|
|
|
|
|
|
est. Even here the line between ''highbrow" arts and "lowbrow" arts seems to have become very thin. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. A Moderated or "Modern" Aesthetic Solution |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let us now try to review the phenomena listed above from the point of view of a "modern" conception of aesthetic value, according to which every work aesthetically "well done" is endowed with two characteristics: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It must achieve a dialectic between order and novelty, in other words, between scheme and innovation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This dialectic must be perceived by the consumer, who must grasp not only the contents of the message but also the way in which the message transmits those contents. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This being the case, nothing prevents the types of repetition listed above from achieving the conditions necessary to the realization of the aesthetic value, and the history of the arts is ready to furnish us with satisfactory examples for each of the types in our classification. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The retake is not strictly condemned to repetition. An illustrious example of retake is the many different stories of the Arthurian cycle, telling again and again the vicissitudes of Lancelot or Perceval. Ariosto's Orlando Furioso is nothing else but a retake of Boiardo's Orlando Innamorato, and precisely because of the success of the first, which was in its turn a retake of the themes of the Breton cycle. Boiardo and Ariosto added a goodly amount of irony to material that was very "serious" and "taken seriously" by previous readers. But even the third Superman is ironical in regard to the first (mystical and very, very serious). It appears as the retake of an archetype inspired by the gospel, made by winking at the films of Frank Tashlin. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The history of arts and literature is full of pseudo-remakes that were able to tell something different every time. The whole of Shakespeare is a remake of preceding stories. Therefore, "interesting" remakes can escape repetition. |
|
|
|
|
|