Wednesday, January 2, 2019
Due Friday, January 4th - Read and Respond to "The Hunger Artist" by Franz Kafka
Directions: Please read "The Hunger Artist" by Franz Kafka. Next, compose a blog response where you explore the following: This short story is an allegory. What symbolic elements does Kafka use to describe the life of the artist? How can you apply it to artists/art that you know (modern music, film, literature, theatre, etc). How does Kafka's views differ from that of Wilde? How are they similar? Further, what are your views on the "purpose" of art? How does it impact your life?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
To Wilde, one's true and only purpose is that art lives for the sake of art﹣that its highest calling is when someone lives with the intent of being in the presence of beautiful things. With Kafka, art is and can be as the bullet is to an artist's gun; killing the artist via obsessions about things created in the mind. The idea of art and of art's honour precedes the ultimate death to the artist, as "It was, however, merely a formality, introduced to reassure the masses, for those who understood knew well enough that during the period of fasting the hunger artist would never, under any circumstances, have eaten the slightest thing, not even if compelled by force. The honour of his art forbade it. Naturally, none of the watchers understood that." (pg 1) where again in the artist's mind also lacks the understanding that the art (of fasting) will somehow & someday kill him.
ReplyDeleteAgain, Kafka's the Hunger Artist asks himself (in his ever increasing obsession to be the greatest), "Why stop right now after forty days? He could have kept going for even longer, for an unlimited length of time. Why stop right now, when he was in his best form, indeed, not yet even in his best fasting form? Why did people want to rob him of the fame of fasting longer, not just so that he could become the greatest hunger artist of all time, which he probably was already, but also so that he could surpass himself in some unimaginable way, for he felt there were no limits to his capacity for fasting. Why did this crowd, which pretended to admire him so much, have so little patience with him? If he kept going and kept fasting longer, why would they not tolerate it?" (pg 3) that at the end of the mindless chatter, as Kafka put it, "But then happened what always happened." (pg 3) and the Hunger Artist ultimately dies. Although death comes due to starvation and dehydration, the artist is really killed at the hands of his obsessions with being the greatest [hunger] artist alive (or rather, the lack thereof).
I like the points you make that art "lives for the sake of art" I think you really hit the point of the story. It's like when the artist is describing the butchers that come to watch him to make sure he's following the rules. He says they are unnecessary, because the process of art is it's own reward and he would never cheat out on that. I think that encompasses the whole short story.
DeleteThe Hunger Artist, by Franz Kafka explores the life of an artist through the short story of a man who is famous for fasting. Kafka depicts a scenario in which the artist is cut off from the world, isolated in his own profession. This separation with society can often be true of many artists across the world. With this isolation, the artist can feel unappreciated. We see this through the hunger artist, as he believes, “he was working honestly, but the world was cheating him of his reward.” Furthermore, we also see how important the integrity and honesty of their own work is to an artist. Kafka writes, “the hunger artist would never, under any circumstances, have eaten the slightest thing, not even if compelled by force,” to convey this idea of how important being true to their work is for an artist. Unlike Kafka, Wilde believes that artists should not seek recognition for their work. Rather, Wilde believed that the artist should create art for their own satisfaction and pay no mind to the public. Kafka writes the hunger artist as someone who craves the attention and recognition from the public. Kadka does, however, acknowledge that to feel happy, the hunger artist is, “the only spectator capable of being completely satisfied with his own fasting.” Both also share the same idea that art should have honesty and individuality. I believe that art can have a slew of important purposes in society. It has the capacity to elicit a political or social statement, creating a medium to convey an important message or idea. But it can also be used for self expression, a way for people to communicate their thoughts and emotions. However it is used, I believe art is something that will forever remain in society, as it has a profuse amount of purposes that are used everyday in the world.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with how one of Kafka's prominent themes in the story is isolation; many artists (novels, plays, music, movies) must face this same discouragement many times before success. However, I believe isolation can be good in some circumstances where reflection is necessary.
DeleteOne of the main themes we see in A Hunger Artist is the character’s isolation from society. He is putting on a show for the people around him by starving himself in a cage. Although this may seem like an unusual and problematic artform, it is very popular. The artist thrives off his popularity despite the physical harm. The audience that watches because do not necessarily appreciate his dedication to starving himself, they are watching because it is the latest trend. Like many forms of art, there were eras solely based off their popularity. For example, the renaissance and the realism stages. Art is ever changing and its popularity determines its success. We see this after the artist quickly lost his fame and his art form was no longer appreciated. Styles of art come and go and the majority of people like to stick to the latest popular trends. Looking at the story as a whole, we must question the society’s fondness for such an art form. What does it say about the citizens that they enjoy the show of a many starving himself. Can we truly consider this an art form? This can bring us to question how other art forms in modern times might be considered detrimental to society. The people in this story go from enjoying the spectacle of a man starving himself to looking at caged animals. People in our times do this as well. There are zoos with many caged animals. Do we enjoy looking at creatures that are suppressed in captivity? Another theme that the author fits into the short story is the meaning of life. Because the artist is in a cage, we can compare him to an animal. Animals are often not seen as equals to humans yet in this story, the animals and person were both in cages.
