What do you think?
Rate this book
The Gift: How the Creative Spirit Transforms the World
The Gift has come to be regarded as a modern classic. This inspiring examination of the "gift economy" is even more relevant now than when it originally appeared - a brilliantly argued defence of the place of creativity in our increasingly market-orientated society. The Gift takes as its opening premise the idea that a work of art is a gift and not a commodity. Hyde proceeds to show how "the commerce of the creative spirit" functions in the lives of artists and within culture as a whole, backing up his radical thesis with illuminating examples from economics, literature, anthropology and psychology. Whether discussing the circulations of gifts in tribal societies, the ethics of usury, the woman given in marriage or Whitman's Leaves of Grass, this wide-ranging book is as entertaining as it is ground-breaking, a masterful analysis of the creative act in all its manifestations. It is in itself an extraordinary gift to all who discover it.
477 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1979
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 453 reviews
June 27, 2014
I felt I needed to write a review to counter the negative ones here. Any book that calls the zeitgeist into question is bound to draw confusion and pushback. I've bought this book three times because I give it to friends who don't always give it back. That's okay: The Gift was and is a profound touchstone for me (and for an older generation of writers who knew Hyde from his Minnesota days). I recommend it to artists who wonder how their gifts may be appeciated for their worth, if not always always their fair value in a modern economy. Some of the reviewers' gripes probably owe to the fact this is a dense, dense book. Hyde's ideas build and spiral through varied concrete examples drawn from anthropology, open-source programming, poetry, and pure versus applied sciences. Hyde also shows balance; he recognizes that fees-for-services are useful when we simply don't care about a long-term relationship with the producer--but a certain spirit is lost, too, in the case of so many dead objects we bought but which now crowd the attic. Having just reread the book again, I can say it not only has aged well, but the Great Recession and the rise of the sharing economy lend an even greater resonance (in fact, the anniversary material in the newer edition is less striking than the original). For me, the most moving chapters are those in the second half on Whitman and Pound, who illustrate how the gift can circulate to the benefit of a nation or, traded for willpower, lead to soul's rot. Truly, artists should buy the book just for the cautionary tale on Pound. Here and there, the book's prose rises to a level of poetry that astonishes me more than on the first reading, where I was just wrestling with the ideas and their implications. This book saves me from choosing will over gift.
November 27, 2008
I tried to like this book, since it had come so highly recommended, and it was in a 25th anniversary edition. If it has been in print all those years, there must be something to it, right? Nope. First of all, it's badly structured. The first half is an extended discussion of the concept of gifts (vs paying for things) in ancient vs modern societies. Once you get the basic point, that (especially older) societies exchanged goods and services as gifts, not for money, and that Hyde thinks that's a better way to do it, then you've got the idea. He says that an artist basically has to straddle the world of gifts (because his/her art is best thought of as a gift, both received and given to the world) and the world of commerce (gotta pay the rent). The second half of the book then talks about Whitman and Pound, two worthy poets, but hardly connected in any real or useful sense to the foregoing gift discussion. Second (and my other main complaint about the book) is that Hyde beats the gift horse to death. He defines, ponders, muses, and ruminates about various aspects of what is after all a pretty simple concept for pages, weaving in fairy tales, ethnography (much of it outdated or inaccurate), and random commentary about various writers and artists. It's a maddening, frustrating book that is simultaneously more and less than it aspires to be.
June 1, 2022
I picked this up at a bookstore where I was killing some time before an appointment. I read the preface and the introduction and wept through them both. I left for my appointment, thinking I'd have to find a used copy of this book sometime and read it. A couple of hours later, I had to go back and buy it because I was still thinking about it. So it lit a fire under me, for sure. Whether or not it fulfilled the promise of that fire is still up for debate. The preface and the intro are really easy reading and point at some really salient issues. The actual text kind of does a dance around the issue at hand. We're supposed to read the author's analysis of gift-giving as a metaphor for the artistic experience and make the connections ourselves, I suspect. And sometimes I could. Other times, it was such a stretch and the academic style of writing so alienating, I could barely manage to pay attention, let alone make expansive inferences.
He's on to something about value and the arts and an alternate currency/markets but I longed for solutions, not just more examples of the schism in culture that creates market-driven art. The literary analysis of Whitman and Pound were fascinating, sure - but for me didn't really help me understand all that much more about art and the modern world. Mostly, I walked away from that section feeling pretty depressed that two of our great authors lived in poverty for most of their lives. Also, I left with a fear that my sense of moral outrage about the treatment of artists in this culture could lead me to a life like Ezra Pound's and a fascination with fascism. I mean, no, I'm not going to become a fascist like Pound, but somehow Hyde's arguments make me feel how easily a person could slide down that slippery slope. All of which leaves the question hanging about how to balance the gifts of art, artists, et al.
But paragraphs like these show up, too and this is what stokes the fire:
"Every culture offers its citizens an image of what it is to be a man or woman of substance. There have been times and places in which a person came into his or her social being through the dispersal of his gifts, the "big man" or "big woman" being that one through whom the most gifts flowed. The mythology of a market society reverses the picture: getting rather than giving is the mark of a substantial person, and the hero is "self-possessed," "self-made." So long as these assumptions rule, a disquieting sense of triviality, or worthlessness even, will nag the man or woman who labors in the service of a gift and whose products are not adequately described as commodities. When we reckon our substance by our acquisitions, the gifts of the gifted man are powerless to make him substantial."
And this quote from May Sarton:
"There is only one real deprivation, I decided this morning, and that is not to be able to give one's gift to those that one loves most. . . The gift turned inward, unable to be given, becomes a heavy burden, even sometimes a kind of poison. It is as though the flow of life were backed up."
True true and true. But how do we fix it?
There are gems in the straw of this book. It's absolutely worth reading. Just put your University hat on before you do and don't expect any clear answers, either.
He's on to something about value and the arts and an alternate currency/markets but I longed for solutions, not just more examples of the schism in culture that creates market-driven art. The literary analysis of Whitman and Pound were fascinating, sure - but for me didn't really help me understand all that much more about art and the modern world. Mostly, I walked away from that section feeling pretty depressed that two of our great authors lived in poverty for most of their lives. Also, I left with a fear that my sense of moral outrage about the treatment of artists in this culture could lead me to a life like Ezra Pound's and a fascination with fascism. I mean, no, I'm not going to become a fascist like Pound, but somehow Hyde's arguments make me feel how easily a person could slide down that slippery slope. All of which leaves the question hanging about how to balance the gifts of art, artists, et al.
