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

[The Saucepan Man]

... what is "good art"?

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

. . .what is "good art"?

Not bad art.

[Bêthberry]

My dear Fordim,

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.

Aren't you getting your Althusser mixed up with your Fredric Jameson, (The Prison-House of Language ?

These Marxists do tend to cross-pollinate.

It is not only women artists whose work has been neglected by time and history. Throughout the ninetheenth century, Milton was regarded as the quintessential seventeenth century poet--the protestant rebel finding a chord of sympathy with the romantics and eclipsing more traditional poets such as Marvell, Herbert and Donne. It took the voice of a T. S. Eliot to bring back to the forefront of critical acclaim John Donne.

Strangely now--or perhaps not--the memorials for both Blake and Donne lie in St. Paul's.

[littlemanpoet]

I'd like to start with a distinction regarding the word "good" in terms of "good art". There is moral good and aesthetic good. One can write a book that is morally bad but aesthetically good; or one that is aesthetically awful while morally good. A book could be both kinds of bad, or both kinds of good. I think the kind of "good" that is most germaine to this discussion is aesthetic good. Moral good in art is an additional issue that has so far, in my estimation, clouded the discussion.

Good art is art that is aesthetically pleasing. The viewer or reader may take pleasure in the beauty of the artwork itself, or may take pleasure in the skill of the artist having made such a pleasing work of art. Are there other aspects to aesthetic pleasure? I don't think so, and desire correction if I'm wrong.

So good art is that which is aesthetically pleasing, whether due to skill in making, or in the beauty of the artwork itself. Does aesthetic pleasure vary by culture? Of course. So to that extent, good art is culturally relative. But that does not mean that there is not absolute standard. What it means instead, is that human perceptions and ability to reason, and cultural development, are finite and fallable, and will necessarily fall short of any ideal standard, be it a standard for beauty, or skill in realization.

Not long ago, I asked myself just why it was that the form of a woman is so aesthetically pleasing to me. I was not satisfied with strictly gender related reasons. Indeed, gender relatedness begged the question! Why is it that most human males are absolutely convinced that they know a beautiful woman when they see one? How do they know? What is the standard? Is there a standard? Why, in short, do I say that the form of a woman is beautiful?

I developed a personal aphorism. It goes like this: Beauty is being that which a thing was meant to be. This aphorism assumes a maker who designs, which is true of any art form. It also includes a standard for beauty, and thereby a standard for good art.

It allows for negative expressions, such as a rebellion against beauty as a standard for good art, in that an artwork in rebellion of beauty can, in all its purposive ugliness, be in its realization of its goal, a thing of beauty.

It also allows for a primary creator.

So what?

Assertions have been made that there is no absolute standard for good art, and mark12_30 and I have disagreed with that. The two of us are convinced that there is an absolute standard for good art. I say that that standard is beauty. Where does beauty come from? Did it just grow out of our evolutionary development? Or was it designed into us? Maybe the reality is that it was a combination of both design by the Maker, and evolution as the Maker's method. Or not. That's of relative unimportance in regard to "good art".

Mark12_30 and I have stated the bases for our points of view. I would appreciate it if someone who holds to the "good art is a subjective, relative thing", would kindly provide a reasoned basis for such a position. Thanks!

Finally, I do believe that there are valid criticisms of the genre, and that they have everything to do with the writer's efforts to bring beauty to his or her work of fantasy.

Oh! And if I have missed someone's efforts to provide what I have here asked for, please accept my humble apologies and point me to the appropriate post. Thanks!

[Firefoot]

*Firefoot sticks her nose into this fascinating discussion, hoping that her thoughts are relevant.*

To quote my old sig:

"The best and most beautiful things in life cannot be seen or even touched. They must be felt in the heart."

It think this pretty well sums up why things like good art, beauty, and the like are hard to define: they are intangible feelings, individual to each person. Because people have different opinions on what is good, or true, or beautiful, their definitions of these things will also be different.

