About Art Art
Post 638:
I heard a prominent singer/songwriter say that “music is not something that is good or bad; music is something you like or don’t.”
Despite having a ridiculously successful career, I believe his take was a response to the fact that he’d never been a doll of the critics.
The value of art and how it’s to be measured is a debate that will run the course of my life and till the seas dry up. I’ll change my mind on the subject as I go, just as I’ve changed it as I’ve gone.
I’m not a relativist, which means I believe there are objective standards in life, but art is tricky. I think it’s half and half. By this, I mean the work has to qualify a minimum standard. A bunch of nonsense is not art, but then again, what’s nonsense? Short answer: something just thrown together without thought or foresight, without message or meaning. (I was going for succinct there. Pretty much nailed it)
After the qualifying round, it gets way dicey, more taster’s choice. For instance, I get that Wuthering Heights is a greater piece of art than romance novel number 34 in the teenage vampire series. I believe and know it’s greater—at the same time—it’s a pretty good trick. But… the writer of our fictional vampire series is really good at doing her thing. The books are damn entertaining, obviously, because there’s at least 34 of them. Who am I to say that ain’t great art?
Just me is who I am.
The thing is, there’s a bunch of other factors to throw in. A lot of people need the work to be socially relevant (not me) or transformative (whatever that means) or transcendent (bull#%^t) and they might have a point. If you look back at the great literature, for instance, most of it is challenging in some way, and most of it is ambiguous, able to be interpreted in more than one fashion.
See how this spirals? Follow me down the rabbit hole and become a return guest to my blog. I’ll get back to talking about art just after I finish my 35th vampire novel.
I am an artist! Eh… whatever. Cheers and see you after.