But paragraphs like these show up, too and this is what stokes the fire:
"Every culture offers its citizens an image of what it is to be a man or woman of substance. There have been times and places in which a person came into his or her social being through the dispersal of his gifts, the "big man" or "big woman" being that one through whom the most gifts flowed. The mythology of a market society reverses the picture: getting rather than giving is the mark of a substantial person, and the hero is "self-possessed," "self-made." So long as these assumptions rule, a disquieting sense of triviality, or worthlessness even, will nag the man or woman who labors in the service of a gift and whose products are not adequately described as commodities. When we reckon our substance by our acquisitions, the gifts of the gifted man are powerless to make him substantial."
And this quote from May Sarton:
"There is only one real deprivation, I decided this morning, and that is not to be able to give one's gift to those that one loves most. . . The gift turned inward, unable to be given, becomes a heavy burden, even sometimes a kind of poison. It is as though the flow of life were backed up."
True true and true. But how do we fix it?
There are gems in the straw of this book. It's absolutely worth reading. Just put your University hat on before you do and don't expect any clear answers, either.
December 23, 2020
The title of this book is the most egregious misnomer I've ever encountered. Combined with the misleading jacket description I don't think I've ever had a more disappointing or frustrating experience from a book that I thought was going to be pretty straightforward.
It would have been more accurately subtitled not "Creativity and the Artist in the Modern World," but "An Ethnographic Study Through the Works of Whitman and Pound." If that subtitle still appeals to you, by all means read the book, but at least now you have a more accurate perception of what you're in for. I see now that earlier versions were subtitled "Imagination and the Erotic Life of Property," which is both more accurate (though still annoyingly vague) and less interesting. As it is, the current subtitle is only directly addressed in the concluding section for a total of 20 or so pages out of more than 300.
As I was reading, this reminded me of both Robert Bly's Iron John and Radin's The Trickster. When I stopped to examine this feeling, I realized that all three books are written by poets/folklorists, and they all use the same loose, ephemeral arguments to support their theses. They also all ostensibly treat a very fascinating subject matter but get bogged down in esoteric mumbo-jumbo and poetic fluffiness, leaving a more rational reader disappointed. Some examples from this one:
Essentially, those passages are a microcosm of the book. The central thesis, as finally addressed head-on in the conclusion(!), is that it's difficult for artists to make a living because their "gifts" aren't appropriately valued on the commercial market. The fact that this is one of those "no duh" statements perhaps explains why Hyde had to fill up the book with so much irrelevant fluff. In fact, the entire 1st half of the book is dedicated to a tedious tracing of the anthropological history of gift-exchange, which only appears to relate in a very background way to what the cover of the book told me it was going to be about. As I said, frustrating.
In addition, the rational, non-literary arguments that Hyde does propose demonstrate either a misunderstanding or a misrepresentation of facts that arouses suspicion toward the rest of his argumentation. For example, on p.150 Hyde attempts to equate the simultaneous group-reinforcement and other-repulsion of Mosaic usury laws with the biological cell membrane but does not accurately portray the membrane, making the argument useless for anyone with an intermediate understanding of biology, and misleading for anyone else. Later, less forgivably (he's not a science teacher after all), he pens the following footnote talking about Pound's anti-semitism and the Hermes archetype:
My point is that Hyde is either profoundly ignorant about what he's arguing or he's making lazy arguments without supposing that people will realize. Deliberately attempting to obfuscate is another possibility, however improbable. Either way, it's shockingly inept and calls into question the validity of a lot of his book. It also further corroborates my opinion that the book doesn't say much at all rationally-speaking. Sure it may make some nifty artistic and intuitive points, but the non-"erotic" parts of the argument are uniformly suspect, lacking any kind of academic or scientific rigor.
On the plus side, I learned to avoid books written by poets, or by poetry enthusiasts. I am way too rational and analytical to appreciate literature-based arguments, so readers of this review can perhaps take it with a grain of salt. Also, I enjoyed learning about the lives of Whitman and Pound even if I don't think Hyde did a good job of incorporating them into the overall book. The chapters on usury and woman-giving were also somewhat interesting. For anyone familiar with Robert Pirsig's Lila (I just re-read it), Pound's "Eluesinian fecundity" v. "Confucian order" exactly mirrors Pirsig's "Dynamic v. Static Quality." Or I suppose it's vice versa. . .
Unfortunately, the majority of the book is boring and its value doubtful. It strikes me as one of those that artist-types like because it reinforces their flouting of conventional/rational standards and values. Perhaps its popularity is due to coming at a time when there were less people saying these things, I don't know. But it doesn't appear to say anything ground-breaking nor offer any original solutions to ease the tension between the artist and a monetary civilization. Disappointing.
I've seen that some people find this book inspirational. I'm an aspiring writer and was looking for that but was left in the cold. The most creatively inspiring book I've read continues to be, strangely enough, Stephen King's On Writing. I highly recommend it to any writer looking for a kick in the pants. Tied for second are John Fante's Ask the Dust, Colin Wilson's The Outsider and (coincidentally) Leaves of Grass.
Not Bad Reviews
@pointblaek
It would have been more accurately subtitled not "Creativity and the Artist in the Modern World," but "An Ethnographic Study Through the Works of Whitman and Pound." If that subtitle still appeals to you, by all means read the book, but at least now you have a more accurate perception of what you're in for. I see now that earlier versions were subtitled "Imagination and the Erotic Life of Property," which is both more accurate (though still annoyingly vague) and less interesting. As it is, the current subtitle is only directly addressed in the concluding section for a total of 20 or so pages out of more than 300.
As I was reading, this reminded me of both Robert Bly's Iron John and Radin's The Trickster. When I stopped to examine this feeling, I realized that all three books are written by poets/folklorists, and they all use the same loose, ephemeral arguments to support their theses. They also all ostensibly treat a very fascinating subject matter but get bogged down in esoteric mumbo-jumbo and poetic fluffiness, leaving a more rational reader disappointed. Some examples from this one:
The tribe and its gift are separate, but they are also the same -- there is a little gap between them so they may breathe into each other, and yet there is no gap at all, for they share one breath, one meal for the two of them. 46The first passage above says pretty much nothing, and the second one says something that I'm not going to take the time to figure out.
If we pause now to contrast the esemplastic cognition of imagination to the analytic cognition of logos-thought, we will be in a position to see one of the connections between the creative spirit and the bond that gift establishes. 196
Essentially, those passages are a microcosm of the book. The central thesis, as finally addressed head-on in the conclusion(!), is that it's difficult for artists to make a living because their "gifts" aren't appropriately valued on the commercial market. The fact that this is one of those "no duh" statements perhaps explains why Hyde had to fill up the book with so much irrelevant fluff. In fact, the entire 1st half of the book is dedicated to a tedious tracing of the anthropological history of gift-exchange, which only appears to relate in a very background way to what the cover of the book told me it was going to be about. As I said, frustrating.
