Camus and Inbred Humanism

I‘ve been reading Nobel Banquet speeches by those who have won such an award in the field of Literature. I’ve only read three of the speeches so far (Solzhenitsyn, Camus and Eliot), but I have found that each speech provides a concise glimpse into the artistic philosophy of the writer. The value here is tremendous, for such a concise representation is akin to an ideological scalpel that cuts to the core of ideas that may be buried more deeply in an author’s extended work. It serves as a confirmation of hints received along the way (at least for already encountered authors) and provides a miniature portrait of what may be expected from writers whose catalog, til now, had been unexplored.

Of the three writers whose speeches I have read only one of them has yet to make my reading history. That is Camus. Judging by Camus’ speech I doubt I have a liking for him. He seems a small man, too greatly swayed by the dark ideas pushed up by the swell of disillusionment with the enlightenment near the end of the 19th century.

His speech is a confused mass of wayward isms. Marxism, utilitarianism, Freudianism and existentialism. That is, a host of conflicting ideas brought together under questionable, if not down right false, auspices. At the conclusion of these thoughts I will quote the lines behind several of his absurd isms (my comments in bold).

My conclusion from his speech? Like many of the French writers Camus’ intellect is one of inbred humanism, and therefore wasted.

Utilatarianism & Marxism rolled into one
It is a means of stirring the greatest number of people by offering them a privileged picture of common joys and sufferings. It obliges the artist not to keep himself apart; it subjects him to the most humble and the most universal truth.

If art is supposed to unite the greatest number of people I want nothing to do with it!
Because his task is to unite the greatest possible number of people, his art must not compromise with lies and servitude which, wherever they rule, breed solitude.

How much dignity is there, really, in life and in death?
this generation starting from its own negations has had to re-establish, both within and without, a little of that which constitutes the dignity of life and death.

Truth ought to be served, not conquered!
Truth is mysterious, elusive, always to be conquered.

I can’t resist adding more; throughout Camus’ speech (you’ll notice if you read it) he continually uses the possesive when referring to art. I violently disagree with the implications of such a tone. The artist does not own his or her art, it is something that is discovered or channeled, not “forged” out of the nothing. Anyhow, have your own go at the speeches and let me know what you think of Camus if you’ve had more experience with him.