meant. Mt McIntosh focuses on the ‘bad’
parts of the poem, that can’t even be read out of context. He says “The words
only mean in their context (138) “You can’t turn it into traditional prose.”(139)
Only the person reading it would be able to translate it, even with his or her
own opinion. “Whatever construction Mr. McIntosh may put on it is the
construction that he personally puts on it.(140)
McIntosh comes back to say that the book is being judged for
each line or word that could be, might be, and most possibly is obscene
language, but it can’t be evaluated because it is in the eye of the beholder.
The prosecutor is basically saying, “The essence of this
poem is the impression of a world in which all sexuality is confused and corrupted.
These words indicate a sexual act. Therefore, they are part of the essence of
the picture which the author is trying to give us of modern life as a state of
hell.” (141)
Basically Mr. Ehrlich can’t really testify anything because
the entire poem is subjective to the reader, and each and everyone has a
different view and reading of it.
How did the trial
prove the book to be obscene or not?
Do you think it is
important that the witness to the trial has a merited background of the subject
matter that the trial is based on?
Do you think it is
fair to put someone’s artwork on trial to be picked apart piece by piece? Even
if it is obscene?
I wouldn't say it's extremely important for the witness to already have knowledge on the subject. Or rather, I guess it should vary. It's not as though one group of people will ever be the only ones to ever experience a particular something. So variety with different backgrounds and different perspective would be ideal. But, i dunno. Maybe that doesn't fit into context of the trial.
ReplyDelete-George
I don't think it is fair to put someones artwork on trial to be picked a part, due to the idea of identifying who was eligible to be on the trial to judge the artwork and why were they qualified? Brings up nothing but a lot more questions. The idea of obscene, is that question pointed towards the idea of whats expectable to society depending on the time or pointing to a specific time period? Even if the work is obscene, I feel it could only get that type of label if the work was made for some type of sexual gratification but, it could be for a learning process. Example: In some high schools in the past and still to this day they still have issues with letting the naked form be in health books. Some schools label the imagery as obscene or some type of pornography but, in other schools it's more of a learning tool. The images seem as tools and steps towards understanding the human form. Their basically can be an argument about anything that is related to art that depicts or describes a human or anything with human characteristic that can be turned or looked at in a sexual way.
ReplyDelete-Sebastian
Also, keep trying to correct some of the grammar issues but they keep reseting what i type.=/
I agree with sebastian. I really have a general problem putting any type of artwork with an "obscene" tag, and hiding it from the public under lock and key. Fortunately, we are all individual censors. Since everything is speculative anyway, we each filter different images, sounds, writings differently. Whats obscene to me, may be the daily norm for you,and so on. Essentially, I feel like speech and expression should be completely free, and the judgment is based on a person to person basis.
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't important for the witness to have a merited background because like stated before, and will probably be stated throughout the rest of class, the idea of obscenity is completely subjective. With art pieces it becomes even more complicated because the meaning of the piece is subjective as well depending on the person viewing it. So one person might see something obscene in one part that could be perfectly harmless to another, but that perfectly harmless part could also be obscene to another. To place art on trial is to apply a singular meaning to the piece and cement it as correct, which is insulting to not only the artist but to others as well who may have completely different interpretations.
ReplyDeleteLike almost everything else we read and discuss about in class this just reiterates the fact that putting something like Howl on trial is completely ridiculous and unjust. First off, the idea of Howl being obscene or not will always be subjective. Mr. McIntosh was trying to cast this cloak of obscenity over Howl but to me he was actually empowering the book by giving it more attention. Personally I don't think any literary works are harmful to anybody, they are only as powerful as people make them. Using the word obscene as an umbrella term for what is and isn't ok for people to see is like using the word fun as an umbrella term for what activities are ok and aren't ok for people to do.
ReplyDelete