Are There Any Valid Criticisms? (aka Kalessin's Rant)

[littlemanpoet]

It is true, Aiwendil, that art will always have some independence from the artist because every observer of a work of art will bring to it a unique perspective and background; thus the interaction between the observer and the work of art is necessarily independent of the artist. Nevertheless, the artist as originator of the work will supply parameters of possible modes of interaction simply by virtue of what is put into a work of art. For example, Dr. Seuss books and Tolkien's poetry are appreciated in different ways; both are art, both are within the same genre called poetry; but the mountain streams into which they dipped their buckets were quite different and no matter how independent a given reader might be from Tolkien's or Seuss's original intent, some responses will simply fall outside possibility. I would venture to say the Seuss strove for seriousness level 4 whereas Tolkien achieved level 6. To sum up, I think both the intention and the result play a part.

I did try to emphasize that I consider one level of seriousness in no way inferior to any other, except in precisely the seriousness of intent of the artist. Perhaps I'm boiling a pot that doesn't hold water, but I don't think so. I would say that in each higher level the lower are incorporated, such that of course Tolkien wrote for personal satisfaction and self-expression, but went beyond that to evolution of consciousness. In the same way I am trying like the dickens to get better at levels 4 and 5 and still write for self-expression and personal satisfaction - though sometimes the discipline required to write at levels 4 & 5 require a delay in the gratification in levels 1 & 2.

I think the distinction between personal satisfaction and self-expression is valid. Again, level 2 subsumes level 1. It is possible to write for personal satisfaction without attempting something that is aesthetically pleasing, even to oneself. Think of a prepubescent girl's diary entries, for example, which may sometimes be inadvertently loaded [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] with fantasy. Strictly level 1. My own first drafts often are in this vein when I am digging something that seems powerful out of my subconsciousness; it is still guilelessly bad as art, but is essential in the process of subcreation for me.

Nor does self-expression instantly involve other people. I may write something that no-one else ever sees.

As to good plot and character development, the operative word is "good". There may be plot and character development at lower levels, but it may lack consistency, it may be lacking at all, there may be too much character development at the expense of plot or vice versa. As to a person strivingfor good plot and character development, this is precisely why I call these levels of seriousness. At levels 1 - 3 the writer is serious about certain things, but does not yet care so much about good plot and character development so as to focus her or his energies on that aspect of writing.

Please do not think that I'm in love with my own categorizations. If they don't hold water, I would love to be shown how. If they can be improved upon, that would be great, too.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply and the kudos on the analogy - it felt right.

[Mister Underhill]

Aiwendil, we are starting to go in circles regarding the definition of Art. Thanks or indulging my inquiries with thoughtful replies, though. It’s been an interesting line of discussion.

Without getting too in-depth about littlemanpoet’s Six Levels construct, I’ll simply note that I think Aiwendil has raised an interesting point: “I will grant that quality frequently proceeds from intention. But not always.”

Is it possible that thinking too much about things like “evolution of consistency” and “eucatastrophe” actually creates an atmosphere which tends to stymie the very transcendence which is sought after? Or perhaps put a little more succinctly, does the very act of trying too hard to be Art kill Art?

Roger Ebert recently made this interesting observation during a discussion of the film Amadeus:

True geniuses rarely take their own work seriously, because it comes so easily for them. Great writers (Nabokov, Dickens, Wodehouse) make it look like play. Almost-great writers (Mann, Galsworthy, Wolfe) make it look like Herculean triumph. It is as true in every field; compare Shakespeare to Shaw, Jordan to Barkley, Picasso to Rothko, Kennedy to Nixon. Salieri could strain and moan and bring forth tinkling jingles; Mozart could compose so joyously that he seemed, Salieri complained, to be "taking dictation from God."

This last idea, of “taking dictation from God”, is a phenomenon that is widely reported by great artists. Indeed, Tolkien frequently reports throughout letters that episodes and characters from LotR seemed to come to him without conscience invention, and that he had “very little particular, conscious, intellectual intention in mind at any point” while writing it.

“The general idea of the Lord of the Rings was certainly in my mind from an early stage: that is from the first draft of Book I Chapter 2, written in the 1930s. From time to time I made rough sketches or synopses of what was to follow, immediately or far ahead; but these were seldom of much use: the story unfolded itself as it were.”

“The last volume was naturally the most difficult, since by that time I had accumulated a large number of narrative debts, and set some awkward problems of presentation in drawing together the separated threads. But the problem was not so much 'what happened?', about which I was only occasionally in doubt – though praised for 'invention' I have not in fact any conscious memory of sitting down and deliberately thinking out any episode – as how to order the account of it.”

Kipling gave this advice: “When your Daemon [i.e., Muse] is in charge, do not try to think consciously. Drift, wait, and obey.”

I’m not presenting this as a position which I am solidly prepared to defend and debate – I’m only posing the question: at what point does consciously thinking about what makes great art (or, in the case of this thread, great fantasy) create an atmosphere which is counterproductive to the creation of art? In the words of the great Yogi Berra, “Think! How are you gonna think and hit at the same time?”

[littlemanpoet]

It's almost too much of a cliche to repeat here, but it's to the point: "Good art is 10 percent inspiration and 90 percent perspiration." Some artists would make the gap even wider.

Mozart's style of composition was not very difficult, and most of his compositions display a simplicity of form and content that his genius made easy for him. When it came to his "Haydn String Quartets", however, he had to stretch himself. So also with the Requiem.

Beethoven, who is well known for having sweated through every composition he ever created, is considered the greatest composer who ever lived. Yes, we call him a genius, but his genius required much perspiration.

I have written one poem, ONE, mind you, that felt like it just fell from heaven. It still required revision, though only twice. So I know of what you speak first hand, Mister Underhill. Some say it's my best poem. Some say others are better.

Tolkien worked and reworked his story.

I think a distinction is in order. A story can 'write itself', as you have said. But after the initial creative process has drawn to a conclusion, the hard work of giving it a logic and an inner consistency of reality still needs to be accomplished.

Plot is one of the easiest things to write. What happens next comes to be dictated more and more by the rules a writer has written into her/his mythos, as well as by the nature and traits of the characters themselves.

So whereas I agree with you that there is that "spark" of creativity, even the greatest geniuses, I wager, would be forced to admit that they had to sweat a little to bring their wonderful piece of genius to its finished form.

[ May 01, 2002: Message edited by: littlemanpoet ]

[Kuruharan]

I'll gingerly insert myself here, just to make sure that the thread is wrenched throughly off course. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Beethoven, who is well known for having sweated through every composition he ever created, is considered the greatest composer who ever lived.

But it's so hard to make statements like this. It is such a matter of personal opinion. (My personal opinion is that it's hard not to believe that Beethoven was one of the greatest, if not the greatest, composer in Western musical tradition. But still that's personal opinion.)
Since Mozart was mentioned, who knows what else he could have accomplished if he had lived. Although I grant that Beethoven spanned two musical eras (Classical and Romantic) and thus displayed greater versatility in his work. But, then again I prefer Classical music so I'm biased. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

I don't know if the number of revisions of a work is necessarily an indicator of greatness either. I do agree with you that things are better for more work after the main writing, composing, whatever is done. But that may be my personal experience talking. There are no doubt people out there somewhere who could crank out great works of art with little "effort."

Is there a distinction between the physical work that an artist puts into their art (i.e. revising drafts, or making changes to a painting), and the mental work that is perhaps done beforehand that nobody but the artist would know about? An artist could have done a great deal of work in his/her head before they produce anything that one could read or see.

[Halfir]

Birdland: What a great post, in a brilliant thread. I laughed out loud at your:"Strong sword arms don't work as well against a clerk." The image that conjured up was hysterical!

I also concur with your banlity of evil point, and your comment of the virtual beacon-light nature of evil in the fantasy genre. There, you know what is wrong, and you'd do you darndest to fight it, whereas today we have difficulty in identifying what is wrong, and even more difficulty in trying to fight it because of its banality - a la Arendt.

