Gertrude Stein Debate!!!

Hey ya’ll. I’m a little ahead for a blog for next week, but I just wanted to share some of my thoughts about the Gertrude Stein reading we did this week and discussed in class today. Firstly, I would like to say that I think it’s great that the reading started such a heated discussion in our class. There have been a few things that we have discussed that have kind of gotten people ‘fired up’ and I think it’s fun to hear both sides of the story! Next, I would like to say that I agree that Stein's "What are Masterpieces and Why Are There So Few Of Them?" is a bit confusing and frustrating to read. I found that hearing the passages read out loud definitely helped me to understand what she was getting at. However, she is still somewhat hard to comprehend because the concept she is trying to explain is very difficult. The section where she argues that “Identity is recognition, you know who you are because you and others remember anything about yourself but essentially you are not that when you are doing anything” got me thinking. After this statement, Stein then goes on to comment about the little dog and how “the little dog knowing that you are you and your recognizing that he knows, that is what destroys creation.” I felt like this statement was complicated by the fact that we identify certain works as masterpieces. So by identifying and recognizing them as masterpieces, we essentially destroy the concept of a masterpiece (for, as she says earlier, “it is impossible to talk about masterpieces and what they are because talking essentially has nothing to do with creation,” which seems to imply that a masterpiece has to do with creation and therefore if creation is destroyed, so would the masterpiece.)

As I am writing this, I am beginning to realize why Stein may have written her piece the way she did. That last sentence there sounded like Stein… it dragged on a bit. All the ideas are connected and difficult to comprehend so when you have a thought about them you have to just kind of let it out. (Try thinking about one small section of the piece and maybe you will find the same thing!) We might be a little more understanding of Stein and less critical of her style (although I still think her piece is difficult to read) after thinking about what she is trying to communicate a bit more.

Anyway, I am interested to hear what everyone else has to say! I don’t know if I really understand what she is saying, but I thought that what I did figure out after re-reading this part of the piece was interesting (although, I admit, I may still be confused… she’s hard to understand!). Maybe some of the rest of you will have some thoughts too....

Have a great weekend everyone!!