In addition, the rational, non-literary arguments that Hyde does propose demonstrate either a misunderstanding or a misrepresentation of facts that arouses suspicion toward the rest of his argumentation. For example, on p.150 Hyde attempts to equate the simultaneous group-reinforcement and other-repulsion of Mosaic usury laws with the biological cell membrane but does not accurately portray the membrane, making the argument useless for anyone with an intermediate understanding of biology, and misleading for anyone else. Later, less forgivably (he's not a science teacher after all), he pens the following footnote talking about Pound's anti-semitism and the Hermes archetype:
This figure who is good with money but a little tricky is always treated as a foreigner even if his family has been around for centuries. Often he actually is a foreigner, of course. He is invited in when the nation needs trade and he is driven out -- or murdered -- when nationalism begins to flourish: the Chinese out of Vietnam in 1978, the Japanese out of China in 1949, the Yankees out of South America and Iran, the East Indians out of Uganda under Idi Amin, and the Armenians out of Turkey in 1915-16. The "outsider" is always used as a catalyst to arouse nationalism, and when times are hard he will always be its victim as well.The problems with this passage are many and outrageous, not least of which is that he counts Americans in South America/Iran and the Japanese in China as "victims." Let's keep in mind that the Chinese kicked out the Japanese after the latter had invaded the former in WWII and committed uncountable atrocities. And somehow the idea of South America and Iran inviting Americans in to help out with their economy before they turned on the innocent helpers doesn't quite ring true. So with only a basic understanding of history I have destroyed 2/5 of his supporting examples. This suggests I could probably do the same if I knew anything about the other examples, or perhaps with a short wikipedia search.
My point is that Hyde is either profoundly ignorant about what he's arguing or he's making lazy arguments without supposing that people will realize. Deliberately attempting to obfuscate is another possibility, however improbable. Either way, it's shockingly inept and calls into question the validity of a lot of his book. It also further corroborates my opinion that the book doesn't say much at all rationally-speaking. Sure it may make some nifty artistic and intuitive points, but the non-"erotic" parts of the argument are uniformly suspect, lacking any kind of academic or scientific rigor.
On the plus side, I learned to avoid books written by poets, or by poetry enthusiasts. I am way too rational and analytical to appreciate literature-based arguments, so readers of this review can perhaps take it with a grain of salt. Also, I enjoyed learning about the lives of Whitman and Pound even if I don't think Hyde did a good job of incorporating them into the overall book. The chapters on usury and woman-giving were also somewhat interesting. For anyone familiar with Robert Pirsig's Lila (I just re-read it), Pound's "Eluesinian fecundity" v. "Confucian order" exactly mirrors Pirsig's "Dynamic v. Static Quality." Or I suppose it's vice versa. . .
Unfortunately, the majority of the book is boring and its value doubtful. It strikes me as one of those that artist-types like because it reinforces their flouting of conventional/rational standards and values. Perhaps its popularity is due to coming at a time when there were less people saying these things, I don't know. But it doesn't appear to say anything ground-breaking nor offer any original solutions to ease the tension between the artist and a monetary civilization. Disappointing.
I've seen that some people find this book inspirational. I'm an aspiring writer and was looking for that but was left in the cold. The most creatively inspiring book I've read continues to be, strangely enough, Stephen King's On Writing. I highly recommend it to any writer looking for a kick in the pants. Tied for second are John Fante's Ask the Dust, Colin Wilson's The Outsider and (coincidentally) Leaves of Grass.
Not Bad Reviews
@pointblaek
February 23, 2008
I chose this edition because the new one looks like a Valentine's day card. I expected it to be perfumed inside.
The Gift is a large and pretty messy book, to its credit, but the main thrusts are: 1) To use detailed analyses of folk-tales, anthropology, and economic theory to come up with a model for human interaction that parallels commodity exchange but is based around gift-giving, and 2) To give detailed readings of Whitman and Pound, two poets whose careers and lives Hyde sees standing at an intersection of gift giving and commerce in art and life. I found the first part of this mildly boring and the second part fascinating.
Especially the Pound stuff. Hyde's parable made me uncomfortable. Pound is important to me and I take assesment of his work personally - especially when it has to do with his ideas about energy and creativity. Hyde's reading is moving and persuasive: it really is a fable. Through it, Pound is transformed, from a man who knew best how to organize himself so that poetry could reinvent itself through him, into someone who misunderstood the nature of creativity so deeply that it stunted and withered his most important projects.
What a transformation! But I don't know if I'm totally happy with it.
Here's the significance of the argument, for me anyway: how we understand Pound is how we understand creation in the 20-21st century. Pound was a strategist of energy before he was anything else - he worked constantly, in and outside himself, to create that ground which would allow his vision to come into the world. And (this is Hyde's point at least) he failed. He failed to himself (to others...maybe not. Pound excited and angered a huge amount of people).
In order to explain this failure, Hyde imagines a creative imagination that is divided into two parts: will, and inspiration. Will is mental commerce: sterile, equalizing; while inspiration is the imagination's equivalent of "the gift": free, given, expansive. Hyde wants us to embrace the subconscious and unwilled aspects of the creative process - this, as he sees it, is where the magic happens. So, "forcing things" only leaves you sterile and fragmentary (see the Cantos).
I agree with this for the most part but find the set-up kind of a red herring. Much better is how Gombrowicz describes it in his diaries:
"The whole trick though is that while surrendering yourself passively to the work and letting it create itself, you do not, even for a moment, stop controlling it. Your rule in this matter must be: I do not know where the work will lead me, but wherever it leads me, I have to express myself and satisfy myself....All the problems that a work being born and blindly creating itself suggest to you - problems of ethics, style, form, intellect - must be solved with the full participation of your most alert consciousness and with maximum realism (as this is a game of compensation: the crazier, more fantastic, inventive, unpredictable, irresponsible you are, the more sober, controlled, responsible you must be." (Diaries)
(lovely, too, that all great artists no matter how "experimental" their writing sound utterly and even boringly healthy when they talk about their work. The artist is always pragmatic - that is, always concerned with what works)
The answer to Hyde's argument (an answer that he sort-of-kind-of admits in the book's conclusion) - not a new answer - is that the mind is a single piece, and to over-emphasize "inspiration" is just as myopic as thinking a book can be a blueprint whose spaces you have to fill in. The mind may be diverse, but it makes a unity.