Moreover, critics ancient and modern of Tolkien and of the better and best fanatsy genre are clearly uncomfortable with the idea of faerie, and concepts such as 'eucatastrophe'as Tolkien called it.

I find this difficult to understand, but then I am a totally unreformed Jungian, a lover of Snorri Sturluson and the Eddas, and actually believe The Iliad and The Odyssey to be major literary achievements.(I also enjoy reading Harry Potter!) Clearly a no-hoper!

[Aiwendil]

littlemanpoet:

Nevertheless, the artist as originator of the work will supply parameters of possible modes of interaction simply by virtue of what is put into a work of art.

Quite true.

To sum up, I think both the intention and the result play a part.

I think intention only plays a part so far as it affects the result. It is easy to intend to create a very serious work of literature; it is easy to strive for a seriousness level of 6 - what's difficult is achieving the desired result (I should know!)
But I do agree that authors who do not take their own work very seriously will probably not be able to produce any very serious work.

I did try to emphasize that I consider one level of seriousness in no way inferior to any other, except in precisely the seriousness of intent of the artist.

This is what I don't think I understand. If level 1 is in no way inferior to level 6, why divide them up into levels? Are we talking about levels, then, or just different types of seriousness?

Nor does self-expression instantly involve other people. I may write something that no-one else ever sees.

I suppose this is a matter of syntax and nomenclature. To me, it seems that any form of expression requires both a subject (the author) and an object (the audience).

Mister Underhill:

Aiwendil, we are starting to go in circles regarding the definition of Art. Thanks or indulging my inquiries with thoughtful replies, though. It’s been an interesting line of discussion.

Agreed.

Indeed, Tolkien frequently reports throughout letters that episodes and characters from LotR seemed to come to him without conscience invention, and that he had “very little particular, conscious, intellectual intention in mind at any point” while writing it.

This is true, but certainly Tolkien didn't write with the same ease as, say, Mozart. He certainly considered writing LotR to be a tremendous task. And he worked his entire life on the Silmarillion without producing a final version.

[KayQy]

On inspiration and perspiration:

Both are necessary for something truly great. Many people work their fingers to the bone and come up with something that is very skillfully made, and even beautiful, but lacks that --soul for lack of a better word at the moment-- that something that will blow everything else out of the water, that makes it look so "easy". On the other hand, I have turned in essays or stories that were hastily written the night before, and not only gotten an A, but had the prof specifically commend it (and often read more into it than I put in [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] ). When this happens, I always wonder, "What would happen if I actually tried?"

Tolkien, and a few others, take the raw materials that come to them from heaven or their duende or Muse or whatever you want to call it, and work it carefully, meticulously, and dedicatedly until it is a multifaceted gem set in an intricate crown.

Regarding the original topic, I can't think of anything to say that hasn't been said already. But this has been a great discussion, well worth the two days it took me to read it. It was remarkably intelligent, detailed, and insightful (well, not so remarkable for the Downs, but for what I've been spending time on lately...), and sent me back to read "On Fairy Stories" again. I have definitely been away from this board for too long, and I shall have to rectify that. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[littlemanpoet]

Call them levels, types, modes, or what have you of seriousness, Aiwendil, it's the differences in seriousness between which I was trying to distinguish.

Good to hear from you again, Kuruharan. I must insist, though, that the classical/roccocco style of composition used by Haydn and Mozart was quite strictly formalized, largely based in dance. The singularity of the music of these two composers was in the refinement Mozart brought to the style, and the profundity Haydn did. Too bad this whole composer thing is just for illustrating a point. Anybody know a good site to discuss it?

Halfir, I heartily concur with each of the assertions you made. Including Jung.

[Aiwendil]

Call them levels, types, modes, or what have you of seriousness, Aiwendil, it's the differences in seriousness between which I was trying to distinguish.

Okay. To me, 'levels' implies some sort of progression, which means that one end of the spectrum must be somehow better than the other. Just a syntactical misunderstanding.

I must insist, though, that the classical/roccocco style of composition used by Haydn and Mozart was quite strictly formalized, largely based in dance. The singularity of the music of these two composers was in the refinement Mozart brought to the style, and the profundity Haydn did.

I know we're veering off topic here, but I simply cannot resist a music discussion. I don't see how it matters that Classical music was formalized, or that its ultimate origin was in dances - at least not when we're discussing the quality of the music. What matters is how it sounds, not why it sounds that way. This is something that bothers me about artistic theory in general. Music theory, literary criticism, and such should not, in my view, tell us what things are good; it should tell us why they are good.

I happen to agree that Beethoven surpassed Mozart, but I do not think this had to do with the fact that his music was less formal structurally, nor with the fact that he exerted greater effort in producing it. Mozart, if not the greatest composer of all time, has a pretty decent claim as the second greatest. I tend to think that the two methods of writing do not reflect a difference in greatness, merely a difference in approach.

[Kuruharan]

On the other hand, I have turned in essays or stories that were hastily written the night before, and not only gotten an A, but had the prof specifically commend it (and often read more into it than I put in ). When this happens, I always wonder, "What would happen if I actually tried?"

I've often found that the grade you receive is inversely related to the amount of effort you put into something. The less the effort the better the grade. I'm testing that theory now. I'm supposed to be preparing for finals next week. Alas, by this point in the semester I am rather demoralized and am showing a decided lack of enthusiasm. In other words, there is not much in the way of study time.

Too bad this whole composer thing is just for illustrating a point. Anybody know a good site to discuss it?

Alas, no. [img]smilies/frown.gif[/img]

Music theory, literary criticism, and such should not, in my view, tell us what things are good; it should tell us why they are good.

I agree with that. I have had some classes that were more geared in that direction, but I think that had more to do with the direction the professor wanted to go. I believe that the general trend is to explain what rather than why.

It is a pity that Tolkien did not put more information about the music of Middle earth in his works. There may be some information in some of the books, I'll have to look. But that was not where his primary interest lay, with him it was the languages. (Not that I'm finding fault for that.)

[Kalessin]

I've been reading with interest and enjoyment the recent evolution of this thread into a more general discussion, both of what the essence of art is, and the creative act itself and the variations and contrasts in both. Many compliments to all for addressing complex areas with such articulacy and insight [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Any conception of aesthetics (as a way of describing why something is 'good') is ultimately, of course, a cultural construct. The most general tools of aesthetic evaluation - concepts such as 'form', 'style', and so on - are not empirical, and can be applied by different cultures (or traditions) to assert the superiority (or competing worth) of many different works of art. One could easily argue the general aesthetic merits of, say, Indian raga, jazz, Japanese haiku and so on - all of which are NOT any longer "folk" (or organic) forms, against the claims for Beethoven or Mozart. This can be deconstructed further, to the level of each individual that experiences and reflects on a work of art (or art in general), to each of whom these concepts of aesthetic appreciation may mean something slightly or subtly different.

All we can have, in the end, is (at best) a certain consensus through which we can share insight and appreciation of works of art. And yet the reference points will always be fluid, the ground continually shifting under our feet. And the extent to which we can collectively reach this consensus is, in a way, indicative of the state of our collective culture. As this thread illustrates, today this reflects an increasingly fragmented and also inclusive set of perceptions - which makes assertions based on some abstract, monolithic set of 'aesthetic criteria' almost impossible.

The key point is that "we" in the end define aesthetics - individually, collectively and culturally. It is the judgemental application of human perception to human creation. A platonic conception of "the essence of art" as something quantifiable, something in itself that actually exists outside or beyond our perception, yet is present in all (or only some) works, is in effect inapplicable. It has no use.

Now, the role - and purpose - of the artist IS also central here. The bottom line of art is that it is created by humans - and therefore subject to human aesthetics. It is possible to say that a cloud, or mountain, is not art. It is possible to say that a chair, or a car, is not art - although as a human creation there may be some artistry at work. Ultimately the creation of art MUST always be intentional. By this I mean that the creator is conscious of the nature of his/her work. This doesn't mean we all become pompous and self-important, but it means something cannot accidentally be art. Just because a poem seemed to come 'from nowhere', or with little effort - it is still a poem, and the poet knowingly records it.