If there is something that one person thinks to be beautiful, but everyone else in the world thinks it is not, does it make the thing any less beautiful to that one person? If that is what the one person truly thinks, then no, it doesn't. So is it beautiful or not? Most people would say no, but as long as the one person thinks so, that thing must hold some element of beauty.

Can goodness, beauty, and truth be defined, then? Individually, I would say yes. I can take my set of morals, values, and opinions and put them together to get my opinion of these things. But universally? Except in the most general sense, I don't think so. The human race is too vast and different for that. I think that most people would agree with Mark12_30's statement that good art reveals truth. But I don't think that the statement can be taken any futher than that, because each person's perception of truth is different.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

... what is "good art"?

...good art reveals Truth.

[The Saucepan Man]

...good art reveals Truth.

Indeed. I have often looked upon Tracy Emin's tent (alas no longer with us) and the works of Jake and Dinos Chapman and reflected on the nature of Truth.

[Kuruharan]

You want good art?

Just take a look at those saucepans!

Very nice!

[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.

[tar-ancalime]

Or does the stuff that fills the bookshelves reveal truths about our experience as well?

Of course it does!

Perhaps a formulaic, poorly crafted work doesn't reveal truth as skillfully as the masterpiece of a greater writer, and perhaps a potboiler doesn't reveal a unique truth, but the fact that something could be said more eloquently, or has been said again and again, doesn't make it any less true.

(Personal disclaimer: I am a professional in the performing arts, and I really take issue with the whole idea that there is some discernable boundary between what is art and what is "just" entertainment. I expect the same respect for my craft regardless of the nature of the work I'm performing. I think that when we begin to talk about the "real art" vs. "the stuff that fills the bookshelves," we're setting up a false dichotomy.)

[Lalwendë]

What makes a work of art good? When someone says it is good.

And to explain further: More specifically, I mean that a work of art becomes 'good' when sufficient of the right kind of critics have judged it to be so. It does not become 'good' when mere mortals say so, otherwise the overwhelming popularity of Tolkien would mean that he was judged 'good' by even more people. Until the right kind of critics judge Tolkien to be 'good', his work will remain excluded.

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.

I too buy music because I think it sounds good. Unfortunately, the opportunities to buy the music I think sounds good are diminishing because of sinister forces like Simon 'smarmy big pants' Cowell. I was talking about this the other day, and I believe that there is too much 'perspiration' in music these days and not enough 'inspiration'; I do not want to hear someone singing, with a 'perfect voice' the same song I have heard so many others sing. I want to hear a new song altogether. Yes, I'm clearly putting the boot into all these TV talent shows! Obviously, all artists must 'sell out' to a certain extent - I read the other day of a band who were so 'punk' they refused to release records and eventually refused to play live apart from in their own garage. That's plainly going too far, but market forces these days all too often prevent the kind of experimentation which in the past has resulted in so much fantastic music!

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Regarding the test of time and art - often, there are fashions in art, which means that some old works of art no longer fit into later ideals. They therefore sink into oblivion for a time - or forever, if no one rediscovers them - and are lost, despite their intrinsic worth. There is one very notable example in music history; J. S. Bach* was considered old-fashioned by his own sons and their generation. Had not Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdy rediscovered him many years later and brought his Matthew's Passion to public performance, who knows if we would be familiar with him today?

To connect this to Tolkien, Peter Jackson seems to have played a Mendelssohn's role in the revival of Tolkien's LotR; though it was never completely gone from bookshelves, it certainly was not at the forefront of attention for a long time...

(*I know I'm not the only person who considers JSB the greatest genius in musical history - and that under most difficult circumstances. The fact that his sons were able musicians and composers, yet without his genius, shows that great art is not reproducable at will nor learnable as a trade, though both will and training are certainly necessary for the creation (sub-creation, if you will) of art.)