So back to Pound's failure and how he did it...Pound failed, Hyde argues, because after a certain point he became all will. He organized and organized, but the visions stayed manifold and to him this was a failure - he wanted to fix the big thing, and thought that doing this would allow even more little things to come into existence. He was trying to do what Gombro asks, but he couldn't? Why can't we? Is it impossible - and if so, just for Americans? Or for everybody?
Which brings the question back to fables.
Pound succeeds in one type of fable but fails in another. His art and his life form a single thing that you can read from the outside, but the thing is frequently disharmonious and artless (it has to be in order to work in the larger fable, but didn't have to be, shouldn't have been, in order to work as art). His details frequently clutter and his abstractions frequently clog. Whole, two-hundred page swaths of his work are unreadable.
A corollary to this could be that many times, a good and forceful artist who fails as a great artist succeeds as a great fable. Great artists are themselves always great fables - but the moral of their work is always the same: "I AM THAT I AM."
Part good/part bad artists are much more interesting, because they succeed in their failures. They know they didn't quite get it.
"The Gift" occasionally sounds like Thoreau, occasionally like some guy sitting in his basement. One of those books that makes you, not comfortable about your failed-artisthood, so much as charged. I immediately wanted to make things, but then remembered that I am not really crafty or energetic enough to do this.
The Gift is a large and pretty messy book, to its credit, but the main thrusts are: 1) To use detailed analyses of folk-tales, anthropology, and economic theory to come up with a model for human interaction that parallels commodity exchange but is based around gift-giving, and 2) To give detailed readings of Whitman and Pound, two poets whose careers and lives Hyde sees standing at an intersection of gift giving and commerce in art and life. I found the first part of this mildly boring and the second part fascinating.
Especially the Pound stuff. Hyde's parable made me uncomfortable. Pound is important to me and I take assesment of his work personally - especially when it has to do with his ideas about energy and creativity. Hyde's reading is moving and persuasive: it really is a fable. Through it, Pound is transformed, from a man who knew best how to organize himself so that poetry could reinvent itself through him, into someone who misunderstood the nature of creativity so deeply that it stunted and withered his most important projects.
What a transformation! But I don't know if I'm totally happy with it.
Here's the significance of the argument, for me anyway: how we understand Pound is how we understand creation in the 20-21st century. Pound was a strategist of energy before he was anything else - he worked constantly, in and outside himself, to create that ground which would allow his vision to come into the world. And (this is Hyde's point at least) he failed. He failed to himself (to others...maybe not. Pound excited and angered a huge amount of people).
In order to explain this failure, Hyde imagines a creative imagination that is divided into two parts: will, and inspiration. Will is mental commerce: sterile, equalizing; while inspiration is the imagination's equivalent of "the gift": free, given, expansive. Hyde wants us to embrace the subconscious and unwilled aspects of the creative process - this, as he sees it, is where the magic happens. So, "forcing things" only leaves you sterile and fragmentary (see the Cantos).
I agree with this for the most part but find the set-up kind of a red herring. Much better is how Gombrowicz describes it in his diaries:
"The whole trick though is that while surrendering yourself passively to the work and letting it create itself, you do not, even for a moment, stop controlling it. Your rule in this matter must be: I do not know where the work will lead me, but wherever it leads me, I have to express myself and satisfy myself....All the problems that a work being born and blindly creating itself suggest to you - problems of ethics, style, form, intellect - must be solved with the full participation of your most alert consciousness and with maximum realism (as this is a game of compensation: the crazier, more fantastic, inventive, unpredictable, irresponsible you are, the more sober, controlled, responsible you must be." (Diaries)
(lovely, too, that all great artists no matter how "experimental" their writing sound utterly and even boringly healthy when they talk about their work. The artist is always pragmatic - that is, always concerned with what works)
The answer to Hyde's argument (an answer that he sort-of-kind-of admits in the book's conclusion) - not a new answer - is that the mind is a single piece, and to over-emphasize "inspiration" is just as myopic as thinking a book can be a blueprint whose spaces you have to fill in. The mind may be diverse, but it makes a unity.
So back to Pound's failure and how he did it...Pound failed, Hyde argues, because after a certain point he became all will. He organized and organized, but the visions stayed manifold and to him this was a failure - he wanted to fix the big thing, and thought that doing this would allow even more little things to come into existence. He was trying to do what Gombro asks, but he couldn't? Why can't we? Is it impossible - and if so, just for Americans? Or for everybody?
Which brings the question back to fables.
Pound succeeds in one type of fable but fails in another. His art and his life form a single thing that you can read from the outside, but the thing is frequently disharmonious and artless (it has to be in order to work in the larger fable, but didn't have to be, shouldn't have been, in order to work as art). His details frequently clutter and his abstractions frequently clog. Whole, two-hundred page swaths of his work are unreadable.
A corollary to this could be that many times, a good and forceful artist who fails as a great artist succeeds as a great fable. Great artists are themselves always great fables - but the moral of their work is always the same: "I AM THAT I AM."
Part good/part bad artists are much more interesting, because they succeed in their failures. They know they didn't quite get it.
"The Gift" occasionally sounds like Thoreau, occasionally like some guy sitting in his basement. One of those books that makes you, not comfortable about your failed-artisthood, so much as charged. I immediately wanted to make things, but then remembered that I am not really crafty or energetic enough to do this.
November 15, 2011
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,
Three weeks People. I am done with school in THREE WEEKS!!!
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,
Three weeks People. I am done with school in THREE WEEKS!!!
February 9, 2017
it turns out that every culture has a great creepy folktale about how, if you give up on your art or become ungenerous, you shrivel up and turn into a rotten fascist prune.
this is one of the best books I've ever read and has changed my life, and is smart as hell, even though the cover has an embarrassing little pink heart on it. IGNORE THE EMBARRASSING PINK HEART AND FORGE AHEAD. or risk becoming a rotten fascist prune, you know, it's your choice
this is one of the best books I've ever read and has changed my life, and is smart as hell, even though the cover has an embarrassing little pink heart on it. IGNORE THE EMBARRASSING PINK HEART AND FORGE AHEAD. or risk becoming a rotten fascist prune, you know, it's your choice
January 27, 2009
Now in its 25th anniversary edition, this book is as current and necessary as it was in 1979. A creative mix of ethnography, folklore, economics (the gift economy, the market economy, the vegetable money economy?!), and literary criticism (Whitman and Pound) all seen through the prism of art as a gift and the artist as a gifted person. Keen observations are sprinkled throughout on how an artist needs to protect from market forces that space where the artwork is conceived (essentially a gift), and only when it's finished and it's a true expression of his/her gift, then make the transition to how that gift makes its way into the world (a market economy, an agent, or sometimes not at all). In other words, how to be an artist and nurture your gift and not go crazy trying to survive in a market economy. I'm not explaining it very well, but if you are an artist or an artisan or care about art in this modern world, read this book. Lots of underlining and lots to chew over.