In the end, our modern sensibility (and the finely-honed tools of philosophical reasoning that have developed over thousands of years) mean that we do automatically deconstruct to some degree, and at the same time attempt to rationalise (or legitimise) our subjective perceptions. We do this in different ways, of course, and with different language.

How do we resolve the essential contradictions that this leads us to -

"I like Mozart ; therefore to me Mozart is good ; other people don't like Mozart ; to them Mozart is not good ; why is Mozart good? ; if Mozart is good, why do some people not like Mozart? ; can you think Mozart is good if you don't like it?"

- and so on [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

I do not believe there is a 'right' answer, one particular mechanical system of perceptive evaluation that will enable us to resolve the issues of aesthetic criteria vs. enjoyment, and so on. There are lots of right answers. Which is part of what being human is all about - the ability to accommodate irreconcilable contradictions, and still get on with life. I could mention religion in this context, but recent experience suggests I will get in trouble [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img] , so let's leave it there!

Keep up the good work, guys, it's really stimulating. And it does, tenuously, still relate to my original question. I'm in awe of (and full of admiration for) the intelligence and eloquence of the above contributors, too numerous to name, and truly appreciate your insightful participation in this debate.

Peace [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[littlemanpoet]

Methinks, Kalessin, your essay is thoroughly postmodern; by this I intend no derogation, just a generaly accurate tag. A modern essay would have set up one straw man, calling it the objective standard, that another would knock down, then another that, until all would finally conclude that there can be no objective standard. Rather, you acknowledge the integrality of the subject as necessarily considered in an essay on art and aesthetics.

The bottom line of art is that it is created by humans - and therefore subject to human aesthetics.

This particular acknowledgment is one of the key correctives postmodern thought propounds over modernist.

Just nit-picking, but I think it would be more consistent to say that a chair or car has at least an artistic component; what is known in both industries as 'design'. That it is usually accomplished by a team does not lessen its standing as art. Or do you make an aesthetic distinction between art and craft?

I appreciate your apt wording that 'the poet records' the poem that seemed to come from nowhere.

"I like Mozart ; therefore to me Mozart is good ; other people don't like Mozart ; to them Mozart is not good ; why is Mozart good? ; if Mozart is good, why do some people not like Mozart? ; can you think Mozart is good if you don't like it?" - and so on. I do not believe there is a 'right' answer...

At this point I must take some exception. I agree that no mechanical system of perceptive evaluation will provide sufficient tools. However, "we" perceive aesthetics in remarkable accord, to some degree collectively, to a greater culturally, and most, cross-culturally. Whereas individual evaluation may be limited by experience, taste, knowledge, etc., and some collectives may be limited also by religious intolerance, and some cultures may be limited by taboo or what-have-you, nevertheless, cross-cultural aesthetics acknowledge quality of craft, depth of insight, thematic scope, and breadth of applicability that separate genius from giftedness, both from pedestrian, and all three from the mundane. Thus Beethoven and Mozart are both considered geniuses, as are Japanese Haikuists I cannot name but have heard of.

[Kalessin]

Thanks Littleman, articulate and thought-provoking as always [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

I'm happy for the nits to be picked, as the small components making up a line of reasoning should be rigorously tested in themselves (as well as the collective conclusion) to ensure their validity [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

The argument that there can be no 'objective' may be considered a recent aspect (of postmodernism) in art theory, but in Western philosophy the limits of empiricism (and the mediation of "reality" by perception) were being examined hundreds of years ago - hence the reduction and subsequent dismissal of just about all axioms. Acknowledging humanity - and the perceptive subjectivity that comes with it - is not in itself postmodern, nor was my argument an attempt to invalidate aesthetic evaluation per se. Quite the opposite! My argument was simply that there are contradictions and 'shifting ground' within which we collectively and individually apply these criteria. But let's continue to apply them by all means, simply taking that into account in order to stay open-minded and retain a certain humility in our assertions.

I think it would be more consistent to say that a chair or car has at least an artistic component

Well, I did say that these objects had some artistry in them. However, all artefact is designed to some degree, so if having design qualifies something as art - we arrive again at reductio ad absurdam and would of necessity have to incorporate 'efficiency' or 'efficacy' as criteria of value [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

cross-cultural aesthetics acknowledge quality of craft, depth of insight, thematic scope, and breadth of applicability that separate genius from giftedness, both from pedestrian, and all three from the mundane

Indeed. But the words are used to arrive at different conclusions. I do not accept that every single culture or individual will place Mozart and Beethoven at the top of the tree. And, if aesthetic merit has no relation to 'popularity' or enjoyment, then who are the arbiters? Perhaps only we, the priveliged elite [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]

This was the essence of my first point -that 'craft', 'insight', 'scope' and so on do not logically in themselves lead us to the conclusion either that (a) the art we like is the best, or that (b) the best will always be the most liked.

If we accept the nature of the consensus, we can still make and share our insights and evaluations into art, and apply criteria with conviction and sincerity. We don't have to be postmodern or publicly deconstruct at any opportunity [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Lots of right answers ... take your pick [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

Peace

[ May 04, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[Aiwendil]

Any conception of aesthetics (as a way of describing why something is 'good') is ultimately, of course, a cultural construct.

I'm actually tempted to question this. It is true, of course, that the concept of aesthetics (and 'art', for anyone who draws a distinction between the two) is a human invention. It therefore does seem reasonable to say that different cultures will have invented it differently. But there are human-invented concepts that have a single, culturally-invariant form. Mathematics is mathematics, for example. I think it's possible that aesthetic theory is the same.

Note that the fact that different cultures in practice have different ideas of aesthetics does not prove that aesthetics depends entirely on culture. Different cultures have different scientific and religious beliefs, but clearly no two contradictory scientific or religious beliefs can be true.

One could easily argue the general aesthetic merits of, say, Indian raga, jazz, Japanese haiku and so on - all of which are NOT any longer "folk" (or organic) forms, against the claims for Beethoven or Mozart.

But isn't it possible that this disagreement exists not because there are two completely different concepts of aesthetic beauty, but because neither culture fully understands the art forms of the other culture? I think that Mozart is better than, say Indian raga. But perhaps this is because I don't have the necessary knowledge to appreciate the aesthetic beauty of raga. If I did, then I would be able to compare them. On the other hand, I do understand both Mozart and Beethoven, so I am capable of comparing them.

And by 'understanding' I don't mean the formal music theory of the culture in question. I think it is entirely possible to understand a form of art without knowing anything about the way in which the art is produced.

A platonic conception of "the essence of art" as something quantifiable, something in itself that actually exists outside or beyond our perception, yet is present in all (or only some) works, is in effect inapplicable. It has no use.

Not entirely so. It may be of little use in the actual evaluation of a given work; but if we acknowledge that it exists, then we are led to certain other conclusions - like that the purpose of art cannot be something like the expansion of human understanding, or social commentary.

Further, I think we have to be clear about what 'quantifiable' means. It's true that in practice we can't assign numerical values to art; we can't say 'this painting has X form and Y content'. But if you are willing to say that any work is better than any other work, then you must also admit that the quality of art is quantifiable. If X can have more of quality A than Y has, then quality A must be quantitative.

Ultimately the creation of art MUST always be intentional. By this I mean that the creator is conscious of the nature of his/her work.

I disagree. First of all, it is this kind of thinking (not my 'art is beauty') that leads to such postmodernisms as 'this soda can is art because I say it is art'.

