# Importance, Art, and Hate



## Arcopitcairn (Aug 23, 2013)

Ever created something that everyone hated, but you just know, down deep that it is art and needs to exist? Have you felt compelled to continue to work on something that you know has no future? A piece that you understand as valid and perhaps even important, but you can't explain why? Is that egotistical? Would it be creation out of spite? Or would it be remaining true to your vision, even though everyone despises your vision? Cannot tell.

If you make difficult, hard art on purpose, does that negate the truth and sincerity of said art?


----------



## Staff Deployment (Aug 23, 2013)

Sure does!

Or was that not the answer you were expecting?


----------



## Arcopitcairn (Aug 23, 2013)

Staff Deployment said:


> Sure does!
> 
> Or was that not the answer you were expecting?



Couldn't say. 

I have a friend who is always right about everything. Truth be told, she most certainly is. Always is right about everything, that is. It would be surprising that she was constantly correct, unless you knew her. Her correctness is based solely on the fact that she never permits risk into her thinking or opinion. It's easy to be right about everything if you never take a chance and go out on a limb with what you say or think.

So if there is calculation put into a piece that is hard, difficult, or challenging, that piece is not valid? If you decide, as a matter of style,not to spoon-feed your art to someone, it renders that art insincere? To someone like my friend, _Eraserhead_ would be a movie to be ignored or laughed away as silly. She has not, and will not see that film. Others consider it a piece of art. If Lynch decided to make his film difficult or challenging, on purpose, is _Eraserhead _egotistical and insincere? Or is it art? Or neither?


----------



## Staff Deployment (Aug 23, 2013)

I posit that it's really easy to make something incomprehensible. What's more difficult is dialling it back so that an objective viewer can take something away from it. It's not insincere, just ... hasty.

Myself, I have written a huge, dense, complicated tome but I spent a long time making sure that even if the finer points are misunderstood, there's still an engaging story and interesting characters with a clear goal and story arc.


----------



## Jon M (Aug 23, 2013)

Hard to answer this question because when I create art--visual or the word variety--it's in a relatively small room, the door's closed, and "everyone" is not invited. 



> If you make difficult, hard art on purpose, does that negate the truth and sincerity of said art?


No. That seems kind of obvious to me, I guess because I don't usually equate difficulty with a work of art's sincerity or truthiness. If something is hard to understand, I just assume the author or artist felt it was necessary. 

A minor example of this might be the times when I have ignored many rules of grammar in order to convey a tone, a rushed or incoherent feeling, or mood.


----------



## Staff Deployment (Aug 23, 2013)

Jon M said:


> A minor example of this might be the times when I have ignored many rules of grammar in order to convey a tone, a rushed or incoherent feeling, or mood.



I love doing this.
There's a sentence in one of my short stories that is 430 words long.


----------



## Arcopitcairn (Aug 23, 2013)

Staff Deployment said:


> I posit that it's really easy to make something incomprehensible. What's more difficult is dialling it back so that an objective viewer can take something away from it. It's not insincere, just ... hasty.



Agreed. Stepping away from the incomprehensible, what about pointed or loaded themes? Or art that provokes and is meant to provoke? Perhaps a piece has a cause, and uses both barrels of a touchy subject to bring a point home. Let's say racism or rape imagery are used to illustrate points. When do such things reach the level of cheap exploitation, and when are they effective tools?

Maybe it's the difference between listening to music for the way the sound makes you feel or for the way the lyrics make you think? That's a broad stroke, I guess. I've been thinking about these things a lot. I have no one I can pose these questions to, and this was the only place I felt I could get opinions or perhaps even anecdotes. I'm interested to hear if anyone has dealt with these issues in their art.


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Aug 25, 2013)

Arcopitcairn said:


> Ever created something that everyone hated, but you just know, down deep that it is art and needs to exist? Have you felt compelled to continue to work on something that you know has no future? A piece that you understand as valid and perhaps even important, but you can't explain why? Is that egotistical? Would it be creation out of spite? Or would it be remaining true to your vision, even though everyone despises your vision? Cannot tell.


Guess the answer depends on the purpose of art--not on a large, philosophical, societal level, necessarily, but what the purpose is for you. If you make art to please other people, or to communicate, then I guess there isn't much point in making something that fails on that level. If you make art because it feels good, valid, important to you, because it gives you pleasure to do it, because it is cathartic--for whatever effect it has on yourself--then you make whatever you dang well please. If others enjoy it, pay for it, etc.--great. Bonus. If they don't, well, whatever.

