Analysis Of Thomas Leitch's 'Tradition And The Individual Talent'
In 'Tradition and the Individual Talent', T.S. Eliot so eloquently states "Art never improves, but... the material of art is never quite the same" (Eliot, 1921, p. I) . In other words, art stays itself but not quite the self it once used to be; rather a new version is created, recreated and refashioned over and over again. This axiom hints to the generative nature, a key feature marking art. This generative nature makes it possible for art to generate (new) art: the outcome of this process is similar (to its source) in that it also qualifies as art, but is different in that it is new and can take different forms. This new art-form can be expressed via the routes of different mediums (literature, theatre, film, music, painting, etc.). When
…show more content…
1). Leitch presents two arguments supporting his claim. First he points out to what he calls a “renascence”- a renewed interest in the field. Indeed, this interest is clear through the many publications in the field in the period between 2000 and 2007. Wikipedia’s entry on Film Adaptation provides a helpful further reading list of prominent writers in the field including James Naremore (2000), Kamillia Elliot (2003), Julie Sanders (2005) , Linda Hutcheon (2006) and Thomas Leitch (2007) to name but a few. Another plausible argument advanced by Leitch as to why Film Adaptation studies is a worthy research area in our times is the fracture between the theory and the practice of Adaptation studies. In the same vein, Cobb wittily notes: “Despite the growing and articulate chorus of adaptation scholars who critique the language of fidelity and its consequential denigration of adaptation as an art form, some of these contemporary scholars continue to repeat reductive cultural hierarchies and the binary structure of fidelity criticism” (Cobb, 2010). To put it in simple terms, breaking up with the hierarchies inherent in the In/Fidelity Discourse is a necessity, theory instructs. In practice, however, the field is so saturated with these discourses. This very “rupture” marks a need for further research in the field to fill in this void (Leitch, 2007, p.
1). Leitch presents two arguments supporting his claim. First he points out to what he calls a “renascence”- a renewed interest in the field. Indeed, this interest is clear through the many publications in the field in the period between 2000 and 2007. Wikipedia’s entry on Film Adaptation provides a helpful further reading list of prominent writers in the field including James Naremore (2000), Kamillia Elliot (2003), Julie Sanders (2005) , Linda Hutcheon (2006) and Thomas Leitch (2007) to name but a few. Another plausible argument advanced by Leitch as to why Film Adaptation studies is a worthy research area in our times is the fracture between the theory and the practice of Adaptation studies. In the same vein, Cobb wittily notes: “Despite the growing and articulate chorus of adaptation scholars who critique the language of fidelity and its consequential denigration of adaptation as an art form, some of these contemporary scholars continue to repeat reductive cultural hierarchies and the binary structure of fidelity criticism” (Cobb, 2010). To put it in simple terms, breaking up with the hierarchies inherent in the In/Fidelity Discourse is a necessity, theory instructs. In practice, however, the field is so saturated with these discourses. This very “rupture” marks a need for further research in the field to fill in this void (Leitch, 2007, p.