The Gift: Imagination and the Erotic Life of Property
 | List Price: $15.95 Our Price: $49.59 Availability: N/A Average Customer Rating:   |
Editorial Reviews:
Discusses the argument that a work of art is essentially a gift and not a commodity.
If you like "The Gift: Imagination and the Erotic Life of Property, you might also like ...
Spotlight customer reviews:
Customer Rating:
Summary: amazing
Comment: 2 pages into the introduction of this book, I felt I was reading a sacred text. Besides all the economic and philosophical things he deals with, the most valuable thing for me was to understand -why- I feel so rotten doing a piece -for- a market, instead of for the inherent spirit of the artwork. (Some) of the main premises of this book adress the core issue of trying to make art and survive financially in a commodity-driven society.
Here are a few of his premises:
*that art is a gift - not a commodity,
*that we live in a commodity-driven world,
*that when we try to force art into being a commodity, we create commodities-- not inspired art,
*that when we turn art - or any gift- into a commodity, we harm our family, tribe, and community
Really well researched, written, and offers experimental alternatives in the 2006 postscript, for artists wanting to work in their field, instead of at fast food joints or carwashes.
Customer Rating:
Summary: Heart in the right place
Comment: Lewis Hyde is, I am certain, an excellent Humanities professor. I have nothing at all against professors of Humanities - on the contrary, I believe that every university should have one. The problem with this effort is that he slips into areas where he not only has no expertise, but even worse - it seems that he does not realize that he has none. For example, one could almost call this book an economics text, in that he profers theories of economics throughout; specifically, "gift economies" vs "market economies". The problem is, there are no "gift economies" in the world, and never have been. The examples he uses, such as the Kula of New Guinea, have a very elaborate traditional gifting ritual, but Hyde does not seem to understand that this is wholly separate from their economy, which stands apart from the gifting practices. The gifts of shells that are passed around the ranking Kula males have nothing at all to do with their living; it is a social ritual. The Kula have other methods of providing food, shelter and clothing for their people, and it has no connection with their gifting practices.
In this book, Hyde ventures into many areas outside of his field of expertise: economics, sociology, secular and religious history, political science, and more. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but he demonstrates woeful deficiencies in these areas. For example, he bemoans the conclusions drawn by Martin Luther and others in the sixteenth century that allowed "usury" to become common practice. (By this, he means the charging of interest of any amount on loans.) This, he explains, ripped the world out of a golden age of free thinking, creativity, and gifting, into a deadly era of logic, commodity trading and profit. This golden age of gifting whose passing he mourns is more commonly referred to as "the dark ages" for very good reason. During this time, there was no "usury" in the form of common banking systems as we now know them, it is true. There was also nearly universal illiteracy, no hope for improvement of ones birth-lot, constant epidemics, witch-burnings, inquisitions, etc.
After this unthinkable introduction of "usury", the world was transformed, but not at all according to Hyde's dolorous version of history. The Renaissance, according to Hyde, was a calamitous step backward. Yet, within a century, witch burnings were a lamented legacy of a bygone era; education for the masses was becoming a reality; medical advances were beginning to chip away at the terrible mortality rates; social consciousness was rearing its head - people were beginning to ask hard questions of the ruling classes. Hyde doesn't see any of this as genuine progress.
As other reviewers have pointed out, Hyde conflates two entirely different definitions of the term "gift" and thus leaves this work in a hopeless muddle. A "gift" in the sense of a freely given item bestowed upon one person or group by another person or group, is not at all the same thing as the the concept of divinely bestowed talents for creativity. We call the artists among us gifted, in the sense that it was once believed that the Gods had provided this ability to create, and thus the artist had received a "gift". This superstition provides Hyde with the entree to extend his economic theories of gifting to the sphere of creativity, when in fact, there is no connection between the two.
I give the work three stars because the last two chapters - pertaining to Whitman and Pound - provide excellent insights into the forces that shaped these two poets into the artists that they were. This is Hyde's field, and he clearly has some deep insights into the inner workings of the minds of these two geniuses. This alone is worth the price of the book and the time to read it.
Of course, one must ignore his attempts to draw conclusions from this analysis in the world at large, but that is easily done, because he himself admits that he was wrong, in his conclusion. He doesn't go quite far enough, I must say, but it's very strange to read an entire book, and then see the author's concluding chapter where he says, "I was wrong". Unfortunately, he admits only partial error - not enough to rewrite the entire tome. This is sad to me, because I get the sense from this book that Hyde had some very profound insights into the nature of gifts. Had he not felt compelled to muddy the waters by bringing in his amateurish economic theories, and then totally departing into irrelevancies by conflating giftedness with gifting - we could have had quite a "gift" here. As it is, it will impress a few who do not care to think too deeply about what the author is actually saying. The rest will dig for the few pearls buried in the dross, and shake their heads at the rest.