ReplyDeleteI agree with how you explained that "styles of art come and go and the majority of people like to stick to the latest popular trends." In 'A Hunger Artist,' this man is starving himself for the amusement of society. I like how you posed the question about 'what does it say about the citizens that they enjoy the show of a many starving himself?' I think that even today the American culture can be illustrated through the art we are attracted to. For instance, our interest in Travis Scott or Kanye West shows where we are as a society. That type of music is more unusual and out-there than previous types but is still art nonetheless.
DeleteI think you are right that many of the people watching may not have enjoyed it themselves, it was just the "cool" thing to do at that time. It's interesting how a movement can be started when a certain percentage of its followers do not actually get any joy out of the movement.
DeleteThe idea of art has always been defined, questioned, redefined, and then eventually undefined to fit the myriad of possible definitions that art has. Art is subjective, that much has always been discernible. It is from there that artist themselves must define their own art. In Wilde’s case, life imitates art and it for art that we must live-- beautifully that is. However in Kafka’s, the Hunger Artist, it’s clear Kafka has something else to say about it. The thought of art killing its maker is something fairly familiar, the implicit struggling artist cliche, but it’s more than that. In Kafka’s piece, he shows the hunger artist as he goes from fame to total un-existence. There’s this sense of controlled struggle, fasting in periods of time comfortable enough to get a response out of an audience, but not enough to be forgotten or to truly experience the extent of the artist’s possible ability. The hunger artist struggles for the sake of the audience until the audience leaves, then he struggles simply because it’s all he knows and wants to do; the world has nothing to offer the artist but his own art. To compare it to the ideas presented in Wilde’s Portrait of Dorian Grey, the sense of false beauty is an art taking on the artists burdens is obviously very eminent as the portrait kills Dorian in the end, the sense of what art is differs where Kafka sees art as painful or a struggle Wilde puts it in a sense of beauty covering or bearing the ugly struggles of the artist. In reality, I think art can be both. Art is beautiful not for its appearance, but it’s intention. Many times an artist uses art to channel an ugly thing and manipulate it, to find a greater purpose out of something painful. Really both Wilde and Kafka are correct and have more in common on the topic of art than it might appear stylistically. Both agree that art consumes and that art, in some sense, is life. It is simply a matter of whether art must or mustn't be beautiful that their ideas conflict. Truthful it doesn't have to be beautiful or not at all, it simply must exist.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading A Hunger Artist by Kafka, I was able to easily connect personal experiences with the allegories that Kafka subconsciously conveyed through his work. The novel introduces us to the life of a famous hunger artist and describes how his purpose applies to the world and plays a role in his identity. Prior to reading this piece, I had no knowledge to what a hunger artist was; it was difficult for me to apply my understanding of modern art to this concept. However, as I continued reading, I began to stitch together the common idea of between them— behind all art is a unique form of expression. Unfortunately, like ideas and many other things, not all can comprehend the same message that the artist is trying to elicit. Kafka delivers this idea to us in A Hunger Artist, by demonstrating in parallel the discouragement that the hunger artist experiences when he doesn’t capture enough public attention while fasting. This whole concept effectively combines together the ideas of not being able to please everyone, doing things for yourself, and life moving on; I believe that the author does this in such a way that any of these similar ideas could be communicated to the reader. This perspective that Kafka has created, juxtaposes with Wilde’s idea of aestheticism— art that has beauty concentrated on the outside rather than the inside. Aestheticism lacks the depth, meaning, and deeper values that this short story possesses, and strictly holds significance on the first layer. Personally, I agree with Kafka’s philosophy of art as I enjoy how he was able to artistically speak greater depths using a story with strong figurative language. Taking a step back, many things in my life have a form of expression that can be considered as art too— through its silent yet powerful potential, art continues to fascinate me with its effectiveness and versatility.
ReplyDeleteI like how you talked about the idea that art is received in many different ways. Not everyone is going to understand what the artist is trying to say and many people may interrupt things differently. We see this through the Hunger Artist, as his art was viewed very differently among many different people, children and adults alike. I also liked how you wrote about your personal connection and thought about your own life in relation to art.