Secondly, if we measure art by intention, we are left with several illogical results. For one thing, we can never truly know how good a work of art is because we can never truly know exactly what the artist was thinking when he or she created it. An objective quality (how good the art is) depends on a subjective, and ultimately inaccessible quality (what the artist was thinking). Further, form becomes almost irrelevant. If two artists mean the same thing, we cannot be concerned with how they say it. Finally, in our evaluations of art, we must dismiss from our consideration those qualities which, to our best knowledge, the artist did not intend. In C.S. Lewis's commentary on sections of Tolkien's Lay of Leithian, he notes in one passage the double meaning of the word 'within'. He mentions that it was probably not intentional, but that nonetheless we can appreciate it. But if intention matters, then we cannot appreciate it.

To take another example: The Phantom Menace ends with celebration music that sounds like a major, pentatonic version of the Emperor's theme. Upon noticing this, I instantly deemed it a stroke of genius - the celebration celebrates, among other things, the rise of senator Palpatine to power, who, unbeknownst to the main characters, is the evil Sith lord who eventually becomes the Emperor. This is one of the things that, in my opinion, makes the soundtrack great. Rumours have suggested, however, that the connection is unintentional. If these rumours are true, must I alter my evaluation of the soundtrack? Must I refrain from making any evaluation until the issue is cleared up (it may never be)?

My fundamental problem with this idea is that it reduces art to mere communication between the artist and the audience. Why not merely say what you mean, rather than write an allegory, if the meaning is all that matters?

"I like Mozart ; therefore to me Mozart is good ; other people don't like Mozart ; to them Mozart is not good ; why is Mozart good? ; if Mozart is good, why do some people not like Mozart? ; can you think Mozart is good if you don't like it?"

Insofar as this is a parody of my 'art is beauty and beauty is that which pleases' argument, I offer the following as an alternative:

"I like Mozart; therefore I suspect that Mozart is good; other people don't like Mozart; therefore either I am wrong or they are wrong; because I don't believe that I am wrong, I must conclude that they fail to appreciate Mozart for non-artistic reasons."

littlemanpoet:

I think it would be more consistent to say that a chair or car has at least an artistic component; what is known in both industries as 'design'.

Good point. Of course, the intention of 'design' is not to be artistic; it is to sell the product. So I think that if you say that art is aesthetic beauty, you have to acknowledge that these things have an artistic element; if you say it is intention, you don't have to say that.

Again Kalessin:

My argument was simply that there are contradictions and 'shifting ground' within which we collectively and individually apply these criteria.

And it is a good point, even if I disagree with some of your conclusions.

Well, I did say that these objects had some artistry in them. However, all artefact is designed to some degree, so if having design qualifies something as art - well, I leave you to consider the possibilities

So by your definition, to be art, a thing must be intended to be art? If so, I think, you must dismiss such things as chairs and cars. Actually, taken to its logical conclusion, this would disqualify commercial music and novels as well; many of those artists do not care about the artistic merit of their creations, as long as they sell.

[Kalessin]

Hi Aiwendil - we meet again in that torchlit arena - "What is Art II" [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

You make some excellent points, and this is issue does relate in a roundabout way to the continuing evaluation of Tolkien and the writers who have followed in his footsteps. I think (or perhaps hope) that some of our differences are more a question of degree or language - but (inevitably) ...

It therefore does seem reasonable to say that different cultures will have invented it differently. But there are human-invented concepts that have a single, culturally-invariant form. Mathematics is mathematics, for example. I think it's possible that aesthetic theory is the same

Well, I'm not sure that mathematics has in all cultures invariably followed the Western model; my understanding is that traditional Arabic was different, and Chinese also (I may be corrected). And aesthetic theory, such as it was, outside of the ancient Greeks was for many years inextricably linked to religious content and applicability. The 'Golden Mean', and other such visual conceptions, are relatively recent (by comparison to the history of art).

What your point seems to be about is the idea that there is something explicitly measurable about art that allows us to say without hesitation that it is good. I'll return to that in a moment ...

I think that Mozart is better than, say Indian raga. But perhaps this is because I don't have the necessary knowledge to appreciate the aesthetic beauty of raga ... I think it is entirely possible to understand a form of art without knowing anything about the way in which the art is produced

This seems a little contradictory. If aesthetic values are universal, AND the knowledge of different artistic cultures or methods is not a key factor in appreciating (or understanding) a form of art, then somone who can appreciate the aesthetic qualities of Mozart should certainly be able to also appreciate the aesthetic qualities of other art forms.

if we acknowledge that it (a platonic "art-in-itself") exists, then we are led to certain other conclusions - like that the purpose of art cannot be something like the expansion of human understanding, or social commentary

As I pointed out, philosophically we are not bound to acknowledge that anything-in-itself exists independent of our perceptions. The refutation of empericism as an absolute reflection of reality (by Hume and others) has never in itself been overturned.

The "other conclusions" you infer to are also not necessarily the case. Just because a separate and absolute essence of something exists, it does not follow from there that its purpose or nature is one thing or another - to entertain, or not to fulfil any other function. There is no evidence of that, since we can never perceive that absolute essence in itself in order to analyse and infer its meaning.

if you are willing to say that any work is better than any other work, then you must also admit that the quality of art is quantifiable. If X can have more of quality A than Y has, then quality A must be quantitative

I agree. I just think the basis of the value judgements must be seen in the context of cultural and historical consensus, and subject to a whole range of factors - both individual and collective.

it is this kind of thinking (not my 'art is beauty') that leads to such postmodernisms as 'this soda can is art because I say it is art' ... if we measure art by intention, we are left with several illogical results

Well, I sympathise, but again this line seems a little contradictory. If art is art regardless of the creators' intention, then it's quite possible - and likely - that it will appear accidentally, a 'by-product' of some design or artefact. We are back to the 10,000 monkeys writing Shakespeare here. If this is the case, you could just as well argue that no one should bother with art - it will occur 'naturally', and indeed the hills and mountains and seas themselves all meet to an unsurpassable degree such purposeless aesthetic ideals.

An objective quality (how good the art is) depends on a subjective, and ultimately inaccessible quality (what the artist was thinking)

This may seem wrong to you, but it seems right to me. Except I would remove "thinking". Who and what an artist is or does is what determines the qualities of their art. But one does not need to analyse the artist to appreciate their art (although it can help). One DOES have to acknowledge that the art was an act of human creativity.

... mentions that it was probably not intentional, but that nonetheless we can appreciate it. But if intention matters, then we cannot appreciate it

You can appreciate unintentional resonances by all means. But can you seriously say that it is not subjective to do so? The implication is that there is never any disagreement in aesthetic evaluations - 'those who know' immediately perceive what is good based on these abstract quantifiable criteria. This doesn't happen, and without the presence and creativity of the artist the work would not exist or appeal at all. By-products or unintentional resonances lead us to a highly problematic possibility - that an artist can compose a tragic requiem in memory of a dear friend which is then lauded as a wonderful celebratory and romantic dance, because of its accidental or unintentional merits. This is comic, and has probably happened [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]. There is a sinister side to this too - what about the appropriation of art by totalitarianism, relating aesthetic criteria to a validation of its oppressive worldview?

Intention matters, but we do not need to "know" it academically. To read or hear the work is to experience the intention of the author, both consciously and 'unintentionally'.

My fundamental problem with this idea is that it reduces art to mere communication between the artist and the audience. Why not merely say what you mean, rather than write an allegory, if the meaning is all that matters?

I don't see communication as a reduction, but I suspect we are using the word differently. It is communication that can be transcendent, that can in turn generate communicative effect (like ripplies in a pond), that can change lives, entertain, amuse, soften hearts or strengthen will, and so on. I have never said that meaning is all that matters. Allegory is one of the tools of this particular kind of communication - the relationship between creator and audience.

So by your definition, to be art, a thing must be intended to be art? If so, I think, you must dismiss such things as chairs and cars. Actually, taken to its logical conclusion, this would disqualify commercial music and novels as well; many of those artists do not care about the artistic merit of their creations, as long as they sell

"Intention" as I used it means the knowledge that this act of creation is art, not that it has to be good. This point is really a re-working of the earlier issue, your problem with "if I say it is art, then it is art" ... and, I guess, the 'installations' and 'happenings' that are now a feature of modern art.

