To read actively is an act of defiance, of self-discipline, of engagement with something larger than oneself. It is to think, to wrestle, to question, and, ultimately, to grow.
In total agreement. That should light a fire under many readers. “Reading” visual art should be encountered the same way - with its own visual grammar and visual elements of meaningfulness. In a world awash with easy to grab reference images used for backgrounds or to set a “mood”, the inevitable result is that images, sometimes even great ones, become wallpaper. At that point it’s like having a bookcase full of unread books.
This is great. I particularly admire the description of an active reader as one who "welcomes ambiguity, recognizing in it not an obstacle but an invitation—an invitation to think, to engage, to work". This echoes something I recently wrote, where I argued that the principle difference between active and passive readers lies in:
"continually asking questions, while remaining aware that no answer will ever be final, no picture of the novel complete. There will be no synopsis to describe, once and for all, what the books is 'about', in every sense of the word. This is in part because good books never remain the same over their lives, or over the lifetime of a single reader."
Reading is the art of becoming alive
In total agreement. That should light a fire under many readers. “Reading” visual art should be encountered the same way - with its own visual grammar and visual elements of meaningfulness. In a world awash with easy to grab reference images used for backgrounds or to set a “mood”, the inevitable result is that images, sometimes even great ones, become wallpaper. At that point it’s like having a bookcase full of unread books.
You’ve served up another high-density repast. These morsels must be chewed well to be properly digested. Thank you.
This is great. I particularly admire the description of an active reader as one who "welcomes ambiguity, recognizing in it not an obstacle but an invitation—an invitation to think, to engage, to work". This echoes something I recently wrote, where I argued that the principle difference between active and passive readers lies in:
"continually asking questions, while remaining aware that no answer will ever be final, no picture of the novel complete. There will be no synopsis to describe, once and for all, what the books is 'about', in every sense of the word. This is in part because good books never remain the same over their lives, or over the lifetime of a single reader."
Excellent article! I started copying portions for my commonplace journal which then got me thinking about how to cite Substack articles! 🧐