Here is a little extra commentary on Dorothy Sayer's book The Mind of the Maker. I didn't have time during my presentation in class, and thought I would post-it for some easy points and of course for anyone who has any futher interest in the book :) enjoy!
In The Mind of the Maker, Sayers comments on the "common man"’s tendency to view life as a series of “problems” and “solutions.” She feels these commonly used terms have dangerously false implications, for the “problems” of humanity (such as war, unemployment, and death) do not have “predictable, final, complete and sole possible solutions.” Although she admits there are exceptions, which may be properly labeled as such, she stresses the fact that very few exist.
Sayers suggests that instead of attempting to “solve” life’s “problems,” we put our energies to better use by creating a new way of life. She writes:
I conclude that, if other men feel themselves to be powerless in the universe and at odds with it, it is because the pattern of their lives and works has become distorted and no longer corresponds to the universal pattern—because they are, in short, running counter to the law of their nature.[1]
The law of our nature is a natural impulse to create and work passionately, not to simply solve life’s “problems” and achieve a finality. There is not always an absolute “solution” to life’s problems, only a ceaseless and continual call for creative work to be done. The author feels we should view work as an artist, in that we create passionately because we love to do so and because our nature demands it. The author explains that God’s identity as Creator is not meant to make a separate distinction between God and His creatures, but to illustrate a connection, or the “universal pattern,” between the mind of the maker and the Mind of the Maker.
This argument is obviously very appealing to me, because I am an artist and I am creative. To others, whose strengths and identity reside in other attributes, this claim may seem exclusive or even offensive. Although Sayers definitions of an “artist” and “creativity,” are broader and unconventional, she is still too quick to belittle “the common man” (as she calls him), for working for the sole purpose of a pay check.
Although it aught not to be so, many people do not have the freedom to do work which is meaningful, because of pressing times or responsibilities. In some cases, working for the sole purpose of a pay check, is not to be demonized, but respected. In addition, not all jobs hold significance, but need to be done nonetheless. Dorothy Sayers is too quick to praise the “creative artist” and belittle the “common man.” Diversity is irreplaceable, and a world full of starving artists would create an entirely new set of problems, even if it would create a new way of life.
[1] Sayers, Dorothy L. The Mind of the Maker, 212.
In The Mind of the Maker, Sayers comments on the "common man"’s tendency to view life as a series of “problems” and “solutions.” She feels these commonly used terms have dangerously false implications, for the “problems” of humanity (such as war, unemployment, and death) do not have “predictable, final, complete and sole possible solutions.” Although she admits there are exceptions, which may be properly labeled as such, she stresses the fact that very few exist.
Sayers suggests that instead of attempting to “solve” life’s “problems,” we put our energies to better use by creating a new way of life. She writes:
I conclude that, if other men feel themselves to be powerless in the universe and at odds with it, it is because the pattern of their lives and works has become distorted and no longer corresponds to the universal pattern—because they are, in short, running counter to the law of their nature.[1]
The law of our nature is a natural impulse to create and work passionately, not to simply solve life’s “problems” and achieve a finality. There is not always an absolute “solution” to life’s problems, only a ceaseless and continual call for creative work to be done. The author feels we should view work as an artist, in that we create passionately because we love to do so and because our nature demands it. The author explains that God’s identity as Creator is not meant to make a separate distinction between God and His creatures, but to illustrate a connection, or the “universal pattern,” between the mind of the maker and the Mind of the Maker.
This argument is obviously very appealing to me, because I am an artist and I am creative. To others, whose strengths and identity reside in other attributes, this claim may seem exclusive or even offensive. Although Sayers definitions of an “artist” and “creativity,” are broader and unconventional, she is still too quick to belittle “the common man” (as she calls him), for working for the sole purpose of a pay check.
Although it aught not to be so, many people do not have the freedom to do work which is meaningful, because of pressing times or responsibilities. In some cases, working for the sole purpose of a pay check, is not to be demonized, but respected. In addition, not all jobs hold significance, but need to be done nonetheless. Dorothy Sayers is too quick to praise the “creative artist” and belittle the “common man.” Diversity is irreplaceable, and a world full of starving artists would create an entirely new set of problems, even if it would create a new way of life.
[1] Sayers, Dorothy L. The Mind of the Maker, 212.
posted by yogeert at 9:26 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home