PS - Cross-posted with Lalwendë, who also brings up the point of "perspiration" vs. "inspiration"

[Rimbaud]

(Digressing a little, as I found saved the basis of an old post I had for this thread (2002!), added a little at the end and am posting it now.)


I imagine a pyramid representing the number of different book titles sold, with the base set in the past and the needle stretching past us into the future. The pyramid is also slanted as you look at it so that it comes from the past upwards into the future. This slant is to indicate an increased number of sales of books in total.

More books are sold today than ever – yet fewer titles year on year. Naturally this decrease cannot have been going on forever, perhaps you can conclude that there is a cyclical pattern of increasing and decreasing numbers of titles sold. (On a side note, the UK has the most different titles published per head in the world. Can’t see it lasting long, though).

The centre of gravity for this pyramid, that which keeps it narrowing into the point, is the market force, as determined by the best selling books. This process is augmented by the currently observed trend of consolidation among book chains, reducing choice for the consumer. The market looks to release books similar to those that do well – and why not? It’s only curmudgeons like myself who want a vast choice of titles…right? (It’s difficult to evade accusations of elitism on and from either side of the debate.) This trend of bookshop consolidation is likely to be turned on its head, beginning a new cycle.

Why? The joy of the internet! The mighty web has injected a heady dose of choice back into the market. Obscure books are now readily available, and smaller independents have been thrown a lifeline, transforming themselves into online dealers of that which is tricky to find on Amazon. As mentioned above, it is easy to fall into melodrama. The world of books is a fairly ruddy one, just try and avoid those odious big shops with small ranges.

Indeed, perhaps that’s the point; that it’s choice rather than a form of objective qualitative analysis for which we should be striving. I rather agree with Aiwendil above with a distaste for classifying ‘good art’; it is moreover in my opinion a phrase to be avoided,

If, however, you take the possibly more accurate view – that there is no ‘art’, only the perception thereof, the argument glides into a smooth downward spiral that comes to rest on Descartes. Not of much benefit to a discussion, but the point being that it is impossible and perhaps unwanted to create hard and fast rules for perception for any more than one person.

Choice, then. Let’s not dictate what should and should not be read, rather let’s question the uneven playing field for a wide range of books. I think this is what I was driving at in my last post on this thread, made with customary glibness, that it is the practical side of the argument that merits discussion. With this, I refer to the original discussion on fantasy books.

To the wider discussion that has been happening on and off between some bright minds on this thread for a while, I will for now restrain myself to a rather facetious quotation from Auden: “Some books are undeservedly forgotten, none are undeservedly remembered.” Looks like we’re back to longevity equations.

[Lalwendë]

Interesting post about book selling, Rimbaud!

I have to say, thank goodness for t'Internet when it comes to finding books. Several years ago, book prices were effectively 'fixed' in the UK. Then the government, in it's infinite wisdom , suddenly released retailers from the requirement to sell books at their Recommended Retail price (RRP). At the time, commentators said that market forces would inevitably mean that the big selling titles would get much cheaper, and the more obscure titles would see price rises. This has indeed proved to be the case.

And in addition, chain bookshops do not seem to carry the range of titles that they used to. These chains have also proliferated, which is good if you are after something readily available, but if not, you are put in a bind. There are less independent booksellers these days, thus book buying online has become the only option for less profitable titles. I lke the fact I can get the latest Harry Potter in the supermarket for a knockdown price, but it's a bit annoying that in my whole city (a 500,000 poulation, including 50k students!) I have as yet been unable to find a shop to spend time in browsing Tolkien critical works.

Let me drop in some praise here for two independent shops - The Whitby Bookshop and Broadhurst's of Southport. I've got no commercial interest, just they are fantastic shops.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

The Saucepan Man wrote:
Quote:
... 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 . . .

And I thought that you were the master of quantification.