This is a tough issue. I agree with you in terms of the dangers and problems arising, but the argument is hard to refute. If someone says their soda bottle is art, how can you really say it is not without talking about that person's intentions? By your argument, there is nothing wrong with someone saying their soda bottle is art if (unintentionally) it happens to meet certain abstract aesthetic criteria. So in the end the platonic worldview gives this even more legitimacy - an "absolute" legitimacy, rather than being about the person and politics etc. This is what I have a problem with!

So, finally ...

"I like Mozart; therefore I suspect that Mozart is good; other people don't like Mozart; therefore either I am wrong or they are wrong; because I don't believe that I am wrong, I must conclude that they fail to appreciate Mozart for non-artistic reasons."

Where I challenge you is this. What you are in fact saying is that if people don't happen to like what you like, and when you really do like it a lot (ie. are not 'wrong') you immediately conclude that they are "failing for non-artistic reasons". This is extremely judgemental, and is riddled with assumptions. And ultimately, unprovable. It could easily be used by religious fundamentalists (of any denomination) as a justification for action. I will raise your Mozart with my John Coltrane ... to therefore assume my preference is because of non-artistic reasons is very presumptious, and rather insulting (don't worry, I can cope [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] ).

Suppose we all like different things (as we do)? Only one of us can therefore be right, which means everyobody else is 'failing for non-artistic reasons'. Are we really prepared to be 'wrong', or 'failing' like the rest of those feeble mortals? [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]

To reassure you, can I say that whoever the One True Arbiter of taste is, I know it isn't me [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

As you can see from my reply to Littleman - I do NOT dismiss aesthetics ; I do NOT dismiss evaluation ... I am simply accepting the subtleties with a certain humility ... or trying to [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Compliments on your keen mind and ability to reason, qualities I very much aspire to [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Peace

[ May 05, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[Aiwendil]

Hi Aiwendil - we meet again in that torchlit arena - "What is Art II"

Well, I've been trying to restrain myself from going into all-out rant mode, but how can I resist when you've thrown down the gauntlet like that?

I think (or perhaps hope) that some of our differences are more a question of degree or language

I think some are. But I believe our primary difference lies in our approach to the whole question. More on this shortly.

Well, I'm not sure that mathematics has in all cultures invariably followed the Western model; my understanding is that traditional Arabic was different, and Chinese also (I may be corrected).

Certainly the evolution of mathematics has been different in different cultures. But the laws of mathematics are the laws of mathematics. The square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle equals the sum of the squares of the legs, regardless of what culture you're in (well, as long as you're in non-curved space). I agree that it seems unlikely that the same is true of aesthetics.

This seems a little contradictory. If aesthetic values are universal, AND the knowledge of different artistic cultures or methods is not a key factor in appreciating (or understanding) a form of art, then somone who can appreciate the aesthetic qualities of Mozart should certainly be able to also appreciate the aesthetic qualities of other art forms.

This is why it's not contradictory: I can't appreciate the aesthetics of a Russian novel because I don't understand Russian. It's not that Russian literature is held to a different standard; it's simply that the means by which that standard is approached (the language) is incomprehensible to me. Someone might not understand Eliot's [u]The Wasteland[/i] because he or she does not understand the various literary allusions. The allusions, in this case, contribute to the aesthetic appeal. The devices used to achieve beauty may vary from culture to culture, but beauty is beauty.

The refutation of empericism as an absolute reflection of reality (by Hume and others) has never in itself been overturned.
. . . Just because a separate and absolute essence of something exists, it does not follow from there that its purpose or nature is one thing or another

I perhaps complicated the matter by introducing Plato. I did not mean that I think a thing called Art exists physically on some other plane of being. My point can be taken merely syntactically; what I mean is that if you say the purpose of music is one thing and the purpose of literature is another (for example), you are essentially saying that there are two fundamentally different things, both of which happen to be called "art".

We are back to the 10,000 monkeys writing Shakespeare here.

Herein seems to lie the heart of our disagreement. If a monkey handed me King Lear (supposing he had just written it) I would consider it a great work of art. I gather that you would not.

If this is the case, you could just as well argue that no one should bother with art - it will occur 'naturally', and indeed the hills and mountains and seas themselves all meet to an unsurpassable degree such purposeless aesthetic ideals.

If nature produced symphonies and novels randomly, then yes - there would be little need for art. But in practice it doesn't. I don't think that a hill is as aesthetically pleasing as The Lord of the Rings. Why do humans build houses when nature has provided us with caves? Because humans are better at building shelter than nature is. There is aesthetic beauty in nature, but because nature has no sense of aesthetics, this beauty is random. Humans do have a sense of aesthetics, so they are able to produce aesthetically beautiful things more often and more succesfully.

The implication is that there is never any disagreement in aesthetic evaluations - 'those who know' immediately perceive what is good based on these abstract quantifiable criteria.

This was not an intended implication. There is disagreement about the laws of physics, but that doesn't mean that a single set of universally true laws does not exist.

and without the presence and creativity of the artist the work would not exist or appeal at all.

Probably not. Without the intention of a car manufacturer, a car would probably not be created. But if it were created by chance, would it not be just as useful for getting from one place to another?

There is a sinister side to this too - what about the appropriation of art by totalitarianism, relating aesthetic criteria to a validation of its oppressive worldview?

A terrible thing, I agree. However: 1. If art is aesthetic beauty, it does not follow that aesthetic beauty is whatever the state says it is. 2. I am not saying anything about morality. I think that whether a piece of art is good or bad artistically is a completely different question from whether it is good or bad morally.

To read or hear the work is to experience the intention of the author, both consciously and 'unintentionally'.

Being a student of quantum physics, I must disagree. We can never know the intention of the author with certainty. For any given present state, there are an infinite number of past states which may have led to it.

I don't see communication as a reduction, but I suspect we are using the word differently.

We probably are. I have a feeling I don't believe in the existence of the kind of communication that you are talking about. I see it as a reduction for this reason: if the only purpose of art is communication, why not just communicate? Why not just write a philosophical treatise? It is sure to be a lot more clear, a lot more comprehensible, than if the author encodes his or her message in a work of literature.

By your argument, there is nothing wrong with someone saying their soda bottle is art if (unintentionally) it happens to meet certain abstract aesthetic criteria.

It would appear that by either of our definitions, a soda bottle can be art. By my definition it can be art because it may have certain aesthetic properties. By your definition it can be art because its creator may have intended it to be art. I think the more relevant question is: is this good art? By my definition, it is probably not. The aesthetic qualities of a soda bottle are minimal compared to most novels or paintings or symphonies. I think you would also say that it is not good art; but I fail to see how you can say this, by your argument, without knowing the intention of its creator.

you immediately conclude that they are "failing for non-artistic reasons".

Well, I conclude that either they are failing or I am failing.

It could easily be used by religious fundamentalists (of any denomination) as a justification for action.

First of all, I don't think that the quality of art should be used as a justification for action at all. Secondly, I have not made any value judgements regarding who is right. I have merely proposed that if two people believe contradictory things, one or both must be wrong.

I will raise your Mozart with my John Coltrane ... to therefore assume my preference is because of non-artistic reasons is very presumptious, and rather insulting

I see it like this: you say that Coltrane is better; I say that Mozart is better. We cannot both be right. Of course I think that I'm right - if I thought that you were right, then I wouldn't think that Mozart is better. I acknowledge, of course, that I may be wrong. But only one of us can be right - unless you want to say that the quality of art is entirely subjective, in which case you have "Britney Speares is better than Mozart" being true for all those misguided pre-teens. (By the way, I do like Coltrane, though not as much as Mozart).

I mentioned that I think our primary difference is in approach. I think that I am approaching the question from a purely abstract position, whereas you are thinking about the way art works in practice. I would say that I am taking the viewpoint of a scientist and you that of an artist, but I think that's a very oversimplified evaluation.

I've wracked my brain for some way to tie this all back in with the original question. I've failed. Though I very much enjoy this debate, I think the thread has been pretty much derailed.

[Kalessin]

Aiwendil [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

I would say that I am taking the viewpoint of a scientist and you that of an artist, but I think that's a very oversimplified evaluation.

A very elegant phrase which instantly wins me over, although "artist and amatuer philosopher" would be even more flattering [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

With my amateur philosophy hat on, I will continue to challenge 'universal' laws or axioms, and the "new evangelism" of science (don't start me on evolution or quantum mechanics) ...

With my artist hat on (paint-flecked beret, no doubt) I will continue to assert the essential humanity of the creative act ...

With my 'personal resonances' hat on (hmm ... ), I will continue to be an unreconstructed romantic idealist - it's those soaring strings, that sunset-framed pathos, the hackneyed melodrama, and any number of heroic narratives of redemption for me [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]

Other than that, anyone for Tolkien?

Peace [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[ May 06, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[littlemanpoet]

I have been reading the discussion with interest over the last few days, and definitely am "in one corner". I commend you both for the courtesy of your dual. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

With full respect for Aiwendil's erudition and rational incisiveness, I believe that the derailment referred to above is due not in small degree to the very abstract turn of this debate. One cannot talk about art purely in the abstract, for there is necessarily an artist. Ah, but I beat a dead horse, no? Nevertheless, we are talking about a specific artist, Tolkien. One may hypothesize all one likes about a thousand monkeys, or art appearing without any artist behind it, but the fact remains that Tolkien and all those mentioned above for illustrative purposes, were indeed artists, who did indeed create a work of art, with intentions for their works of art. And back to the main point of this thread: the artists are themselves responsible for the state of the genre. In as much as they give into the realities of the publishing world and the market it dictates to - ah, ahem - I mean, serves, [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] the artists are responsible for the pablum readers are stuck with.

Rise up! Revolt, oh artists! Raise your firebrands and attack the - [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] [img]smilies/eek.gif[/img] [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]
well, excuse me, I seem to have gotten a little - ahem - excited there.

In any case, Tolkien set a high standard and artists would do well to go back to the high mountain streams, and also deep under the tunneled heaps, to reinvigorate the genre.

[littlemanpoet]

As I proposed in the Middle Earth Come to Life thread, Tolkien as a 20th century great:

... an appreciation of this particular aspect of Tolkien's skill as a writer (who should be hailed as that, and should be considered to stand shoulder to shoulder - perhaps head and shoulders above - Steinbeck, Golding, and any other major 20th century author you can think of).

Kalessin:

Now, I've already had this argument with just about everyone on these boards, and there you go throwing salt on a livid festering wound

The dense and painterly (or photographic) style of description used by Tolkien, with it's narrative undertone (foreboding obviously, or hope - the landscape where Frodo and Sam meet Faramir, for example), seems to me more redolent of 19th century writing than the 20th. Parts of Poe's Masque Of The Red Death, or anything by Joseph Conrad, are in a similar vein. Of modern authors, perhaps JG Ballard has the same visual attentiveness, wrapped around dialogue that is by contrast starkly laconic. The modern trends have been away from grand metaphor and simile, and the opening of literature to a wider cross-cultural audience and authorship has led to a range of equally valid forms, from the colloquial to patois and so on. And a simple economy of narrative certainly has its place (not in my posts here, obviously )

A great book? LotR, certainly. Tolkien the best writer of the 20th century? Based on LotR alone, I would say not. Based on his canon, certainly not.

But we've already had that discussion, which was eventually adjudged a somewhat of a "no result" as the protagonists (including yours truly) ground themselves into inextricable entrenchment, like the last great barques of an ancient armada, angular sculptures of black-brown driftwood that seemed to groan silently under the weight of their own failed expectations, and in that melancholy rootless, yet somehow fixed forever in golden sand that bore their wheeling and spiked shadows without complaint, and still glistened at sunrise, like a half-forgotten dream, with the memory of spray and wash, the salmon leap and the dark, burrowing mollusc, preserving a timeless hope in its yielding texture, like the .... erm ... etc. etc.

Apologies for the mischief I think the living dead marshes were more of an atmospheric device than a specific kind of natural phenomenon that can be rationalised within Tolkien's cosmogony. Whilst some precursive elements of Gaia theory may arguably be superimposed on Tolkien's intuitive and poetic sense of the land, the recent philosophical notion of "living earth", with its comprehensive ecological paradigm, is not really inferred. The Tolkienesque kind of allusion can also be found in the work of the poets of the First World War in their reflections of battlefields and the pretty fields of France that became the great graveyards of that war.

Peace

Yes, I am aware that Tolkien's style is, as you say, not modern as in Steinbeck and the others. In theme, however, I think he is forgotten in error. He is thoroughly modern in what the story is all about. I will not go into a laundry list of themes and expose myself to either extreme of (1) "you forgot the theme of -fill in the blank-", or (2) "the story is simply about itself". As you pointed out, he shares World War One experience with others - I would go so far as to say "modern war" experience. As I have said before, this book could not have been written in any century other than when it was, and of course, Tolkien being a lover of language among other things, HIS story is unlike Steinbeck and most of the other 20th century greats in that it is (out on a limb here) not self-consciously written in order to be published for the writer to be recognized as a relevant author. Rather, it is written foremost because Tolkien loved telling stories. I may have garbled that badly.

It would seem I need to try again, and for a bit more clarity this time.
I hope, Kalessin, to mark off, with your cooperation (and others who care to join this little dicussion):

1) aspects in which Tolkien may be adjudged inferior, as a writer, to the 20th century greats;
2) aspects in which Tolkien may be adjudged superior, as a writer, to the 20th century greats; and
3) aspects in which Tolkien may be adjudged to be marking out new territory and therefore not comparable to the 20th century greats, while still worth considering among the 20th century greats.
This will require outlining a basically agreeable list of 20th century greats, writing in English.

I'll consider the proverbial ball to be in your court, unless after about two days it seems I need to "serve" again.

[Bêthberry]

Gollies, and some people think the posts on the Chapter by Chapter or Canonicity threads are long. I'm sure there are thoughts here some new members would enjoy reading.

aka bump

[Kuruharan]

And back to the main point of this thread: the artists are themselves responsible for the state of the genre. In as much as they give into the realities of the publishing world and the market it dictates to - ah, ahem - I mean, serves, the artists are responsible for the pablum readers are stuck with.

Yes, but it is the publishing world and the market that puts food on the table. If an artist finds a formula that works, the pressure will be to exploit it for all it’s worth. Even when the artist becomes bored and disconnected from the art. If a writer is unable to find a publisher for some cherished work, then what? Much bitterness ensues I imagine.

Of course, there always looms the possibility of self-publication. Perhaps this dream keeps some working into the small hours of the night on something they no longer “feel” with the hope that they may accumulate enough money and fame to enable them to publish for themselves?

Of course, I say all this now. I have not had the luxury of reading an excruciatingly bad work in recent months, and that may mellow me somewhat.

[Rimbaud]

I mean this sincerely: authors have almost nothing to do with what is on display in Waterstones. Or Barnes and Noble for our cousins.

The uncomfortable equation is thus: books = units.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I couldn't agree more Rim, although the situation might even be worse than you are allowing it to be:

books = Movie units

There isn't an author writing today who doesn't have, at least somewhere at the back of his/her mind, the idea of movie rights to the book, and thus creates accordingly. If there are authors who avoid this, I would suggest that they instead follow one of the following two other equations:

books = Oprah units

or

books = Man Booker Prize units

I wonder though if there really is no room for an effective presence of the author in this however. If books-as-units were widgets, then anyone could be trained to write the kinds of books that different people want to read. But we can all agree that there is still some kind of speical non-quantifiable talent behind good writing, such that the people who produce book-units in response to a market demand, still do so from within a 'talent' or skill-set that is uniquely their own.

