Autopoeisis

1.  "Seeking to disturb the manner in which we see things..."

This essay argues that art's purpose is to raise questions and doubts about our usual ways of seeing the world.  In doing this, it draws attention to what our usual ways of seeing the world are, as they are often taken for granted.  It then questions these ways, but, according to the essay, does not "author a new a new theoretical position, [or] illustrate an established argument."

I think this is a very interesting proposal.  I would very much like to view art in this way, and I think some works of art do achieve this purpose.  However, I think that many other works of art exist that try to not only destabilize the way readers view the world, but substitute a new world view for them.

I feel that art that makes you, the reader, think is probably the most effective art out there.  It leaves a much more lasting impression with the reader and has a greater chance of actually influencing the way he or she thinks about life.

I also think this is a very difficult goal to achieve, however.  It is much easier to say, "This way of looking at the world is wrong, because this one is right," than it is to simply say, "We should reconsider the ways we view the world."  The former inherently has a stronger argument in it, as there can be more evidence to back up something new than there will be to back up something different that remains unspecified.

I am not quite sure if all art has to destabilize "the basic belief in self," but I suppose it could do that as well.  I think it is a little short-sighted to say that's all it can destablilize, though.  I think it is probably easier for people to look at the world in a different way than for them to look at themselves in a different way.  I think we know ourselves better than we know anyone else, and this makes our sense of self fairly solidified and hard to change.  We don't like learning that we don't know ourselves as well as we thought we did.

2. "How communication and creativity function..."

This paragraph was incredibly dense, but I think the main point concerned how we differentiate ourselves based on viewing ourselves against an "other."  Here, through semiosis, we use signs to distinguish ourselves from the other.  In order for this differentiation to exist, there must be novelty, which the essay points out.  This idea of novelty relates to how we value creativity; if something is not new to us, we don't deem it creative or original.  If we have already thought of something before, it is not novel to us; it is our thought, we consider it a part of "us," not the "other's."  If something is new and creative to us, we deem it as belonging to the "other," as it is something we hadn't thought of before.  We therefore value novelty for the way it makes us think and reconsider our own view of the world.