The reason that I asked is that assumptions are being made on this thread as to what is "good art" or "bad art". Who decides what is "good" and what is "bad" at any given time? Is it some cultural elite? Is it the majority of consumers (the popularity argument)? Or is it simply down to personal taste? I have a lot of time for the works mentioned in my previous post, and yet they certainly don't have mass appeal and there are many (probably the majority) who find them pointless and entirely devoid of merit.

And must "good art" necessarily reveal some truth as to the human condition (customarily, I avoid the dreaded capital 'T' )? And, if so, who is to say what those truths are? In any event, surely the individual can simply enjoy art without having to feel that they have learned some basic truth. Or can simple enjoyment be classified as a basic truth of human experience?

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

More specifically, I mean that a work of art becomes 'good' when sufficient of the right kind of critics have judged it to be so. It does not become 'good' when mere mortals say so, otherwise the overwhelming popularity of Tolkien would mean that he was judged 'good' by even more people. Until the right kind of critics judge Tolkien to be 'good', his work will remain excluded.

But who are these "right kind of critics", and why should they determine what is good and bad for the rest of us?

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

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.

Precisely the point that I was driving at. Isn't it all, ultimately, subjective? Of course, in communities such as this forum, where one's very presence is driven by a particular interest (the works of Tolkien in our case), there will be a broad (though not exclusive) consensus on many areas of artistic endeavour. But there will always be disagreement on the fringes (if not the central ground).

Originally Posted by Rimbaud

Indeed, perhaps that’s the point; that it’s choice rather than a form of objective qualitative analysis for which we should be striving. I rather agree with Aiwendil above with a distaste for classifying ‘good art’; it is moreover in my opinion a phrase to be avoided.

Since the merits of an individual work of art are entirely subjective, I would agree that there can be no such thing as “good art”. A piece of art cannot, objectively, be classified as “good” simply because a certain group of academics regard it as having academic merit, although it is certainly “good” to them. Neither can it be classified as “bad” because others regard it as having little merit (by reference to their own criteria). Similarly, with the works of authors such as Danielle Steele, or Jeffrey Archer, or Terry Brooks. Like tar-ancalime, I would not exclude works such as these from the general definition of "art" simply because they are regarded as “mere entertainment” for the masses. They are popular with, and therefore regarded as “good”, by a large section of society, while others regard them as drivel and therefore “bad”. Objectively, they are neither.

Of course, works of art can come to be regarded as good by a sufficiently large or influential section of society, such as they become generally regarded within that society as “good” (and this will change over time). That is not to say that only art which is popular is to regarded as “good”, but it is surely one determinant of quality. If the works of a particular author or artist or director are popular, then they must be doing something right.

I would agree with Rimbaud concerning the desirability of choice. And I would say that there is a sufficiently wide range of shared tastes within our society to prompt the "producers" and those who market their "products" to give us a sufficiently tolerable choice. There may be those within society whose particular tastes are not catered for, but such tastes would surely be very eclectic indeed. Otherwise, while those who have less “popularist” tastes may need to search a little harder (whether that be by surfing the net, tuning into the right radio station, going to the right bookshop and so forth), that which they find to be “good” will generally still be there somewhere.

[mark12_30]

And must "good art" necessarily reveal some truth as to the human condition (customarily, I avoid the dreaded capital 'T' )? And, if so, who is to say what those truths are? In any event, surely the individual can simply enjoy art without having to feel that they have learned some basic truth. Or can simple enjoyment be classified as a basic truth of human experience?

Those who believe in transcendant Truth would say yes, that enjoyment of something Good leads to a deeper (not necessarily intellectual) understanding of that Good; that enjoyment of Truth leads to deeper understanding (again, not necessarily intellectual) of that Truth. Further, the reason that such enjoyment is subjective is due to the variety and subtlety inherent in the individual's perception of Truth, not because the Truth itself is inconsistent.

Those who neither believe in, nor pursue, Good or Truth, would say there are no such effects.