Personally I don't need any reason to write other than because I like writing (like=enjoy, find meaning, feel like a whole person, etc.). Of course I enjoy sharing my work, too, and I want others to enjoy it. Sometimes communication is important. But often I just write for myself, poems and fragments that I'll probably never show anyone. 

Is that egotistical--I don't know. Was Emily Dickinson egotistical? There's nothing wrong with doing something for yourself, as long as you're not hurting others.



> If you make difficult, hard art on purpose, does that negate the truth and sincerity of said art?


No. Why would it? The question assumes that art must be communicative. I don't think that's true.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Aug 26, 2013)

Arcopitcairn said:


> Ever created something that everyone hated, but you just know, down deep that it is art and needs to exist? Have you felt compelled to continue to work on something that you know has no future? A piece that you understand as valid and perhaps even important, but you can't explain why? Is that egotistical? Would it be creation out of spite? Or would it be remaining true to your vision, even though everyone despises your vision? Cannot tell.



Art for the sake of art is no art at all.  If you have a message, great, but make sure that message is comprehensible.  If you don't know why your _very own_ work is important, why the heck are you making it? How can you justify considering it important? (And no, "it just is" is not a valid answer.)



Arcopitcairn said:


> If you make difficult, hard art on purpose, does that negate the truth and sincerity of said art?



You bet it does.  Art should reflect what you feel and what you believe.  If it ends up being difficult as a result, that's fine.  If, on the other hand, you're making difficult art for the sake of the difficulty itself, then you've lost touch with what art is.

To me, this compulsion to make "art" (that is, art for the sake of art, rather than because you have a message to convey) is the height of pretentiousness.  Avoid it at all costs.


----------



## Tettsuo (Aug 26, 2013)

Arcopitcairn said:


> Ever created something that everyone hated, but you just know, down deep that it is art and needs to exist?


Yes.  In my novel Sectors, everyone totally dislikes one of the characters.  I actually find it amusing that no one finds the character (who I even gave a good heart) pleasing in anyway.


> Have you felt compelled to continue to work on something that you know has no future?


I'm not sure what you mean by this.  Do you mean it won't sell, or do you mean it's not worth completing?  If it's the first, yes.  If it's on my heart to complete, it needs to be completed at some point.  If it's the latter, I let it die.


> A piece that you understand as valid and perhaps even important, but you can't explain why?


If I can't explain why, it's not important to me.


> Is that egotistical?


If you refuse to let it go because you believe the world just isn't ready for it and you're just that much more advanced them the rest of us... yes.


> Would it be creation out of spite?


Sounds like it would be, yes.


> Or would it be remaining true to your vision, even though everyone despises your vision? Cannot tell.


Nope.  If you're doing it for spite and not to communicate something within yourself, you're not being true to anything but the desire to be spiteful and hurtful imo.


> If you make difficult, hard art on purpose, does that negate the truth and sincerity of said art?


No, so long as you're doing from a place of sincerity and truth.  Once you step out of that, you've crossed into a very negative place.


----------



## enchantedsecret24 (Aug 26, 2013)

If you feel so strongly about something, and feel like you HAVE to do something, then you should just do it. It doesn't and shouldn't ever matter what anyone else thinks about it. If you feel like it needs to be done, then just let it happen and stop making it so complicated!


----------



## philistine (Aug 26, 2013)

Arcopitcairn said:


> If Lynch decided to make his film difficult or challenging, on purpose, is _Eraserhead _egotistical and insincere? Or is it art? Or neither?



I'll avoid venting my spleen on the topic of Lynch's films in general, though to answer your question: that would make his work self-indulgent. And self-indulgent art, regardless of the form it takes, isn't worth anyone's time. 

I have a feeling the word 'personal' is creeping into what you're saying, and I feel the same way about personal art as I do the above. It's fine if you want to make it, though don't expect anyone to take it seriously.


----------



## Morkonan (Aug 30, 2013)

Arcopitcairn said:


> Ever created something that everyone hated, but you just know, down deep that it is art and needs to exist? Have you felt compelled to continue to work on something that you know has no future? A piece that you understand as valid and perhaps even important, but you can't explain why? Is that egotistical? Would it be creation out of spite? Or would it be remaining true to your vision, even though everyone despises your vision? Cannot tell.
> 
> If you make difficult, hard art on purpose, does that negate the truth and sincerity of said art?



You know, there is such a thing as "Bad Art" and it is often created by "Bad Artists."

Keep in mind, I'm not referring to you or your work, I'm trying to setup an illustration for my response, for better or worse. 

