![]() |
![]() |
Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
|
![]() |
#1 | |||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
Fordim:
Thanks for the explanation of Althusser's views. A question, though: you said: Quote:
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. Quote:
The Saucepan Man wrote: Quote:
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. Last edited by Aiwendil; 10-27-2004 at 08:27 PM. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 | |
Shade of Carn Dûm
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: abaft the beam
Posts: 303
![]() |
Worms...everywhere!
Quote:
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.)
__________________
Having fun wolfing it to the bitter end, I see, gaur-ancalime (lmp, ww13) |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |
A Mere Boggart
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,737
![]() ![]() |
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. Quote:
![]()
__________________
Gordon's alive!
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Princess of Skwerlz
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: where the Sea is eastwards (WtR: 6060 miles)
Posts: 7,500
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
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"
__________________
'Mercy!' cried Gandalf. 'If the giving of information is to be the cure of your inquisitiveness, I shall spend all the rest of my days in answering you. What more do you want to know?' 'The whole history of Middle-earth...' |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
The Perilous Poet
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Heart of the matter
Posts: 1,062
![]() |
Books and fantasy and valid criticisms ;)
(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.
__________________
And all the rest is literature |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
A Mere Boggart
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,737
![]() ![]() |
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 ![]() 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. ![]()
__________________
Gordon's alive!
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 | ||||
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
![]() |
![]() Quote:
![]() 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' ![]() Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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.
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 | |
Stormdancer of Doom
|
Quote:
Those who neither believe in, nor pursue, Good or Truth, would say there are no such effects.
__________________
...down to the water to see the elves dance and sing upon the midsummer's eve. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 | ||
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
![]() |
![]() Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |