[Aiwendil]

Fordim:

Thanks for the explanation of Althusser's views. A question, though: you said:

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

Does he then draw a fundamental distinction between "true" artists, those who can add to the human experience by revealing our interpellation, and the popular artists, whose work meets the demands of the market? Or does the stuff that fills the bookshelves reveal truths about our experience as well?

I must say that in any event I think I disagree with his view. I don't really hold with any philosophy of art that ascribes an integral role to the function of art in society. But I said enough about that in the ancient history of this thread.

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.

I should emphasize that I don't believe in any such equation. I never said either that being around for a long time and being popular makes a work of art good or that such a criterion is a perfect indicator of the quality of a work of art. All I claim is that over long periods of time good art tends to maintain popularity and bad art tends not to.

The Saucepan Man wrote:

... what is "good art"?

Who cares?

What I mean is: is a working definition of "good art" really necessary for the discussion in this thread to make sense? Of course it's an interesting question in its own right . . .

Perhaps a more pertinent question is whether there is such a thing as "good art". I recall having a long debate about that in another old thread - perhaps I'll go and see if I can unearth it.

Edit: The thread I'm thinking of was The Tolkien Template, one that bears quite a resemblance (and even a link) to this one.