Thanks for this! You bring to mind two recent pieces, which you may have seen, followed by a quick comment:
1. Earlier this week, The Paris Review published a wonderful interview by Merve Emre with Sally Rooney, discussing her novel Intermezzo. Here’s a sample: “[Emre] You said something that stuck with me—‘Many writers are contemptuous of the novel as a bourgeois form, but I love the novel.’ How does one sustain that love for the novel at a time of horrific violence? More specifically, what shape does that love take in Intermezzo?” ("Loving the Limitations of the Novel," October 10).
2. Iona Italia, in conversation with artist Megan Gafford, explores how we’ve come to prioritize statement-making over beauty and craftsmanship in art and architecture on the Quillette podcast ("In Defense of Beauty," October 9).
To me, aesthetics and morality are two sides of the same coin—distinct yet deeply intertwined. The “art-for-art’s-sake” stance, while often a good one, is already a moral position, something its proponents sometimes overlook.
3. You capture it well, especially with your reference to Natasha Joukovsky, "quite useless": “Novels are not moral treatises. Yet they do have something to teach us about the sorts of attitudes and choices that withstand the test of life, and those that don’t. . . Natasha Joukovsky has distinguished between beautiful novels we truly want to read and consciousness-raising works that earn our approval because reading them is an efficacious act of public atonement.”
Thank you very much for reading this, and thank you for pointing me to those two conversations. Are "To me, aesthetics and morality are two sides of the same coin" your words or are you quoting Iona Italia? Either way, I agree.
Thanks for this! You bring to mind two recent pieces, which you may have seen, followed by a quick comment:
1. Earlier this week, The Paris Review published a wonderful interview by Merve Emre with Sally Rooney, discussing her novel Intermezzo. Here’s a sample: “[Emre] You said something that stuck with me—‘Many writers are contemptuous of the novel as a bourgeois form, but I love the novel.’ How does one sustain that love for the novel at a time of horrific violence? More specifically, what shape does that love take in Intermezzo?” ("Loving the Limitations of the Novel," October 10).
2. Iona Italia, in conversation with artist Megan Gafford, explores how we’ve come to prioritize statement-making over beauty and craftsmanship in art and architecture on the Quillette podcast ("In Defense of Beauty," October 9).
To me, aesthetics and morality are two sides of the same coin—distinct yet deeply intertwined. The “art-for-art’s-sake” stance, while often a good one, is already a moral position, something its proponents sometimes overlook.
3. You capture it well, especially with your reference to Natasha Joukovsky, "quite useless": “Novels are not moral treatises. Yet they do have something to teach us about the sorts of attitudes and choices that withstand the test of life, and those that don’t. . . Natasha Joukovsky has distinguished between beautiful novels we truly want to read and consciousness-raising works that earn our approval because reading them is an efficacious act of public atonement.”
Thanks again for your insightful posts!
Thank you very much for reading this, and thank you for pointing me to those two conversations. Are "To me, aesthetics and morality are two sides of the same coin" your words or are you quoting Iona Italia? Either way, I agree.
Yes, that's me. The subject is always on my mind! I appreciate your own critical balance.
!