My favorite quote...Hyde describes making art as a labor, as opposed to work..."labor, on the other hand, sets its own pace...writing a poem, raising a child, developing a new calculus, resolving a neurosis, invention in all forms--these are labors...And labor, because it sets its own pace, is usually accompanied by idleness, leisure, even sleep."
My favorite quote...Hyde describes making art as a labor, as opposed to work..."labor, on the other hand, sets its own pace...writing a poem, raising a child, developing a new calculus, resolving a neurosis, invention in all forms--these are labors...And labor, because it sets its own pace, is usually accompanied by idleness, leisure, even sleep."
Read
October 28, 2018While Hyde has given his readers the gift of a lens through which to view artistic endeavors, this could have been done in about 50 pages - not 385. This book reminded me of a typical college freshman essay: I want to write about everything! And therefore, nothing is really achieved. While the gift metaphor is interesting, it's too vague to help in any but the most theoretical way. This could have been a tight essay, a literary work (like a novel or short story) or a scholarly work on the anthropological history of gift giving, or even a series of biographies of writers. Since Hyde attempts all of these things, he achieves none well. But, if it took him 385 pages to discover that HIS true gift is as an artistic coop organizer, God Bless Him. The world has plenty of writers, but very few people with the talent to help them write.
December 19, 2012
This books gets me in the mood, creatively speaking, more reliably and more deeply than any other. Maybe I'm already primed by the time I pick it up, but still I highly recommend to artists and aspiring, cynical, doubtful creators that need a little help sometimes getting in the zone. This might help you reconnect to that thing inside of you that digs and gnaws all the time, but stays frustratingly elusive most of the time.
March 16, 2012
I wanted to like this book, but ended up hating it thoroughly by the time I was done with it. His exploration of gift economies is one-sided and glosses over most of their problematic aspects; a text I read by a feminist author last year pointed out that in old school gift economies women were often used as gifts, and traded in the same way, as a form of homosocial bonding. Hyde refuses to acknowledge these less pleasant aspects of gift economies, focusing instead on everything that he can use to support his thesis, namely, a naive "HEY GUYS CREATIVE WRITING IS AWESOME".
His conflation of the various meanings of the word 'gift' is also problematic. Most of the book hinges on his ability to alternately interpret gift both as a literal physical object gifted to another, and as an innate talent possessed by the author. The fact that the two of these are NOT the same, and that he ignores this so that he can act like your writing is a 'gift' to the outside community in all cases, is also problematic. I don't think I know of a single author who thinks about his books in this way, and I wouldn't even count his Pound and Whitman sections as supporting this argument. In the afterward he even admits that most of his book has been empty bluster, and then in the 25th anniversary afterward, he shamelessly plugs his own charity.
His analysis of gift economies is reminiscent of Marx's argument against capitalism, but much worse written and much less thought-provoking. Even then, he ignores the gifting which often occurs within capitalist systems. Substitute 'gift economy' with 'socialism' throughout the text, and you get much the same message.
I love writing, but I don't need morally bankrupt feel-good justifications like this in order to keep me going. The fact that Hyde does, only makes me respect him less.
His conflation of the various meanings of the word 'gift' is also problematic. Most of the book hinges on his ability to alternately interpret gift both as a literal physical object gifted to another, and as an innate talent possessed by the author. The fact that the two of these are NOT the same, and that he ignores this so that he can act like your writing is a 'gift' to the outside community in all cases, is also problematic. I don't think I know of a single author who thinks about his books in this way, and I wouldn't even count his Pound and Whitman sections as supporting this argument. In the afterward he even admits that most of his book has been empty bluster, and then in the 25th anniversary afterward, he shamelessly plugs his own charity.
His analysis of gift economies is reminiscent of Marx's argument against capitalism, but much worse written and much less thought-provoking. Even then, he ignores the gifting which often occurs within capitalist systems. Substitute 'gift economy' with 'socialism' throughout the text, and you get much the same message.
I love writing, but I don't need morally bankrupt feel-good justifications like this in order to keep me going. The fact that Hyde does, only makes me respect him less.
December 17, 2008
Persevere through this book and I believe you will be rewarded with some interesting observations about human nature and how we perceive one another - in particular, you will find new perspectives on who is considered an "insider" or "outsider" to your group and how you treat them in kind.
You will also be introduced universally shared human traits - in this case, gift-giving. You will learn why there is much more to the practice of gift-giving than you ever thought possible and that the manipulation of this practice, through religion, economics and forces of history, has effected the very way we think and act.
You will view art differently and see how its creation, distribution or subjugation binds us or sets us apart.
You will find mythology, poetry, anthropology, and history used to create a rich and complex analysis of art, gift-giving, economics, politics and group dynamics. The book is, indeed, academic in nature and some parts were hard to get through (a familiarity with basic anthropological principles might help, but is not necessary). Some parts of the book are uneven, or start to feel too "preachy" or even metaphysical. And Hyde's close-reading of Whitman and Pound, while fascinating, also (in my opinion) reveal a clear bias for Whitman. This would be fine if not for the fact that the analysis of Whitman is far more cohesive than the one on Pound.
But, there are gems in here. Sentences and paragraphs that provide all too rare moments of clarity or insight (I actually wrote "wow" in the margins a few times).
These parts, along with the whole book, shine a light on our shared universal experience that threads us all together, through time, into a cohesive (yet often messy) human experience.
You will also be introduced universally shared human traits - in this case, gift-giving. You will learn why there is much more to the practice of gift-giving than you ever thought possible and that the manipulation of this practice, through religion, economics and forces of history, has effected the very way we think and act.
You will view art differently and see how its creation, distribution or subjugation binds us or sets us apart.
You will find mythology, poetry, anthropology, and history used to create a rich and complex analysis of art, gift-giving, economics, politics and group dynamics. The book is, indeed, academic in nature and some parts were hard to get through (a familiarity with basic anthropological principles might help, but is not necessary). Some parts of the book are uneven, or start to feel too "preachy" or even metaphysical. And Hyde's close-reading of Whitman and Pound, while fascinating, also (in my opinion) reveal a clear bias for Whitman. This would be fine if not for the fact that the analysis of Whitman is far more cohesive than the one on Pound.
But, there are gems in here. Sentences and paragraphs that provide all too rare moments of clarity or insight (I actually wrote "wow" in the margins a few times).