It's like any profession -- every computer programmer is still an individual using his or her creativity. While the lines of code written by that programmer might not have an overt or visible effect upon the whole, there is an effect which, when combined with the other creative/individual effects of other programmers, results in large-scale change.

So art is independent of the artist, and perhaps controlled by the publishing houses, but the culumative effect of creative artists moves the people (since publishers are people too! ) in certain directions?

Grasping for hope here. . .which is hard for a dyed in the wool Althusserian such as myself (free biscuits for anyone who knows what that means).

[Kuruharan]

Althusserian-pertaining to the ideas of Louis Althusser who said that ideology is the way we live our reality through representation. Social identification is a question of what we consume rather than what we produce, which I believe is what specifically relates to the point you are making.

So, are you implying that readers get junk because they deserve it, or maybe ask for it?

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Following Louis Althusser strictly -- we are junk since in a consumerist culture you are, well, what you eat. . .or what is fed to you.

[Mithalwen]

But if we stopped eating it they would try to feed us something else maybe...

[Kuruharan]

Ah-ha!! So in offering me biscuits you were merely trying to perpetuate an unfair social system!! I shall begin concocting plans for your violent overthrow at once!!!

If only you had offered me waffles or caviar…


Is there any hope for this poor thread?

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Ah, but you see, that's just the thing with Althusser -- we can't choose to stop eating what "they" give us, because "they" do not exist: we're all part of a self-constituting "us." We all of us order our lives within ideologies that find concrete expression in what LA calls Ideological State Apparatus (and, yes, he goes on to call them ISAs). With this view, the cultural productions -- pieces of 'art' -- that we consume appeal to us because they reflect the significations that we have all developed to explain and order our world. They are not imposed on us from without, but spring up from within ourselves, all of us, trapping us all in the same prisonhouse of consumerist, ideological representation.

We are all of us the "them" that imprison each of us individually. As such we cannot produce any kind of art that is not an expression of what we have made ourselves to be in order to find existence within the ISAs that we've built to order our existence. Freedom from these is a dream.

[The Saucepan Man]

Of course, in a perfect free market, producers will simply produce what the consumers desire. That is not to say that producers (and governments) do not have ways and means to influence consumers' desires, but then there is no such thing as the perfect free market.

On the whole, however, I would say that, just as we get the press that we deserve, we get the books that we deserve.

[Kuruharan]

They are not imposed on us from without, but spring up from within ourselves, all of us, trapping us all in the same prisonhouse of consumerist, ideological representation.

We are all of us the "them" that imprison each of us individually.

But if this is the case is it really a prison or is it just the world? And if it is just the world, why choose to view it so negatively? There are obviously limitations to everything, but that does not make everything a prison.

Anyway, Saucepan to the rescue...

we get the books that we deserve.

I was never convicted of the deeds I done did to deserve Dennis L. McKiernan (my apologies to those who like him).

[tar-ancalime]

Following Louis Althusser strictly -- we are junk since in a consumerist culture you are, well, what you eat. . .or what is fed to you.

We are all of us the "them" that imprison each of us individually. As such we cannot produce any kind of art that is not an expression of what we have made ourselves to be in order to find existence within the ISAs that we've built to order our existence. Freedom from these is a dream.

But I think we've got a skewed perspective on the "junk" that sometimes passes for art. There is this idea that our current society, our market, or some other modern institution targeted for finger-wagging is somehow responsible for what seems like a glut of appalling art. But while self-flagellation and finger-pointing can be fun, when we go in for this sort of thing we're forgetting something important: there has always been bad art. Picasso wasn't the only painter in Paris; but today we value his art over many of those who were around him because time has shown it to be superior (note that I'm postulating its superiority and neatly evading the question of what makes it so). The art that has come down to us from past eras (not that Picasso's era was all that long ago) has been distilled through time, with only that art judged valuable being preserved. Thus, almost all of the works of art (whether paintings, novels, symphonies, etc.) we know from past eras are, if not great, at least well-made in one or more aspects. The bad art simply hasn't survived--we don't know the works of the worst Renaissance writers because no one bothered to copy their manuscripts. The parchment they were written on was reused or destroyed. Simply put, no one cared enough to preserve them.

So in our present era, we're still surrounded by all of the bad art of our own time. The good art has not yet risen above it. The difference, of course, is the variety of media and the vast dissemination in comparison with earlier eras. A bad book, in times past, would have reached a relatively small audience compared with a bad blockbuster movie today. However, in the long view, I'm sure that the good art of our own era will be remembered and treasured by past generations in much the same way that we remember and treasure the very best art of the eras that preceded us.

[Lalwendë]

*Spots nice deep thread and rubs hands with glee as the old brain-cogs squeakily start accelerating*

The art that has come down to us from past eras (not that Picasso's era was all that long ago) has been distilled through time, with only that art judged valuable being preserved. Thus, almost all of the works of art (whether paintings, novels, symphonies, etc.) we know from past eras are, if not great, at least well-made in one or more aspects. The bad art simply hasn't survived

Ah, but....There are many mitigating factors to consider in this, such as oppression of the one who produced that piece of art, or repression of the ideas contained therein. For example, consider when art by women was not generally accepted by the cultural establishment and was quite frequently judged to be worthless. We do not know just how much that was produced was eventually lost to us.

I once studied literature of the 1930's, and when researching a paper, I discovered that there were many novels written by working class people, with stories centred on their experiences of poverty and unemployment, only a handful of which are now available in print. Tracking some down, I found they were fantastic novels, speaking of an experience which is not often spoken of today. Many more, however, remained out of print, simply as they were being published by small independent houses, and not everything could be profitably reprinted. I wished I could read some of these lost novels, as they sounded good.

Fordim, I am now thoroughly depressed. I always rant at people that there is no real 'alternative', that anything we do is ultimately driven by business and media and general 'powers that be', even that really obscure shouty CD we buy would never have been available if someone didn't think we would 'buy in' to it, and that if I went off to live in a cave and live off nuts and berries it would be part of the whole machine in that I was just reacting to it..... I thought it was just me being curmudgeonly and old, but it appears my negative grumbling has a real name.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

The bad art simply hasn't survived

Sadly, I must take issue with this. From Victorian pornography to Renaissance nationalist doggerrel (the Pope is a horse's a**, Spaniards are all b*****s, etc) there is lots of bad art that has come to us 'through the ages'. The old "test of time" theory does not quite hold up, I'm afraid, given these and a whole host of other examples. . .

The only difference between bad art and good art that has survived is in the interested powers/people who want to preserve it. Publishing houses want to keep Dickens around because his stuff still sells (relatively) well and you don't have to cut out a slice of the profits to any pesky estate. Academics want to keep anti-Papal doggerrel around to study it, people of dubious taste and morality want to keep the Victorian porn about in order to. . .well. . .you get the picture (actually, I hope you do not).

There is no "gold standard" of historical transmission that can guarantee quality and worth in art -- it's all still just the market place. Gone With the Wind continues to outsell the roughly contemporaneous Ulysses, and while I enjoyed Margaret Mitchell's buccolic romp through the Old South (passing quickly over the text's racism and classism) I would not in a million years make any claim that it is a better book than anything produced by James Joyce!

[tar-ancalime]

Lalwende, you're absolutely right. What I should have said:

The art that hasn't made it to our time has been lost for any number of reasons: fire, water, and carelessness are three that spring to mind. And there is certainly a lot of very good art that hasn't survived, whether for the above reasons or because of the low status and/or oppression of the artists (or for some other reason). In effect, we've often thrown out the baby with the bath water. But I think my main point still stands: even though we've lost so much art, good and bad, what remains tends to be good art.

EDIT: Having just read Fordim's post, I stand corrected. It's a shame--it was a nice crackpot theory.

[Mithalwen]

I believe my choices as a consumer give me more power than my vote. I remember when recycled paper and other ecologically kinder products were fringe tastes and now they and organic food are in every supermarket ( I know this somewhat defeats the object but I will save my standard tree hugging rant about food miles for another occasion) but the supermarkets are clearly responding to demand. The reason we don't have GMO here is not down to the government (who would like to yield to US pressure to relax the definitions) but due to consumers not wanting it.

