35. The reasoning is as follows: "asserting one's freedom" in art makes sense only referentially ― it is an act of destroying traditional artistic methods. After these crises of freedom ― they are often creative and enriching in their opposition to the fossilized relics of tradition ― it finds sustenance only in a parrotlike repetition of the original gesture, a self-parody that immediately becomes irrelevant. One then finds oneself confronted with an increasingly weak, sad, and bitter involvement with the unconscious leavings of tradition.
This is from Jacque Roubaud's introduction to the Oulipo Compendium, edited by Harry Mathews and Alastair Brotchie.
Oulipo, sometimes styled as OuLiPo, is short for Ouvroir de Litterature Potentielle, "Society for Potential Literature." They attempted to get around the dilemma that Roubaud describes above by thinking of new restraints. The restraints were there to be overcome, to show that the artist wouldn't be defeated by them.
The group, with some obvious turnovers in membership, is still around. You don't hear as much about it. In the 20th century there was more of an appetite to play with and rearrange literary tradition, as demonstrated by Calvino (an Oulipian himself), Nabokov, and Borges. In the 21st the assumption seems to be that nobody reads anyway, so it will all fall on deaf ears.
I think this is too defeatist, though. Enrique Vila-Matas has continued. to play into the present. That's where the hope is.
2 comments:
Well, I have to admit we're way outside my comfort zone with this subject. I like and understand Wallace Steven's poem but I have no idea what the Oulipo version is trying to convey. The N+7 formula doesn't seem to work for me but I will accept the writers are enjoying themselves and leave it at that.
On the other hand I've read and enjoyed books by Italo Calvino (Cosmicomics was magical), Vladimir Nabokov (who could forget Lolita) and Jorge Luis Borges (can hardly remember which ones - definitely Fictions). I had no idea at the time I was reading Oulipo - I found them enjoyable as they were. But, then again, I read for fun and stimulation as well as losing myself in a good story.
When it comes to Enrique Vila-Matas I confess to not having read him but Bartleby & Co. sounds very interesting. I'll give that one a try one of these days. The idea of playing with literature is fascinating and if that's all Oulipo is in essence I guess I can go along with that.
Wallace Stevens has long been a favorite of mine. Not sure if I've mentioned that to you before. Truth to tell I always have a problem with the N+7 formula as well. The thing is that in the Merriam-Webster dictionary if you take a noun and go seven ahead with it you're still probably dealing with a combination form of the same noun.
Of those three authors I think Calvino was the only one who personally identified with Oulipo. I've enjoyed his work a lot, especially If on a winter's night a traveler. Borges is similar and is sometimes cited as part of Oulipopo, a related group associated with crime fiction. Nabokov was tricky but not actually Oulipo and doesn't seem like he'd like them. He was a miserable bastard--albeit a talented one--so who did he like?
Vila-Matas is neat. Bartleby & Co. is the best thing by him that I've read. I like the idea of playing with literature. Getting lost in a good story is also worthwhile.
Post a Comment