Higgins and Marinetti

After reading the articles by Marinetti and Higgins, I was both taken aback (mostly by Marinetti’s point of view) and intrigued by the material presented. I enjoyed, but at the same time disagreed with Marinetti’s vast amount of contempt for the past. I thought Marinetti’s view that by absolutely eliminating the past one can embark on a completely clean slate that will serve as a seed to grow new, innovative ideas was great in theory. I believe it’s always important to look progressively upon the world to attempt to develop new ways to express ideas and thoughts. However, I think it is dangerous to completely eradicate the past in attempts to move forward with expression. Many valuable lessons can be taken from the past to help generate the mobilization of ideas and expression. With such a contemptuous view of the past, I feel this may lead Marinetti to stumble in his own naivety and repeat mistakes of the past.

Higgins view was much more reasonable as it was presented many years later. Although I did not find it as exciting as Marinetti’s energetic prose, I enjoyed it slightly more because it seemed more plausible and not so naïve. The part I most enjoyed was Higgins refusal to totally discredit the past. Unlike Marinetti, Higgins acknowledged the value that can be found in past literary works. We can look the fusions of our horizons with Goethe or Mahler and these “fusions are equally profound and renew our sense of roots” (pg. 8). However, he concedes that these past fusions do not offer us the miracle of avant-garde fusion because it is not that same as fusing our horizons with a horizon that is relevant to our own time.