So I for one, am not going to give in... and passively accept my fate...

[mark12_30]

I think that I'm quite glad that I never knew that there was such a thing lurking about in the world as ...... Victorian pornography.

[Mithalwen]

Have a look at some pre-raph painting for a start ... not that I suggest you go further.....

[Aiwendil]

Well, I never dreamed I'd see this thread come back to life.

Fordim has correctly and eloquently noted that it is greed that drives the markets, not art. While I agree with his cynicism, I feel a distinction ought to be made. It is one thing to talk about what the market for literature is like, and why it's that way. It's quite another to talk about what the literature on the market is like, and why it's that way. And lurking somewhere in the latter question is the issue of what constitutes good art.

A (perhaps oversimplistic) way of putting it is: bookstores sell that which sells; but why does that which sells sell?

There was a general concensus back in the early days of this thread that the post-Tolkien fantasy of Terry Brooks, Robert Jordan, and the like is significantly inferior to Tolkien's work. Why then does the market demand that kind of book? Why doesn't it demand works like Tolkien's, which are widely considered better (and indeed sell better)? Is there some strange force of capitalism at work that keeps the demand for this more popular, better liked type of book low and the demand for the less liked type of book high? Or is it not a market issue at all, but an artistic one - most writers are simply incapable of producing works like Tolkien's?

Fordim wrote:

If books-as-units were widgets, then anyone could be trained to write the kinds of books that different people want to read. But we can all agree that there is still some kind of speical non-quantifiable talent behind good writing, such that the people who produce book-units in response to a market demand, still do so from within a 'talent' or skill-set that is uniquely their own.

I'm not sure about the non-quantifiable bit. The specifications for a succesful book could be completely quantifiable and still the book could be difficult to produce. The specifications for an efficient heat engine are quantifiable, but I certainly couldn't build one. Of course, I must admit I'm the sort of reductionist who insists that everything is ultimately quantifiable.

Nonetheless, I think you make the right point - writing books that sell is a talent.

So art is independent of the artist, and perhaps controlled by the publishing houses

Of course, it's not literally true that the publishers and booksellers control what art is produced. The artists control that. The publishers and booksellers control what art is published and sold; and of course this exerts a strong influence on the artists. But Tolkien, for example, wrote without much thought of the demands of the market.

With this view, the cultural productions -- pieces of 'art' -- that we consume appeal to us because they reflect the significations that we have all developed to explain and order our world.

This view significantly fails to distinguish between art that sells and art that is considered good, though I suppose it could be applied coherently to each. Nonetheless, it looks to me like it leads to a condemnation of all art, from Mozart to Tolkien to the junk in the romance section.

Tar-Ancalime wrote:

there has always been bad art.

This is a very good point. There is, I think, a natural human tendency to be very melodramatic about one's present situation.

Fordim again:

Sadly, I must take issue with this. From Victorian pornography to Renaissance nationalist doggerrel (the Pope is a horse's a**, Spaniards are all b*****s, etc) there is lots of bad art that has come to us 'through the ages'. The old "test of time" theory does not quite hold up, I'm afraid, given these and a whole host of other examples. . .

Yes and no. A lot of bad art is preserved, but it's usually not well known - and I still think that good art is preserved more consistently than bad. Salieri, for example, is often brought up as the quintessential mediocre artist as opposed to Mozart the great; but Salieri was undoubtedly a far better artist than many of his contemporaries, whose names nor works are often heard.

Further, I think that even if all bad art was preserved and widely known, it would not be enough to dismiss the "test of time" theory, the idea of which is not that only good art survives but that only good art retains popularity or critical approval (there's a big difference between those two, of course, but that's a separate issue). Nobody seriously thinks that Victorian pornography is better art than Shakespeare, and its certainly not as popular.

There is no "gold standard" of historical transmission that can guarantee quality and worth in art -- it's all still just the market place. Gone With the Wind continues to outsell the roughly contemporaneous Ulysses, and while I enjoyed Margaret Mitchell's buccolic romp through the Old South (passing quickly over the text's racism and classism) I would not in a million years make any claim that it is a better book than anything produced by James Joyce!

I agree that historical transmission is not a "gold standard". It is not true that the quality of a work of art is directly proportional to the success with which it retains popularity over time. But I do think that such success is often diagnostic of quality. But Ulysses and Gone with the Wind are really fairly recent works in the grand scheme of things.

By the way, doesn't your placing of Joyce over Mitchell require that you have a notion of "good art", and doesn't that contradict the claim that:

the cultural productions -- pieces of 'art' -- that we consume appeal to us because they reflect the significations that we have all developed to explain and order our world. They are not imposed on us from without, but spring up from within ourselves, all of us, trapping us all in the same prisonhouse of consumerist, ideological representation.

. . . or am I reading a value judgement into Althusser's view that isn't really there? Or do you perhaps not really share his view?

Lalwende wrote:

I always rant at people that there is no real 'alternative', that anything we do is ultimately driven by business and media and general 'powers that be', even that really obscure shouty CD we buy would never have been available if someone didn't think we would 'buy in' to it

This seems to approach things with the assumption that people buy music with the goal of escaping consumerism. I don't know about anyone else, but I buy music because I think it sounds good, and as long as it does I don't really care what sinister forces made it available to me.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I actually do subscribe to Althusser's views on art and production, it's just that I've not (been able) to give them full expression here. Althusser does hold to the idea that there is such a thing as human imagination, and that this is able to contest the boundaries that we put around ourselves. In effect, he argues that we can 'break free' and that creative art 'adds' to human experience.

The limitation he sees on this is that the only thing art can clearly 'show' us is the fact or manner of our 'imprisonment' (he actually calls it "interpellation": being singled out, made and individual, by our culture). That is, the creative artist is able to view the world in such a way as to show us with 'new eyes' the real contours of the structures that surround us. . .and this is the first step toward changing those structures. Of course, being a committed Marxist he insists that this change cannot come from a single person, but from mass movement. So, in the end, his argument becomes quite interesting:

the artist is a special individual (not a privileged one) who is able to see and thus express the world in a new way; this new way shows how the world is to other people, and if the expression is compelling enough and reaches enough people, then a community can develop around the work of art (but not the artist) in which this new awareness becomes part of the human/social fabric, thus altering it and changing it. Of course, over time, this change becomes part of the fabric and thus once more invisible (that is: so normal that we no longer notice it) until it is seen anew by another artist or creative thinker.

His view is not really despairing at all -- not at least of the human condition or of societies. Althusser merely takes issue with the idea that a single person can act as an orginary genius and single-handedly 'change the world'. All the individual can do is reflect through her- or himself something that is already in society in such a way that it gains larger purchase until there is sufficient mass movement to have that minority view effect the way we live.

I've always though how elegantly this goes together with Tolkien's own view of fantasy as being motivated by recovery and 'seeing the world anew'. Of course, the one HUGE difference between Tolkien and Althusser, is that the reality Althusser sees reflected in art are the material conditions of human existence in society, whereas the reality that Tolkien sees reflected in art is a divine and spiritual reality. What is compelling for me is that neither man had great faith in the ability of the individual to really have an impact on the world -- and that goes right to the heart of most of the ideologies of western democracies, in which everyone "makes a difference" and all it takes to change the world is "one good idea" or "one remarkable person."

I still don't go with the "test of time" theory either, insofar as the 'bad' art might not be as widely known, but that is simply to appeal to the other spurious argument of popularity: I just can't see an equation like. . .

been around a long time + popular = good

having much use, insofar as the two terms upon which it depends are both highly questionable -- maybe it's been around a long time because it suits the political purposes of a powerful group, and maybe it's popular because it's got lots of prurient sex and violence.

What I can say is this: I prefer Mozart to Salieri, and Tolkien to Brooks.

[The Saucepan Man]

... what is "good art"?