Delete“The Hunger Artist” by Franz Kafka expresses the harsh reality that many artists may face. In this story, the artist initially revels in his craft. Despite the peculiar and punishing nature of his work, the hunger artist thrives in “doing everything just to keep them awake, so that he could keep showing them once again that he had nothing to eat in his cage and that he was fasting as none of them could”(2). He isolates himself and fasts for the audience he can attract. This continues for a while until “the pampered hunger artist saw himself abandoned by the crowd of pleasure seekers”(5). Despite this lack of interest, he tries to reclaim the spotlight at the circus. His attempts are futile and his fasting goes unnoticed. He is forgotten until his death, replaced by a panther. The panther represents the exact opposite of what the hunger artist strove to be. This story reflects how the passing time can bury an artist’s work. Just because something may be popular in the moment does not mean it will be in the future. We are familiar with timeless artists like Van Gogh, Beethoven, and Shakespeare, but the reality is that many artists, writers, and poets are left behind. This is the case for the hunger artist. This contradicts the principles of Wilde and Aestheticism, which dislike art that holds meaning. In my opinion, I believe the purpose of art to be more like Kafka’s work. Beauty can be found in anything, but to take the time to give beauty purpose provides depth. Art can beautiful, but beauty does not necessarily equate to art.
ReplyDeleteI really liked your insight on art being left behind with time. I mentioned something similar in my blog post, about how life moves on and people become inspired by different things. This same idea can also be applied in situations like dealing with personal goals, burdens, or change; time passes by and humans are either left to adapt to the situation or left behind to fall.
DeleteArt shouldn’t have boundaries and it shouldn’t be judged, it should just be enjoyed. The artist will do anything, stay up all night, just so people will appreciate the work they put in. In the short story, the only audience the Hunger Artist dislikes are the “constant observers chosen by the public” who were “usually butchers -- who, always three at a time, were given the task of deserving hunger artist day and night, so that he didn’t get something to eat in some secret manner” (1). For one, I found it very funny he referred to the reviewists as “butchers”. Also, there is idea that art shouldn’t be watched over or judged. That artists would never “cheat” because the process is the whole point. I think that is what Kafka was trying to say with this piece.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteNice blog post! I like your unique idea of what art is and how it emphasizes the process and not the result. I also had not considered the butchers to be a metaphor for critics until you mentioned it. However, in a way, the hunger artist does thrive on the spotlight and audiences. It's how he makes his living. So how does the butcher differ from the other viewers?
DeleteI agree with your idea about "the process" being the main point of a piece of art. I think in "The Hunger Artist" physically the artist's process is shown very obviously and vividly. However the artist's mental process, his thoughts, doubts, and sadness may be less distinct and less appreciated.
DeleteThe Hunger Artist, by Franz Kafka follows the life of an artist famous for extreme fasting. He is described as a man with his ribs out while in a cage. While he is isolated from everyone, there is an audience watching him in astonishment. He is able to do “everything just to keep them awake, so that he could keep showing them once again that he had nothing to eat in his cage and that he was fasting as none of them could.” As an artist, he was dedicated to maintain the integrity and authenticity in his work. Although it was quite obvious that he was in need of food to fulfill his hunger, he, as a honest artist, would not eat “not even if compelled by force.” In contrast, Wilde believed that the duty of an artist is not to entertain or fulfill the needs of the audience. Instead an artist, according to him, should have full control over his work. Both also share the same idea that art should have honesty and individuality. Although I am not a dedicated art observer, I believe that both these artists are accurate in their ideas. True art can elicit a response that may be desperately needed. Act can allow for self- expression for the artist and an image of one self for the audience. However it is unknown for, art should not lose its authenticity nor should its importance be diminished.
ReplyDeleteI liked the comparison you made between Wilde and Kafka's work. Their main difference can be seen through their purposes for the art form. While Wilde believes that the purpose of art should not be to satisfy an audience, the character in Kafka's short story entertains an audience and can only be successful by doing so. The sole purpose of the hunger artist's form of art is to be popular and to entertain others. This should not be the meaning of art because it should be something that is appreciated, regardless of what it is. The success of an art form should not determine how good it is.
