In my last post I spoke, perhaps a bit too harshly, against the artistic elitist. The main point is that there are many traits that make good art: Skill, style, social perception, contemporary work, personal opinion, etc. The trouble comes when someone puts personal opinion (a subjective valuation) above the other objective valuations.
One of my readers wisely observed that one aspect of good writing is knowing your audience. That is absolutely true. Writing to please your professor doesn't make your work good. On the other hand, writing something that is popular (which your professor wouldn't like) doesn't make your work bad. Writing something that is good makes it good, and there are subjective and objective traits that go into that.
When I first started studying I had a hard time with this. I think it's a pretty common journey. I was a young theatre student in undergrad and I am easily impressed by big words and "smart" people. Those two traits together worked against me to some degree.
I started to learn about writing. I breathed it all in like I had been holding my breath for years. I had just changed my major from a pre-med biology degree and I was astounded to learn that people actually wrote and created art (particularly theatre) for a living. I had been mostly indiscriminate in my consumption of art...well I say that, but it's not exactly true. I had been exposed to a wide range. I liked a wide variety of popular art, but I wasn't a big fan of art for the sake of art. I never liked obtuse art. (To be honest, I still don't have a refined artistic palate.)
But as I learned about what makes a play "good" I picked up a bit of my own elitism. I narrowed my view of good to exclude many of my previous favorites. Suddenly I was too smart to enjoy popular movies, musicals, etc. I echoed the sentiment of one of my professors that, "Les Miserables was the worst thing to happen to the theatre". Though I didn't know why. I started to seek out more and more obtuse material to challenge my concept of good.
Now, broadening my horizon was not bad, but I became a terror. Because I had a bit of knowledge and I thought I knew everything. I began to judge what I saw or read much too harshly. I forgot how to enjoy something and I focused on tearing everything down. My wife hated discussing (or even watching) movies with me because I continually berated everything we saw.
I think it's common among students to apply their knowledge. What else can you do? But I started to think that criticism was the only worthwhile endeavor, and I only listened seriously to other people who could tell me how bad something was. We enjoyed only the obtuse and exclusionary.
Then something happened. I took a class and I began to tear apart Shakespeare. Shakespeare!
I was unabashed in my criticism, but I was wrong. (To be fair, Shakespeare wasn't perfect and there are some viable reasons to dislike his work.) I realized that I wasn't enjoying anything. I had learned so many ways for something to be bad that I forgot that anything could really be good.
Fortunately I had my eyes opened. I started to look at popular art for fun again. I found that sometimes unabashed emotional fare is nice. Sometimes an easily understood message hits just as deep.
I had left behind some of my ignorance when I saw how the magicians did their tricks. I found out that sometimes God works through normal means. I learned that my parents were Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, and Leprechauns. My immediate reaction was repulsion. But when I managed to step back I realized that just because I know how magic is made, it doesn't mean I can't enjoy the show.
I began to love theatre again, but now with a deeper knowledge. I still have my own opinion, and sometimes I'm still a pain to watch certain movies with. But I've begun to mellow. Learning about an art form does take some of the magic away, but it opens you up to a whole new kind of magic. Knowledge is freedom, and it kind of misses the point to use that knowledge to oppress others by telling them their opinions are worthless.
I love the Fantastiks, but I can still love Les Miserables (which I do, by the way).
Derrick, would you permit me to disagree with a few points? Keep in mind I never went to college and barely graduated high school, so these questions are asked out of true curiosity.
ReplyDelete"The trouble comes when someone puts personal opinion (a subjective valuation) above the other objective valuations."
"Writing something that is good makes it good, and there are subjective and objective traits that go into that."
I would argue that there are no objective valuations that are applicable to real art. Let me illustrate this with a hypothetical.
Imagine you are a visual artist. Your chosen medium is canvas and vomit. You produce your works by eating various cultural items, regurgitating them, and waiting for them to dry. Your work is poorly received by both the public at large and critics. You fail to sell any of your work and in fact, the few items you have donated have been returned postage due. By any objective criteria your work is bad. Very, very bad. However, what no one knows is that you were raised by pedophile father, abused by your friends and have attempted suicide numerous times. The only reason you still live is due to the catharsis you experience in making your art. The only living person who enjoys your work is you.
My question is, is this good art or bad art? How many people need to think it good for it to be so?
Chops, first off, you can disagree. You don't need my permission, but I appreciate the courtesy anyway. I welcome the discussion, and I'm open to the idea that I may be wrong.
ReplyDeleteI'll keep in mind the fact that you didn't go to college if you don't hold it against me that I did. :)
Next. My answer is way too long so I'll write a post about it later. But here's my answer in a nutshell. Good art can mean that the artist is skilled at manipulating the medium, it can mean that the message or experience is shared, or it can mean that the art is beautiful or aesthetically pleasing. I would argue that the larger an audience can relate to the piece as intended the better the artwork is. This requires both the objective skill(i.e. the ability to draw lines with the intended effect), and the subjective application of that skill.
If the art is only for you, then it ceases to communicate (one of the primary traits of art) and it's no longer art. It is useful as therapy, but not as communication.
That's my take. What do you think?