Let me just start off by saying that there aren't three other things in the world that i detest as much as the listed above. Well . . . that may be a lie, I hate a lot of things, and if you are rocking back and fourth in your computer chair while hugging your knees in anticipation of a list of such things, I'm sorry, that isn't what follows, but just pay attention and I'm sure they will slowly leak out in my blogs. And, I know there is someone out there who is reading this title and my following comments and is currently constructing an effigy of me to sacrificially burn to a totem of Stephanie Meyer, but that person is probably 12 years old and still thinks The Beatles are the greatest rock band of all time, so I really couldn't care less.
My intention for this blog is to leave things as open ended as possible as to facilitate a dialogue between AFLM staff, readers, and contributers alike before my next blog, wherein I intend to discuss the issue more finitely. Here goes nothin'.
By what criteria are we judging artistic merit?
I was urged to write this open ended blog when, earlier today, I went to a local Barnes & Noble (what can I say, not even my - at times - suffocating pompousness can refuse holiday coupons) and saw a copy of James Joyce's ULYSSES purposefully placed next to a copy of the bestselling A SHORE THING by snooki on a table that determined them "Recommended Reading". I was appalled to say the least and stormed out the bookstore in a fitful literary tirade.
If Snooki's book is popular around the world, and Joyce, and other such under-appreciated authors, is popular only with the pinnacle of academic aesthetes, does that make us academics just better than everyone else? I say HELL YES!
Okay, now I feel like I'm rambling so I will leave everyone with the question,
By what criteria should art be judged or attributed value?
Think about it. Comment, argue, re-comment, I want to hear everyone's thoughts.
P.s. I would love to read how professors feel also. Yes, that means you Dr. Corley, I know you surf around these parts every so often, so, instruct us.
Queasily,
Eric W. Strege
Art should be judged on its ability to provoke meaningful conversation.
ReplyDeleteAnd if you consider your own blog to be a medium for meaningful conversation, then A SHORE THING, has certainly done so.
Also Art is an extension of the Artist's mind. This is why it is proper to equate good art with a good artist, and bad literature with a bad author.
Although it may be the skill and technique of an Artist which physically produces the Art, it is still the mind that tell the fingers what to do.
Those are the most insipidly elementary statements regarding art I have ever read.
ReplyDeleteMs. A, I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with your logic.
ReplyDeleteBy your logic the work of artists such as Van Gogh, DaVinci and Whistler are to be considered only as valid as the conversations they raise. Why, by that logic, Damien Hirst is equally important, and potentially even more artistic, than our favorite blast-from-the-past masters because he managed to grow meaningful conversations out of a shark suspended in formaldehyde (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/38/Hirst-Shark.jpg) - though I certainly won't argue that his skill is in his head, not his fingers, since his assistants draw those things he finds too tedious and he considers spinning in a circle with some dripping brushes a means of producing "works of art."
The primary issue I take with your means of judging art is that by your definition everything is art; which is a wonderfully rose-tinted idea, but it is unfortunately incorrect.
I have had several meaningful conversations with packaging designers about the texture of mass-produced plastic water bottles, but does that make those bottles art? No. I've had long discussions with professors about my physics or biology textbooks, but does that mean that they are literature? No.
To paraphrase Horace in Epistle to the Pisos art is that which delights and informs with respect to reality. That's a rather prickly definition, I'm aware, but it sets up a wonderful, meaningful, conversation about what is delightful and what is informative in different pieces of work.
For example, A Shore Thing might be delightful to some, Twilight to others, and the writings of Joyce to others still, but which of them really informs us about reality? The Jersey Shore lifestyle as presented in A Shore Thing is about as realistic as reality TV. The Twilight series is notoriously unrealistic in its handling of character and so can't inform us on the subject of the real world. Joyce, however, explores human dramas in a realistic manner with the expectation of a reader finding delight in the literary journey - thus, we may safely call Joyce, at least, art.
Finally, while art may be an extension of an artist's mind, remember that good authors sometimes write bad books, bad artists sometimes make good paintings, and some artists eschew creation in order to further art (i.e. Andy Warhol) while there exist Savants who are unaware of the art they create beyond the process of creation (http://www.autism.com/fam_autistic_savants.asp)
Humans can have meaningful conversations about almost anything, which speaks wonderfully of the intellectual creativity of our species, but says nothing of our discernment when it comes to contemplating or categorizing art.
Here's hoping the conversation continues,
- Alli
Really Alli? You would deny Snooki's magnus opus from holding any artistic merit?
ReplyDeleteIf art is around to delight and inform with respect to reality, then in what respect is A Shore Thing not art? Needless to say, many people are very delighted by Snooki's captivating story of her journey from Jersey hoodlum to national superstar! But what do we learn about reality you ask? Well, we can see the moral standards of our culture. Snooki has been launched into stardom because she possesses qualities that some people idolize, conversely, some people bash and belittle her for those same qualities. Either way, the controversy shows that she is a highly relevant focal point of our national self image. And THAT, is a reality.
Quite frankly Snooki's work is probably greater than that of Joyce's in today's reality. I mean does anyone really know who Ulysses is anymore? I bet more people know what Snooki did last week on Jersey Shore, which makes her myth much more real than Ulysses'.
A wise woman once told me that Pop Punk becomes valid form of expression if it speaks reality to even one sixteen year old girl. Surely Snooki speaks reality to more sixteen year old girls than that!
So how is A Shore Thing not America's national epic?
Trollistically... I mean, Sophistically yours,
-Rainamoinen
1. Many thanks to Ms. A for being such a good sport with all this, and making our first discussion blog a fiery and memorable one. We hope that - after you punch three holes in the wall, one for each person who has jabbed you - you keep reading. Yes, much more of that. It's good for you.
ReplyDelete2. Alli, in the words of Little Buddy, "I respect the hell out of you right now."
3. Rainamoinen, you win the "battle of the best sign off" award for this month, which is something I actually JUST made up, and now think should become a running challenge. That is why you will always be the most important shard of my duck egg (god I love the Kalevala)
Your partner in sophis...trolli...*damn*. . .crime,
EWS