DeleteWilde believes that art aims to simply create a mood. It needs not to have any practical or political implications, rather existing solely for the sake of its beauty. Conversely, as illustrated by Kafka in “A Hunger Artist,” art can be a tool to harm the artist—to serve the wants of an audience. Although the hunger artist was making a profession out of self-harm, through long periods of fasting, he lived primarily unhappy, for “most of [viewers]...believed he was a publicity seeker or a total swindler” (2). As used by the hunger artist, art is only art as perceived by the audience; if the audience was not curious to see the hunger artist, the man would only be seen as a sick, starving man. Therefore, when interest lessened, the hunger artist joined the circus, where he was ignored by most. By joining the circus, Kafka is illustrating how the hunger artist’s popularity is being replaced by more action-filled art. Furthermore, when the hunger artist is replaced by a panther, the circus becomes evermore very popular.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the purpose of art is a combination of the views of Wilde and Kafka. While I agree that art does not need to have any purpose and can just be called ‘beautiful,’ some political art is highly regarded because of its meaning. For instance, the Norman Rockwell painting, “The Problem We All Live With,” highlights many political issues of the time but is still beautiful—although beautiful in a different way than a piece like the Mona Lisa. Nonetheless, art needs to serve the wants and needs of the audience. For instance, much of today’s popular music, like rap and hip hop, would be regarded as useless noise years back in the 1800s. Taste in music fluctuates with the changes in American culture. Therefore, like the hunger artist, taste in art is often temporary.
I think the intention of aesthetic is interesting. Whether something has to be beautiful or not and if that has any effect on whether it's meaningful or important. I like that you consider this in your own thoughts about art, but also in the writers thoughts on art.
DeleteI like how you say how the purpose of art is a combination of Wilde and Kafka's views and how while art does not need a purpose, political art is good too because it can have meaning. Wilde and Kafka both have very different views on art and I like how you were able to see how art is a combination of both of their views.
DeleteYou can buy many things, but you can’t buy true appreciation. In “A Hunger Artist,” the artist realizes the emptiness in his life once his popularity fades. His appeal has a quick drop seeming “as if a secret agreement against the fasting performances had developed everywhere.” In order to continue his work, he joins a circus and lives in a cage closer to the menagerie than the human acts in the show, as if he is more like a caged animal than a person. Visitors go right past him towards the menagerie, having more interest in animals than his art form. His suffering comes not only from his fasting, but his audiences’ declining appreciation and his unhappiness with himself. The artist realizes no matter how hard he works and improves on his performance, he cannot make people admire him with the narrator saying, “the hunger artist was not being deceptive—he was working honestly—but the world was cheating him of his reward.” Although he sticks to his fasting as advertised, the pain of the world “cheating” on him continues to eat away at him, leaving him unsatisfied. As much as the hunger artist is dedicated to his work, his work doesn’t pay off, keeping him caged into a space and mindset he cannot escape. As he passes away, he still seems to be suffering saying he didn’t eat simply because he “couldn’t find a food which [he] enjoyed.” By having no other options but his fasting act, he must stay in a setting that diminishes and almost mocks his hard work, forever seeking the approval of his audience. Unlike the hunger artist, Oscar Wilde seeks to spread messages, not approval. In today’s complex world, it’s impossible to please everyone, making the most powerful art a form of argument, like Wilde’s. When art makes me think, it stays with me. To me, that appreciation defines the purpose of art.
ReplyDeleteI think the Hunger Artist is Kafta saying that people are losing interest in true art, and are being distracted by art without any meaning. The symbols in this allegory are the hunger artist himself, which represents true art, the audience, who represents the general people in the world, and the animals, which represent meaningless art. There is also the symbolism of the cage, the watchers, the circus, and the straw, but I am not as sure what these mean. Kafta's story suggests that his view on art is in contrast with Wilde's idea of art. While Wilde follows aestheticism, Kafta seems to think that only certain forms of art represent true art. We see this view even today when people criticize modern art. It shows that true art is an blurry idea, and what one person may consider art, another might not. Personally, I don't think there is any one purpose to art. I think art's purpose depends on who is viewing it and what they want from it.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with the amount of symbolism that is contained in this short story. They really magnify Kafta's viewpoint on the purpose of art in society. I disagree though on Kafta's view on the purpose of art. I don't think he is saying that only certain forms of art represent true art. Instead, I believe he is really expressing that art should be enjoyed rather than just looked at and forgotten.
