Laura Mandell's theory of art in a nutshell: Genre, and what we know about the Genre of the novel, is that it begins in the 18th century. Aphra Behn's Oroanoko is maybe the first novel. The short story comes into existence around 1800. Genre Fiction just means kind; e.g. science fiction, romance, realistic novel, etc. It is formula fiction, if you could just find the formal to write for example a Harlequin Romance, you would fit into that genre. In college literature, do we stick to canon or do we stray? It has been theoretically been blown apart (the Pope's, Swifts, Shelley, Dickens, Keats, Byron, Wilde, Faulkner, anything in the Norton Anthology besides for women). Canon has been transplanted by Cultural Studies (ethnic minority literature). People have become aware of politics of thiis, there were professors who would exclude works because they did not fit into their own cultural views. But has the politics gone too far, it has completely torn up the canon. There still is great art, why should we abandon this concept entirely? Just when we discover women artists, now we say there is no great art anymore? Everyone in this room is potentially a great artist, great art is narrowly defined. When we read and adore an author, we get a "return of our own alienated majesty".

Art & Lies: Handel and Picasso for next time.