These parts, along with the whole book, shine a light on our shared universal experience that threads us all together, through time, into a cohesive (yet often messy) human experience.
April 25, 2009
Sorry, but this good-hearted little book, much-loved by the market-alienated artists it praises for preserving the primitive magic of creativity in our cold age -- well, it's kind of a crock. Hyde's emphasis on the processes by which true Art is created pays off in nice biographical readings of Whitman and Pound, but blinds him to the obvious truth that purity of intention does not determine (OK, does not always determine) the meaningfulness of a creation. We sure could use some powerful defenses of the aesthetic, in the face of the economic determinism that's monopolized public discourse. But manifestos that willfully blind themselves to how artists and audiences have creatively engaged and negotiated the market underestimate just how resilient the need to create actually can be.
April 22, 2016
Not what I was hoping for. The subtitle suggests that this is a work of psychology or anthropology, and it starts out that way, but the second half of the book is devoted to case studies of Walt Whitman and Ezra Pound that do not live up to the book's billing. I was hoping for something that might carry Marcel Mauss's anthropological study of the Gift economy a step further to show its applicability to the world of artistic production and creativity, but I was disappointed.
December 18, 2010
You who keep such close track of my "currently reading" list may have noticed (I know I have) that when I put something on it, I promptly stop reading it. It's where books in my life go to stagnate. This holiday season, with my glut of unclaimed time, I aim to change this trend. To that end, I have just finished The Gift, which I see I started reading two years ago. This is an AMAZING book. I sort of want to start reading it all over again from the beginning, since what I read two years ago is a little fuzzy now, but the main premise remains: it is so smart, and so important for any artist to read. I had put it down because the last long chapter is all about Ezra Pound and his economic theories and their effect on his poetry. And I haven't read the Cantos, mostly, and I've already felt bad about that hole in my poetic education, so I thought I would read them before reading Hyde's amazing chapter on Pound, and then I'd understand it better. But I should have done it the other way around (and maybe now I will--no, probably I won't). This is a book about how we value everything, tangible and intangible, and how to keep art from being beholden to the marketplace, and how art is not really ours until we give it away. I will try to read more things Lewis Hyde has written in the new year, and to take less time to read them. What a book!
December 6, 2016
I approached this book with some skepticism based on previous reviews. What I discovered was a long and thoughtful essay rather than a self-help guide. I think this would be a very disappointing self-help book. Especially if you're an artist looking for financial advice: do not read this for that!
Instead, The Gift is a beautifully written, thoughtfully cultivated essay on how human society has changed since tribalism to capitalism, and how this has affected the work of an artist. Hyde does not try to simplify this story with sweeping generalizations so common with non-fiction today. Instead, he weaves his idea intricately through the use of stories, fables, literary references and historical anecdotes.
Often, I would start a chapter thinking to myself, "What the hell is he going on about?", but layer by layer, his point would reveal itself, and it is far richer and rewarding than if he had spelled it all out in a sentence.
The Gift is a labour to read, but it is not dense or unfathomable. It is an expression, like poetry and like music. And the message that he had for us in 1983 is as resonant today as it has ever been: How do we reclaim the erotic nature of art in a logical market economy? The Gift begs us not to forget the true value of a gift given freely and replace it with the market value of a commodity.
Instead, The Gift is a beautifully written, thoughtfully cultivated essay on how human society has changed since tribalism to capitalism, and how this has affected the work of an artist. Hyde does not try to simplify this story with sweeping generalizations so common with non-fiction today. Instead, he weaves his idea intricately through the use of stories, fables, literary references and historical anecdotes.
Often, I would start a chapter thinking to myself, "What the hell is he going on about?", but layer by layer, his point would reveal itself, and it is far richer and rewarding than if he had spelled it all out in a sentence.
The Gift is a labour to read, but it is not dense or unfathomable. It is an expression, like poetry and like music. And the message that he had for us in 1983 is as resonant today as it has ever been: How do we reclaim the erotic nature of art in a logical market economy? The Gift begs us not to forget the true value of a gift given freely and replace it with the market value of a commodity.
August 19, 2021
I'm now in my second reading of Lewis Hyde's excellent book -- in print more than 30 years! I would encourage my conservative Christian friends to ignore the [marketing department's new and irrelevant] subtitle on this edition. Hyde, a MacArthur Fellow, offers profound insights into the differences between gift and exchange economies in the first half of this book. I found my own reading of the Old Testament profoundly informed by the opportunity to view Israel as a gift economy, similar to the economies I've seen in impoverished neighborhoods and traditional communities in the US. The insight I gained was so great that at this point I would argue it is not possible to understand the Old Testament without understanding this concept. Many misreadings have come from attempting to explain a theology of gift as if it could be confined by contract law (in my opinion). Conservative Protestants may object to Hyde's assessment of how Reformation theology ended the potential for grace (gift) as a basis for our lived community experience -- this is precisely the inverse of what we tell ourselves. The challenge is worth the exercise. There's a huge amount to gain here.
January 26, 2009
It's become common sense to talk about artistic creation as part of our market economy, complicating the pressures of artistic creation with expectations for artists to then function as business people to sell, promote, and distribute their creations as well as make them. Hyde, after an analysis of the notion of the gift in various cultures, and comparison of "gift culture" with "market culture," makes an excellent case that what artists do is better understood as a gift than as a product for sale. It's a compelling argument, eloquently fleshed out with discussions of the work of Walt Whitman and Ezra Pound. One of the best things I've read in a long time.
March 19, 2018
A fascinating examination of the gift, through historical practice and through cultural symbolism. I found this book so rich in insight, it's hard to know where it doesn't apply. I especially liked the essential argument here, that works of art are gifts and not commodities. Having slugged it out with a few editors in the past who wanted to focus on the commodified cultural product, instead of the artistic expression, this book really hit home. It's not an easy read, but it doesn't have to be. Reading it in bits and pieces and mulling it all over is the best approach. The ideas of Hyde provide a powerful antidote to the increasing commodification of our lives, our work and our selves.
April 29, 2021
Since finishing this book I've tried to describe (not always sober) this book on multiple occasions to someone who really wasn't asking for it, and I stand by all those attempts because this book is flames. Well okay, flames maybe an extreme term for what is half history, half lit crit... still, the book's deep dive into gift economy (and why it matters to creative spheres) is pretty damn persuasive for a bunch of reasons:
1) While a historical explanation of gift & market economies doesn't sound particularly fun, I found myself racing through that entire preamble (section 1 of 2) and kept forgetting to ask myself, "wasn't this book meant to be about creativity?" in spite of how long it went on for.
