HUMAART

Midterm Paper
Candice Patricia Canoso
March 05, 2015

3. Why is it a potentially problematic assertion that art be "relatable?" What is the difference
between identifying with art personally and labeling art as relatable?

Personally, I have no issues with the evolution or the new meaning of the word relatable. I remember
once reading a quote saying People arent against you; theyre for themselves, in lay terms than it
already is people dont care about you, people are too busy caring for themselves which in itself holds
its share of truth as if humans as a specie were wired in their instincts to be self-centered. In that case,
then the evolution of the word relatable could be attributed to this digital era where information is easily
spread out: different types of ideas are abundant; opinions, thoughts and beliefs are liberal; and, most
importantly, and almost as consequence of this era, conflicting issues between different cultures/practices
arises. Because of this, people had to pick sides, they had to distinguish which information is beneficial to
them; and when I say this, I am not just talking about picking which articles to read, its also when
watching videos in Youtube or browsing ones news feed in Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and so on.
Every mainstream social media gives bias to the preference of its users; so much that the users are no
longer accustomed to or disregard anything that has no relation to the self and thus, relatable.
As I have earlier stated, I have no issues regarding the word. The issue only arouses in its abuse. Using
relatable as an influence on what to read next is okay as much as flattering oneself in a selfie, when not
abused, is alright. The usage of the words abuse comes when you use it as a criteria to judge art, or
anything at all for that matter. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, yes, but to judge a work based on
how much of the self is reflected on the work is not only solipsism, as Rebecca Mead (2014) has
introduced in her The Scourge of Relatability article, but is also purely and utterly philistinism an
attitude the human brain should have already revolutionized.
relatableto describe a character or a situation in which an ordinary person might see
himself reflected . . . the process of identificationas a means whereby an individual develops
his or her personality through idealizing and imitating a parent or other figure
(Rebecca Mead, 2014)
The quote above directly answers the second question and will also be used to further my point.
Identifying with art or any medium entails growth of the self. It entails something different from what
already is that is worth idealizing. Using relatable as a criteria to judge art takes that away. To move
forward is to explore the unknown with an open mind, to embrace the different and the weird, and
understand it; those things could not be found in the mirror.

5. Explain the concept of Duende as it applies to art. How is Duende different from the
concept of the muse?

I would like to start this essay with an etymology of duende from Edward Stantons (1942) The Tragic
Myth. The most common opinion is that, Stanton explains, this word [duende] derives from the Latin
word domitus: domestic or familiar spirit. Its basic meaning is inspiration. Using a basic search from
Google will give you the root word of domitus: domo; which has been used by many cultures with its
meaning evolving generously. The Latin definition for domo is tamed or subdued; which, in my opinion,
explains Stantons use of the words domestic and familiar. This variation of the definition is more closely
related to duende being the Spanish, and even Filipino as adapted from the Spaniards, translation of elf,
goblin, dwarf or Stantons domestic/familiar spirit.
Other varieties for the definition of domo includes house and to build which, again, in my opinion
only, is more closely related to its basic meaning, as Garcia Lorca (1933) has repeatedly argued in his
essay, an inspiration that comes from within.
Wherever the word may come from, or how it evolved from how people have been using is the key to
my own understanding of Lorcas duende and how Stanton used it in his own literary piece. For the most
part, duende is the inner force that drives an artist to be naturally talented. . . . the duende is a force not a
labour, a struggle not a thought. . . as Lorca defines it. Its a sort of paranormal (or as how it would
seem) characteristic present in an artist not measured or triggered through his skill, or influence, or even
control of the practice. Its a natural force that takes over its prey, overpowering everything else.
Lorca defines 3 possible sources of inspiration: The angel, the muse, and the duende. The angel
spills its grace and light to the artist. This gift will be the trigger to inspire him while the muse will act
as the source of inspiration herself. The duende, on the other hand, is an inside force not given as a gift
or grace, and not from an external source.
Given this, there are still some confusion on my part for the true and universal definition of duende
when applied to art.