“Dig Deep or Go Home”

ENG 201
30 September 2010

“Dig Deep or Go Home”

    The topic question of this research is a response argument to Adorno quote conerning how poetry shouldn’t be written after the Holocaust: Is it ethical to make art from genocide? This question, as needs must, limits itself to a single instance of systematic slaughter, that of the massacre which took place around the UN-declared “safe area” of Srebrenica, Bosnia in July, 1995.

    The research process is diverse and complex but direct. Although subjective reasoning is inherent to this debate, it does not exempt the process from the same scrutiny as a more objective research question. In many ways, the verification standard is raised in order to elevate the findings to a point where they can be viewed beyond the bias of subjective detractions. One step in the process is to sort through and identify material that is directly related to the subject (that is, the Srebrenican Genocide) and then to determine if that material is not only credible, but does something more than merely state what happened from a military, political, or historical perspective. That is, does the material address any issues related to literature, art, or poetry in relation to the subject? “Credible” in this context then is determined by how far removed is the material from the event and what claims to authenticity does it have. For instance, one poem found in The Kenyon Review mentioned the Siege of Sarajevo and the deaths at Srebrenica in its beautifully composed verses, but the author merely mentioned these events in distant context, not addressing them directly. This source was not used to further the argument of this topic question.

    Another step in the research process was to directly visit the location of the subject and to speak with those involved in not only the event itself, but in the creation of art and poetry following such cultural brutality. In speaking to surivors, a number of them voiced—without being asked—how important it is for there to be a record of the subject that is separate from the narrative constructed by politicians and military historians. Many directly affected thought literature spoke of deeper truth in such circumstances than a more formalized “allegedly objective” viewpoint would even attempt to. This perspective was, somewhat surprisingly, challenged by several artists who had already created such a record of poetic literature. This paradox enhances the argument rather than nullifies it.

    Research work still needed to be done is to coninue collecting material in this manner as well as testing the structure of an objective rubric which assesses such a subjective argument. This will be done as was detailed in the section which initially address the research process, that is, asking is each item of research is credible in terms of being directly related to the topic and asking if that material addressing the issues of the subject in the argument. Just because a rubric is formed does not automatically mean it works in the manner intended. Continued testing is needed, and discarded material can still serve in measuring them against other material; why was a particular item included while another item with similar subject matter excluded?

    The author’s own’s biases is somewhat self-evident. As a writer and photographer, he stands with the opinion that art and poetry is needed to reflect upon aspects of a traumatic event which is not addressed by the historical record and is often trampled by political agendas. Although both of those objectively-accepted perspectives have their importance and included some context and causality, they often do not explore the philosphy and ideology which leads people to behave in the way they do. Art, on the other hand, is usually entirely based in ideological-philosophical terms.


~•~