DeleteA Hunger Artist tells the story of an artist with a specific vision of his craft and an audience who is unwilling to accept it. It talks about the tension between an artist’s desired final product and how people will ignore the subtlety of art in exchange for brief animalistic excitement. I believe Kafka uses the hunger artist to represent artists in general. He talks about how artists may feel conflicted about whether they should create what they truly WANT to make or what they know people will consume. It can be very challenging for an artist when those two things are different. They have to make a living but how can they do that without sacrificing their personal truths? The panther represents the simplistic loud art that attracts attention from the masses. It is uncomplicated, it is easy to digest, it is raw. Kafka writes that “even for a person with the dullest mind it was clearly refreshing to see this wild animal throwing itself around in this cage.” The experience is momentarily exciting and quickly fleeting from the memory. Movie directors grapple with this problem all the time. They may want to create a film that is a passion project but they know will not be well-received by critics. The majority of movie-goers will not take the time to explore a stranger’s passions. They want a familiar story arc with flashy imagery. Kafka’s allegory is very different from Oscar Wilde’s approach to art with aestheticism. While Wilde’s art may be art for art’s sake, Kafka’s art seeks to represent real messages about humanity and tell a story within a story.
ReplyDeleteHave times really changed? In the “Hunger Artists”, author makes the art seem distant, absurd, and unused. However, in reality only the platform has changed from cages to screens. The audience now the observers sharing “likes” as appreciation or commenting their distaste, suspicion, or confusion. We still willingly put ourselves at risk for the reward of what is not called “social clout”, because “it was fashionable”. Now, even very young children are exposed to the chaos of social media, as they were “dragged out to open air” in the allegory. The thing about phases, however, is that they come and go, “the beautiful signs became dirty and illegible. People tore them down, and no one thought of replacing them”. To my memory, first was the cinnamon challenge, then the tide pods challenge, and now I fear for the next, yet can’t wait to watch on. The purpose of art to me in that context then is to distract oneself from their own gloom by viewing another's misery.
ReplyDeleteIn “The Hunger Artist”, the story talks about a man known as the hunger artist. In the short story it shows how his art form no longer became popular and people are moving on to more exciting forms of entertainment. However, he still won’t let it go for more personal reasons so he joined the circus and “one day the pampered hunger artist saw himself abandoned by the crowd of pleasure seekers, who preferred to stream to other attractions.”(pg. 5). The animal cages behind him were gathering more attention and everyone walked straight past him. You see this today because trends come and go in weeks especially in modern music, film, and literature. There is always something new to come and replace old trends. To everyone viewing the hunger artist they did not understand his fasting in the same way he did. To them it was a scam and that he was always sneaking food and “for the hunger artist was not being deceptive—he was working honestly—but the world was cheating him of his reward.”(pg.7). His whole life revolved around fasting yet the people watching always assumed he wasn’t truly doing it and that was always the worst feeling to him, not being understood by everyone else.
ReplyDeleteI like how you connected this to trends and scams, making it very relevant in today's world. When the allure of an act fades, people can begin to question how "real" the act is, as shown by the hunger artist. Just as how today when people see a picture, documentary, or youtube video, they often feel they may be staged even if the artist says they aren't.
Delete“The Hunger Artist” by Franz Kafka explores the life of an artist and their purpose behind the art they create. Fasting in a cage displayed to the public, the artist is trying to convey the message that there is always a meaning to the art we create, even though it can be hidden. Throughout the story, the spectators begin to doubt he is truly fasting and set guards to watch him closely. They even look away at times to encourage him to eat. I thought of this as a possible allegory to how people doubt the meaning of an artist’s work. Often times people only look at what’s in front of them and don’t bother to try and understand the reasoning behind an artist’s work, similar to how the spectators simply judged the hunger artist and did not stop to think why he was fasting. While the hunger artist was growing and becoming more popular each day, “his mood was usually gloomy, and it kept growing gloomier all the time, because no one understood how to take him seriously.” (pg. 4) Kafka was trying to express that fame does not equal happiness, and that we don’t often know what is happening in the artist’s lives behind their work. Oscar Wilde believed that artists should create art simply for themselves and that art should simply be beautiful to the eye, while Kafka sees art as a way of expressing a message to the public. Art has many purposes and intentions, and can be either beautiful with its appearance or with the messages it conveys.
ReplyDeleteThe Hunger Artist is the story of a man who has his own creative form of art in starving himself. The Hunger Artist’s form of art is fasting, which is quite unique from what other people consider art. Fasting is the Hunger Artist’s personal and unique way to express his art, different from anyone else: it comes from him, and only him. However, this begins to change as the public’s interest begins to wane. What was once his own, true art, is now being affected by the public and what they think. Now, he is forced to cater towards the public and do what is wanted of him and what is told. This compromises the integrity of the uniqueness of the Hunger Artist’s true artistic intentions: if he can’t do exactly what he wants, his art is not what it is best meant to be. In Oscar Wilde’s opinion, an artist should never cater to what others want. An artist should create art for themselves, not for anybody else. This is what differs between Wilde and the Hunger Artist as the Hunger Artist cared for the recognition and what people wanted, while Wilde didn’t.
ReplyDelete