Customer Rating:
Summary: The other half of economics
Comment: The first essay in this compilation of three is one of those pieces that can potentially change a person's life. Any student of the social sciences becomes aware that there are many important exchanges made in society which are not and cannot be valued in market transactions. Hyde offers a thoughtful analysis of the social function of goods and services exchanged outside the structure of the market. These arguments are essential as a counterbalance to the positivism expressed in most economic thought today.
A good deal of the material from which Hyde draws can be found in Marcel Mauss's book, also called in English, *The Gift* (Essai sur le don). Anybody who has loved Hyde's book will want to read Mauss's as well.
Customer Rating:
Summary: In the face of the je ne sais quoi.
Comment: Years ago there was a reader comment in Harper's Magazine to the effect that the spirit of a place is a residue of emotions from the person who cared for it. Examples were the backseat of a taxicab and a favorite aunt's guest bedroom. Imagine the one, a robotic garage worker, mindlessly vacuuming and swabbing, and now Aunt Sally in a sunny kitchen starching linens and putting flowers in a vase.
The reader was attempting to pinpoint a distinction of spirit that we recognize but can't define. Lewis Hyde confronts this problem as he tries to explain the difference between schlock and art. It is the dilemma that so vexed Potter Stewart as he tried to define pornography-"I know it when I see it, but I can't say what it is." Like Potter Stewart, Hyde can give examples, but no explanation. Hyde, however, is too game for surrender in the face of the ineffable.
Hyde starts with a hypothesis: Art acquires a spiritual quality that comes from a giving heart, And a corollary: The spiritual quality of art is lost if disrespected by the recipient. Hyde hypothesizes that the artist, recipient of an unearned talent from a giving god, must share it in turn with a giving heart. (Does this mean art cannot be sold? Oops, we're getting ahead ... .)
In seven chapters, two questions predominate: What is the spiritual quality that differentiates gifts from non-gifts ("commodities" in Hyde's parlance)? And, what is the nature of the disrespect that will so profane the gift as to nullify it? Here are some of his suggestions.
Gifts are not-as some suppose-without strings. (Forget flowers or a `thank you' to Aunt Sally, you'll see.) Rather, gifts and commodities differ because gifts are ambiguous and variable as to value. First, gifts and their reciprocals may not be equivalent in price, but it is bad manners to compare. (One does not "look a gift horse in the mouth." Right? "It is the thought that counts." Right? See, you already know this stuff.) And second, although the price of a gift may be low, the "thought that counts" (the spirit of the gift) causes a gift to increase in value as it is passed along. Aunt Sally gives you a frayed scrap of lace your grandmother and she both wore at their weddings. It is tattered, yet, from one generation to the next, each exchange has enhanced its value. Later, you send fudge to Aunt Sally. She invites friends to share and brags about your thoughtfulness. Lousy stale resort fudge, it may be awful, but it is bad manners to say so. It is the fact that these tokens came as gifts that gives them value.
Ambiguity and variability mean gifts, literally, do "keep on giving". In a commodity exchange, I trade corn, you trade tomatoes, we agree on equivalent values, we exchange, we are quit. In a gift exchange inequivalencies of price together with increases in value leave a residuum, an indefiniteness of obligation that binds both parties to future transactions. We have not balanced our account; we are not quit. We have a continuing duty to make future exchanges to extend the longer-term relationship.
Reciprocity creates gift circles. Where the circle is greater than two, a gift to one is a proxy gift to all. Thus, when Aunt Sally invites you to stay, she may not think her son will one day come stay with you, but when he does, your gift to him is a reciprocal gift to Aunt Sally as well. Every gift enhances the bonds with all whom we perceive to be within the circle.
Disrespect of a gift weakens our sense of community with the one who disrespects it. This is true on the level of mundane-when Uncle Henry skips family Christmas for a cruise with country club friends-and the sublime-when we perceive that others devalue divine gifts. For instance, why is society uncomfortable with sales of kidneys? Why is society uncomfortable with slavery? Do sales of people and parts profane what others believe to be a gift? Why is post-modern society so uncomfortable with pornography and prostitution? Does commercialization profane something that many believe is a gift between partners? Why are emotions so high in the debates on abortion, euthanasia and the death penalty? Do the objectors believe these actions profane a gift?
Hyde uses the themes from the first seven chapters to devise a theory of literary criticism that he applies to Walt Whitman and Ezra Pound. Like some of the other reviewers, I did not feel that the theory's application was as engaging as its development. It seems to work better with Whitman. This is in part because Whitman's effusive spirituality lends itself to discussions of the artist as medium, but I may also be influenced by the fact that I am stingier with appreciation of Pound. Hyde, himself, admits that by the time he has completed his proofs he is no longer as convinced of his premise as he was at the outset. He acknowledges that art may be sold in some circumstances and does not always become profaned thereby.
