Pater, Lessing, Bourdieu

Wow. Lots of great material for discussion this week. I am finally feeling up to par, so I think I am ready to tackle this...thank God (or rather, thank Zemka) we didn't have to deal with Kant this week. - hope I didn't make everyone sick by appearing this morning. I think I was no longer contagious, though. - OK, to the task at hand. I have to start with Pater, because I just loved it. I can't believe he was a Victorian, his sensibility is so Romantic, almost like Thoreau...but I am probably being overly hard on Victorians (bla, bla, bla) I like his advice, such things as "the critic should posess...the power of being deeply moved by the presence of beautiful objects" and "the service of philosophy, of speculative culture, toward the human spirit, is to rouse, to startle it to a life or constant and eager observation." and one more "gathering all we are into one desparate effort to see and touch". OK, one more: "our failure is to form habits" - this last one is not a romantic description, but relevant, nonetheless. I think habits are the enemy, in many ways, I relate this to Bourdieu, as well. It is just these sorts of habits that cause us to see things without really seeing them, by looking through the habituated lens of culture, we become lazy, and do not see things with a fresh eye. But back to Pater. I think what he says really strikes a chord with me, at this point in my study of literature. I seem to be getting further from this sort of true enjoyment and pleasure from the beauty of poetry, the more I learn to analyze and distance myself from it, viewing a poem as an object to be acted upon, instead of a piece of art to be passionately experienced. I want to devote my time to the study of literature, but somehow still very much desire to enjoy literature, and for that matter, life, from this perspective as well. Is it possible, though? OK, one more quote from Pater:
"art comes to you proposing frankly to give nothing but the highest quality to your moments as they pass, and simply for those moments' sake."
Is it possible to move on to Bourdieu from here? I think not. I found him pretty completely abhorent. I see his point, but I just really don't want to believe it. I guess I am too young and idealistic...well, at 31, it may be time to drop the "young" (lol). I guess I believe too much in the idea of inherent beauty, that the innate beauty that an object, or a poem, posesses can be appreciated by anyone, if given proper illumination (which can take the form of education, it is true)

OK, enough of that. I am going to highlight this, because I want to know what everyone has to say about it. Regarding Lessing, I keep wondering what he would have had to say about the medium of Film as Art. Does it actually leave anything to the imagination? Arguably not, since it fills in all of the temporal and visual gaps traditionally left to the imagination in narrative and visual arts, respectively. By virtue of being a visual narrative art, is film inherently flawed, then? I don't think so, but I wonder if he would. I suppose there is something left to the imagination, in that we don't always see what is happening off screen, or after a scene (love scenes come to mind). But I can't help but think back to all of the times I have seen a movie after reading the book, and saying "that is not what he looks like" or "that scene just wasn't how I imagined it". Clearly, we all to often prefer the way we imagined the scene, or a character to the director's representation. Hmmm. What do you think?