Art Responses
Posted by: roscivs, in UncategorizedI’d like to take the time to respond directly to some of the questions posed in response to my earlier posts on the subject of art.
What about things which we find impressive or important, but not pleasant?
When I say, “touches our minds in a particular way which we enjoy,” I don’t mean to limit this to ways that are purely positive. Something that makes us think, but isn’t pleasurable in the normal sense, would still fall in the category I meant to portray here. (However, something that evokes an evisceral and completely negative response might not qualify.)
I see several different subcategories in the category of “touches our mind” but not pleasurable in the usual sense. For example, I “enjoy” sad, depressing movies. This is not to say that at the end of The Pianist or The Dangerous Lives of Altar Boys I was sitting in my seat chuckling with joy. I was more likely close to tears with a wrenching feeling in my heart. But the movies touched me in such a deep way that I cannot say but I consider them to be great works of art.
There is another important subcategory, that of works that I greatly disagree with at a fundamental level, and yet are so thought-provoking and intellectually stimulating that I must also classify them as great art. I’ve often said that Rand’s conclusions in Atlas Shrugged I nearly universally agree with, and yet I disagree with nearly every one of the logical processes she uses to get there (either regarding the truth of her premises or the validity of her reasoning). The book is maddening because of this—but enlightening as well.
Or something with bad and therefore non-enjoyable aesthetics, but which was intended to be decorative? If I draw a picture (and, for the most part, I draw quite badly) is the result art even if no-one, including me, finds the product enjoyable? If not, is it failed art or non-art?
I would not qualify it as art if nobody finds the product enjoyable in the broad sense I described above. The distinction between “failed art” and “non-art” is probably only a distinction in intention. If you intended for it to be art and it ended up being non-art, then yes, it’s failed. If you never intended it to be art and it ended up being non-art, then it would not be failed.
I think I would add the concept of depth–both depth of execution and depth of culture. If something is well-crafted enough to repay attention to its fine details, I think the result is much “better art”.
I fully agree here. This is an important category that I think I missed completely before. Many of the works of Bach, I think, fall into this category for me. Initial exposure to the work provides a rather shallow but enjoyable experience. Further exposures reveal tidbits of patterns previously unnoticed. Careful study and research reveals surging depths of intertwining patterns of mind-boggling complexity. Surely this facet of art can be said to greatly affect what we call the quality of a work.
Another facet I feel I missed, or at least touched on insufficiently, is also related to the issue of depth and communication. Part of what makes art great is how it changes the way we think, how we see references to it in every aspect of our lives. Some books I’ve read keep popping up in my brain, suddenly pertinent to hundreds of different seemingly unrelated topics. Some pieces of music have patterns that I start seeing everywhere. Some paintings pop into my mind on a frequent basis, as if to say, “That expresses exactly how I feel right now,” or “That illustrates this precisely!” Even more impressive pieces of art are those that are not only a useful expression in and of themselves, but tie together many other works, connecting to other expressions in meta-artistic patterns, making me realize that seemingly unrelated artistic works—perhaps in different genres or even mediums—are profoundly interconnected.
I have a lot more to say on the subject, so I’ll continue with some more responses tomorrow.
Entries (RSS)
March 10th, 2007 at 9:32 am
Yes, I think how easily we integrate a piece of art into our own private world of symbols is a really important factor to consider, and a great artist will often be able to reach many people on this level. (Hence, in large part, the marvel of Shakespeare–the Japanese dig him, so do the Germans, the Persians…everybody! He “speaks” to people on a fundamental level.)
I think I’m conflating two somewhat different things there, but whatever! Onward we go.
Have you read Borges’ essay about how every writer creates his own antecedents? He mentions a few favorite authors (Kafka is one of them, if I recall correctly) and points out their literary antecedents, and then says, “None of these writers had anything in common until they became Kafka’s literary influences”–an exaggeration, of course, but not much of one. I think that’s a really good example of what you’re talking about here.