2) By the time you've finished that you are *really* curious to know what Hyde's gonna do with all that info. He definitely makes you work for it with part II's unapologetic forays into literary analysis - had my doubts here as I'm usually not a fan of that style – but was glad to have stuck with it because once that section picks up momentum that's when all the meaty interpretation starts to bloom.
3) The application of gift economy themes to Whitman/Pound's respective careers is objective and balanced where it needs to be, so the abstract ideas are allowed to take off without sounding flimsy; but Hyde still has a likeable writing voice and I get a sense of wanting to pick his brains about it in person.
Bonus round: reframing "what it means to channel creativity in any sense" is an itch I'm always wanting to scratch anyways, and maybe for someone who isn't interested in that question this book would be less captivating. However, I also think gift economy's relationship to the world is 100% worth discovering/pondering for its own sake and so would still recommend this with gusto.
All in all, one of my favourite recent reads and intend to keep chatting breeze about it to anyone who'll listen.
1) While a historical explanation of gift & market economies doesn't sound particularly fun, I found myself racing through that entire preamble (section 1 of 2) and kept forgetting to ask myself, "wasn't this book meant to be about creativity?" in spite of how long it went on for.
2) By the time you've finished that you are *really* curious to know what Hyde's gonna do with all that info. He definitely makes you work for it with part II's unapologetic forays into literary analysis - had my doubts here as I'm usually not a fan of that style – but was glad to have stuck with it because once that section picks up momentum that's when all the meaty interpretation starts to bloom.
3) The application of gift economy themes to Whitman/Pound's respective careers is objective and balanced where it needs to be, so the abstract ideas are allowed to take off without sounding flimsy; but Hyde still has a likeable writing voice and I get a sense of wanting to pick his brains about it in person.
Bonus round: reframing "what it means to channel creativity in any sense" is an itch I'm always wanting to scratch anyways, and maybe for someone who isn't interested in that question this book would be less captivating. However, I also think gift economy's relationship to the world is 100% worth discovering/pondering for its own sake and so would still recommend this with gusto.
All in all, one of my favourite recent reads and intend to keep chatting breeze about it to anyone who'll listen.
November 19, 2019
i'll have to keep this around because it took me too long to read the second half because i felt like i needed to quit and read a bunch of whitman and pound to get it. i dont know- this was powerful. i think that where hyde lands (i mean he doesn't really "land" anywhere) on the question of how to find the balance between art as commerce and art as gift doesnt feel entirely satisfying to me in the end. but some of the ideas in here are very powerful. this book has shaped my thinking on a lot of stuff recently, possibly in ways that are v much idiosyncratic and personal and not even supported by the text at all
January 8, 2024
Lewis Hyde you are obviously incredibly intelligent and I really really rocked with everything you said in this book, but I’d have loved it if you learned to scream “Fire!” in 50 words or less. For real though, not a day has gone by since I started grasping the concepts of this book that I haven’t said, “ah, and perhaps this, too, is the Gift!” The gift economy as an idea is a game changer and as a reality is a glimpse of heaven. Thanks, Lewis!
Read
January 25, 2023It’s taken me three quarters of a year to read The Gift. I really enjoyed the first half, even though it wasn’t as pleasant and easy a read as his book on forgetting. The second half… I didn’t take to at all. Too heady, all brains, convoluted and non-engaging. Possibly because English isn’t my mother tongue, or… simply because it wasn’t for me?!
January 21, 2020
In her Masterclass series on fiction, Margaret Atwood recommended this book, so I bought a used copy of the 25th anniversary edition. From what I can see on Amazon, the book appears to only be available from third-party vendors, although there is a Kindle edition.
I'm an American, born, raised, and steeped in barter culture. There's a joke about an old fish swimming past two young fish and asking, "How's the water, boys?" When the old fish passes, one young fish asks the other, "What is water?" So it is with culture. You don't realize you're in it until someone gives you a perspective from outside it. This book gave me that fresh perspective, and with it a paradigm shift, as a writer, but mostly as a Christian. The Gift is not a Christian book, and Mr. Hyde doesn't tip his hand on his own spirituality. Even so, I think every believer would benefit from reading The Gift because the kingdom that rests on Jesus's shoulder is a pure gift economy. I will go so far as to say a lot of the preaching/teaching that's dubbed "prosperity gospel" has a tinny ring to it because the speaker has failed to recognize the difference between "gift economies" and "barter economies." My opinion.
Hyde's remarkable study of gift cultures versus barter cultures is lengthy and detailed. It's a lot to absorb, but it's easy to get the gist of it right off the bat. I know I'll return to The Gift again and again to replenish my soul.
From the book:
"The gift leaves all boundaries and circles into mystery. The passage into mystery always refreshes. If, when we work, we can look once a day upon the face of mystery, then our labor satisfies. We are lightened when our gifts rise from pools we cannot fathom. Then we know the are not a solitary egotism and they are inexhaustible. Anything contained within a boundary must contain as well its own exhaustion."
"...one man's gift must not be another man's capital...the increase that comes from gift exchange must remain a gift and not be kept as if it were the return on private capital. Saint Ambrose of Milan states it directly in a commentary on Deuteronomy: 'God has excluded in general all increase of capital.' Such is the ethic of a gift society."
"The root of our English word 'mystery' is a Greek verb, muein, which means to close the mouth. Dictionaries tend to explain the connection by pointing out that the initiates to ancient mysteries were sworn to silence, but the root may also indicate, it seems to me, that what the initiate learns at a mystery cannot be talked about. It can be shown, it can be witnessed or revealed, it cannot be explained."
I'm an American, born, raised, and steeped in barter culture. There's a joke about an old fish swimming past two young fish and asking, "How's the water, boys?" When the old fish passes, one young fish asks the other, "What is water?" So it is with culture. You don't realize you're in it until someone gives you a perspective from outside it. This book gave me that fresh perspective, and with it a paradigm shift, as a writer, but mostly as a Christian. The Gift is not a Christian book, and Mr. Hyde doesn't tip his hand on his own spirituality. Even so, I think every believer would benefit from reading The Gift because the kingdom that rests on Jesus's shoulder is a pure gift economy. I will go so far as to say a lot of the preaching/teaching that's dubbed "prosperity gospel" has a tinny ring to it because the speaker has failed to recognize the difference between "gift economies" and "barter economies." My opinion.
Hyde's remarkable study of gift cultures versus barter cultures is lengthy and detailed. It's a lot to absorb, but it's easy to get the gist of it right off the bat. I know I'll return to The Gift again and again to replenish my soul.
From the book:
"The gift leaves all boundaries and circles into mystery. The passage into mystery always refreshes. If, when we work, we can look once a day upon the face of mystery, then our labor satisfies. We are lightened when our gifts rise from pools we cannot fathom. Then we know the are not a solitary egotism and they are inexhaustible. Anything contained within a boundary must contain as well its own exhaustion."
"...one man's gift must not be another man's capital...the increase that comes from gift exchange must remain a gift and not be kept as if it were the return on private capital. Saint Ambrose of Milan states it directly in a commentary on Deuteronomy: 'God has excluded in general all increase of capital.' Such is the ethic of a gift society."
"The root of our English word 'mystery' is a Greek verb, muein, which means to close the mouth. Dictionaries tend to explain the connection by pointing out that the initiates to ancient mysteries were sworn to silence, but the root may also indicate, it seems to me, that what the initiate learns at a mystery cannot be talked about. It can be shown, it can be witnessed or revealed, it cannot be explained."
Read
December 5, 2008Hyde originally wrote this book with poets in mind, but it is recommended for anyone working in any of the arts, or who wants to devote themselves to a career or calling that does not do well in a market economy. In the first half of the book he draws on cultural anthropology and folktales to lay out his theory of a gift economy, and the characteristics and requirements of a gift. In the second half, he uses that theory to examine the works and lives of Walt Whitman and Ezra Pound. Neither section provides any real solution to the problem of how these gifts (art, etc) can survive in a market economy--for that, you need to read the afterword (only in the 25th anniversary edition) where he discusses arts funding and the creation of new methods of distribution (the Internet, etc) and funding (Music Trust Fund, Creative Capital Foundation). In short, this book helped clarify my own conflicts with the market economy that currently dominates American life, and gave me hope that art will survive despite appearing inviable.
November 19, 2017
This is an economics text book. The amount of time spent on “the artist in the modern world” is small. Hyde’s second book is just as shitty. Margaret Atwood called this a masterpiece and I just wonder if she was on prescription painkillers when she read it. Awful.
Read
March 5, 2010One of those books I liked at the time and would like to compare my impressions 20 years later.
June 16, 2019
Loved this book. Changed how I looked at the world. Always recommend it.
December 16, 2019
Some interesting ideas about art and the marketplace, but overall not for me. Too much talk about creativity being an ineffable gift from the universe or whatever.
July 31, 2017
Lewis Hyde entrou no meu radar por conta de seu (excelente) ensaio sobre o arquétipo Trickster. Quando vi o nome dele na capa de um livro que no Brasil foi traduzido como A dádiva (edição de 2010 da Civilização Brasileira, estou com preguiça de cadastrar aqui no Goodreads) não hesitei em comprar.
The gift foi escrito em 1979; é, portanto, bem anterior a Trickster makes the world (1998). Esse prelúdio é só pra dizer que o livro não é tão bacana assim. Ou eu estava esperando demais. Seja como for, continua sendo uma leitura interessante - a veia do ensaio aos moldes campbellianos já era forte no autor - mas, bem, o livro tem problemas.
O livro se propõe a investigar a relação entre arte e mercado e como a verdadeira arte não pode ser confundida com commodity. Até aí tudo bem, bacana, e ele apresenta várias ideias interessantes (especialmente a arte como transferência de um certo momentum entre autor e público). Mas a estrutura do livro é falha e os capítulos não raro são circulares, para não dizer redundantes. O livro poderia ter umas 200 páginas a menos, ouso dizer que praticamente sem prejuízo de conteúdo.
Para além disso, o ponto que mais me incomodou foi a marcação de posturas muito fortes em relação à comercialização do talento. No fundo é um livro que fala de problemas estruturais do mercado de arte, das renúncias e sacrifícios e dos boletos que não param de chegar, mesmo se você escreve umas palavras bonitas por aí. No entanto, não só não oferece respostas para nenhuma das questões que levanta como julga duramente quem está tentando sobreviver & fazer arte ao mesmo tempo.
Esse livro é tipo aquele seu amigo diletante (todo mundo tem um) que tem um monte de projetos q bacanas, mas não consegue perceber que só consegue executá-los porque está nadando no privilégios, e ai de você se sonhar em quem sabe ser pago por algo que você ama e produz no seu tempo vago, em meio a sei lá quantos empregos e frilas.
Eu recomendo MUITO o Trickster makes the world - quero inclusive reler na edição brasileira. Já esse The gift... na minha cabeça virou uma "obra de juventude do autor", que aparentemente tirou a cabeça de dentro do próprio umbigo desde então e agora escreve coisas interessantíssimas.
Não é bonito envelhecer & evoluir? Eu acho. É o que espero para todos nós - sou uma otimista incansável.
The gift foi escrito em 1979; é, portanto, bem anterior a Trickster makes the world (1998). Esse prelúdio é só pra dizer que o livro não é tão bacana assim. Ou eu estava esperando demais. Seja como for, continua sendo uma leitura interessante - a veia do ensaio aos moldes campbellianos já era forte no autor - mas, bem, o livro tem problemas.
O livro se propõe a investigar a relação entre arte e mercado e como a verdadeira arte não pode ser confundida com commodity. Até aí tudo bem, bacana, e ele apresenta várias ideias interessantes (especialmente a arte como transferência de um certo momentum entre autor e público). Mas a estrutura do livro é falha e os capítulos não raro são circulares, para não dizer redundantes. O livro poderia ter umas 200 páginas a menos, ouso dizer que praticamente sem prejuízo de conteúdo.
Para além disso, o ponto que mais me incomodou foi a marcação de posturas muito fortes em relação à comercialização do talento. No fundo é um livro que fala de problemas estruturais do mercado de arte, das renúncias e sacrifícios e dos boletos que não param de chegar, mesmo se você escreve umas palavras bonitas por aí. No entanto, não só não oferece respostas para nenhuma das questões que levanta como julga duramente quem está tentando sobreviver & fazer arte ao mesmo tempo.
Esse livro é tipo aquele seu amigo diletante (todo mundo tem um) que tem um monte de projetos q bacanas, mas não consegue perceber que só consegue executá-los porque está nadando no privilégios, e ai de você se sonhar em quem sabe ser pago por algo que você ama e produz no seu tempo vago, em meio a sei lá quantos empregos e frilas.
Eu recomendo MUITO o Trickster makes the world - quero inclusive reler na edição brasileira. Já esse The gift... na minha cabeça virou uma "obra de juventude do autor", que aparentemente tirou a cabeça de dentro do próprio umbigo desde então e agora escreve coisas interessantíssimas.
Não é bonito envelhecer & evoluir? Eu acho. É o que espero para todos nós - sou uma otimista incansável.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 453 reviews