Though the theory's application is perhaps not successful in the way Hyde hoped it would be, still, the book is a stunning work. It succeeds in so many ways that a copy (with marginal notes) resides permanently on the topmost select shelf in my non-lending library. I keep copies on hand to give to friends.
Frankly, first time through, this book was difficult. Hyde is a poet, first and after all, and each paragraph is dense with meaning, so I read it in small bites with careful digestion in between. He uses words (`erotic' and `copulative' come to mind) in ways that are so far removed from modern usage as to be confusing at first. But take the time; make the effort. This book is a gift to all of us. It would be churlish not to appreciate it.
Customer Rating:
Summary: The excerpt alone is full of faulty reasoning.
Comment: In the excerpt we are immediately asked to imagine a scene where a boorish colonist mistakes an Indian loan for an Indian gift. In the scene it is noted that when the Englishman receives this gift he immediately says to himself, "What a nice thing to send back to the British Museum!". When the Indians later demand to know where their gift is, the Englishman is so astounded they would voice this demand he invented the term, "Indian giver" to ridicule it. We are then given the author's definition of gift as a gift that keeps on giving.. i.e. the gift doesn't stop with the receiver but must be passed on to keep it true; "whatever we have been given is supposed to be given away again, not kept." Except we learn in the next paragraph that actually the material gift is not important if it is replaced with another gift of equal or greater value. He even goes on to state that the gift need not be returned to the original donor but can be passed along to another member of society. Well, isn't that what the Englishman intended to do upon first receiving it? What we are actually witnessing is a clash of presuppostions based on two parties coming from completely different methodolgies of trade and social discourse. What gifting is to the Englishman is always an expression of gratitude or good will with no strings attached. What gifting is to the barter-centered Indian is the exact opposite.
The Indians were not giving anything away but their trust. Under a barter economy transactions are conducted in goods with gifts given as a prelude to NEGOTIATION. The Indians were not being generous with their goods but were instead being generous with their credit! Under a barter economy how do you suppose a new-comer would be greeted? Remember there is no currency, only capital. Well, if you are a savvy trader you will attempt to determine your new neighbor's credit worthiness by offering something of value and then waiting for the return. If the object itself is returned it means the newcomer is relatively poor and has nothing of equal value. If something of relatively equal value is returned then a certain equity can be assumed. If something of greater value is returned then the tables have been turned and negotiations can continue untill all parties are comfortable with each other, i.e. each has gotten to know one another via this custom. The fact is, under this system nothing is given freely. It is understood by all that this is all negotiation. Polite negotiation. The Englishman walks into this world from a completely different background. His economy is revolving not around constant negotiation with everybody he meets. Things are much more regulated. The art of negotiation is lost on him.
The Englishman's immediate desire to give the pipe to a museum completely undermines the author's contention that the Englishman wanted to keep it for himself. The Englishman actually is more in tune with the author's description of a gift than the Indians. What actually is happening here is the exact opposite of what the author wants us to believe. The Englishman will give the gift to a British museum where he will in effect be circulating this gift throughout the world. The Indians want it back or something back to communicate to them the newcomers relative wealth and hence further credit worthiness. It can be assumed that the Englishman is also working under similar ideologies but under a more protracted and sophisticated methology. He is giving to a museum from which he has taken in the past free of charge. He is returning to the museum an obligation he feels which is the same obligation the author is describing as existing only in the Indian world. But wait a second. It seems that this exchange is simply a protracted settling of accounts between the colonist and the museum. It is the same settling of accounts the Indians expected but to which the Englishman simply transferred to his own set of books which actually preffered to assume all gifts were eventually to be repaid without ever the contention that it would be otherwise. The Indians simply had a much more LOCAL and IMMEDIATE need for retribution. The term "Indian giver" can be seen an accurate description of a type of gift that contains an immediate retribution. As opposed to gifts within a monied economy where barter has been replaced with retail, gifting has simply become less important as a means of character assessment. In a monied economy, the entire barter system is replaced with a much more convenient marketplace. The disparity between the two views of gifts has nothing to do with framing the colonists or the Indians as being more or less generous but instead has everything to do with simple misunderstanding. Misunderstanding that may have been reconcilable if the colonists had not been so eager to view the Indian as anything more than savage.
Technical Details
Binding: PaperbackDewey Decimal Number: 306.32
EAN: 9780394715193
ISBN: 0394715195
Label: Vintage
Manufacturer: Vintage
Number Of Items: 1
Number Of Pages: 352
Publication Date: 1983-02-12
Publisher: Vintage
Release Date: 1983-02-12
Studio: Vintage
