Wala akong Makita nung essay na “the making of a writer” brad. Kayo na bahala jan. Yung sa second essay, Ang topic e art for art’s sake, versus art as a social reform. Eto sagot ko.
When I first read the title, my initial reaction or thought was these two words are correlated in one way or another. Maybe this essay is about how Literature affects the Society and how Society affects Literature in return. After reading the essay, I found out why it was entitled so. Salvador Lopez said that for you to be a good writer, you have to have a community, you have to be socially conscious, thus, you should not just live in your ivory tower. He prefers proletariat literature, though he did state that literature is different from propaganda. Though we write about different things, about our hatred towards the society and so on, still we can't escape the fact that we are still conscious about our society. His main argument is that whenever you write, you should not just write for “art's sake” but you have to be socially conscious and make sure that your work will help the society in one way or another.
I've mentioned “art's sake” which is what Jose Garcia Villa writes for. For him art is never a means, it is an end in itself. Thus, art is the thing that you want to create just to express yourself, to unleash your emotions and enhance your style or creativity. Since Villa and Lopez have different views, I decided that the class will have a debate on these views.
Personally, I am not against Salvador Lopez's “socially conscious literature” or Jose Garcia Villa's “art for art's sake”. I just think that both serve their own purpose and value in the society. There's no problem in writing a poem which is just about a coconut or about the corrupt government officials. Writers should just be given the freedom to choose which one they wanted to use, whether they wanted to write about art or something that would be helpful to the society....