In my opinion, "Art" can be described as a work that is intentionally created by an Artist to communicate something to its consumer. That's it. It's pretty simple, but very, very robust. It covers everything. So, with that definition, how do we describe "Bad Art?" Bad Art would be that art which is intentionally created but FAILS to communicate what was intended to its consumer.

If anyone creates art that fails to succeed in communicated what the artist intended to communicate to a consumer, then its bad art. The fault lies with the artist, always. But, producing "Bad Art" doesn't make an Artist "Bad." They're still capable of creating brilliant work. But, if they still screw up that process and fail to communicate appropriately, they're a Bad Artist, all around.

However, it is possible you have more foresight than others. Certainly, many artists have as well as many other professionals. Many people have been on "The Cutting Edge" for years, only to have their work recognized long after they are dead. (Or, at least too old to properly enjoy the fruits of success.  ) That is entirely possible and you may be entirely right in your estimation of this particular piece. However, only you can judge that critical piece of work according to the standards you hold for yourself. I can't do that and neither can anyone else.

 Does it do its job? Does it really effectively communicate what you intend to your _intended_ consumer? If you believe it does, maybe you're just slightly ahead of the curve when judging its quality. If it doesn't, maybe you're wrong?

IMO, there are times when certain artistic works are meant for a more narrow range of consumers than that which the general public believes or even than the artist originally intended. For instance, writing "above" the reading level of a gradeschool child in order to communicate a specific message. Is that effective? No. Was it intended for a more narrow audience, but the artist just got side-tracked? Absolutely - The audience of exceptionally well-read gradeschoolers.

Is your intended audience appropriate? Should it be narrowed more, since the work may rely on esoteric knowledge possessed by a narrower audience? Assess your art for appropriateness for the intended audience.

Have you used effective means to communicate what you actually intend to communicate? How many of those methods require esoteric knowledge or even privileged knowledge (Your own personal experiences, for instance.) in order to effectively communicate the message?

Artists who fail to recognize the value of the intended audience and the appropriateness of the means of communication (The Medium, etc..) are those who end up as "Bad" artists. Art is created with the intention of sharing with an audience and communicating a message. If the artist screws that up, no matter how well the art was constructed, it's going to fail.

9/2 Edit - Note: I feel it's important to add this slight addition, here - My formal definition for "Art" is "Art is that which is intentionally created by an Artist in order to communicate something to the Consumer that is _greater than the sum of its parts_." I had not mentioned that italicized portion in the above text. It's extremely critical to the definition of Art. It separates Road Signs from "Art." It separates the instructions on a package of chewing gum from "Art." Though, both could be used to create Art, what is communicated must be greater than the sum of just road signs and chewing gum wrappers. It also serves to separate things like "Pornography" from "Art" as pornography is merely meant to be titillating, having no intent to communicate more than is visible in the sum of its parts.. or dangly bits. Anyway, just had to jump in here and add this further clarification.


----------



## Myers (Aug 30, 2013)

When people start trying to define art, I know it's time to leave the party.


----------



## OurJud (Aug 30, 2013)

I'm kind of doing this with my current WiP. I know that a publisher is extremely unlikely to touch a plotless novel about two guys aimlessly driving around England, but I believe in it, and will therefore continue to write it.


----------



## Arcopitcairn (Aug 30, 2013)

Thanks for your thoughtful responses, everyone. There's a lot of truth in there, and you've given me some things to mull over, that's for sure


----------



## Ghosts of the Maze (Aug 30, 2013)

So I took the question as "Do you ever create things that you know people will hate, but you is something you feel you need to create?" I guess, I've played around with things, but I don't think that I've ever intentionally made something to piss people off. Who would read it. I'm not nearly a big enough name to guarantee people would even read what I write. I've created unlikable characters, but I've always had the reader in mind, so I aim to create good work.


----------



## Morkonan (Sep 2, 2013)

Myers said:


> When people start trying to define art, I know it's time to leave the party.



Actually, what better time to jump in? A party in which people discussed a workable and reasonable definition for "Art" would be a blast, wouldn't it? If, that is, people would accept that defining "Art" itself has nothing to do with how appealing works of "Art" might be to a consumer. I think, after having thought a great deal on it, that my own definition has a very good chance of being robust and broad enough to define "Art." Whether or not it is appealing to a consumer shouldn't be part of any definition. I may not like certain pieces of Art, but if I can comprehend the message that is intended to be communicated and that message is greater than just the sum of the parts used to communicate it, then it's "Art", liked or not.


----------



## escorial (Sep 2, 2013)

Recently been thinking about a murial artist who took a commision from the imperial war museum in 81/82...he was skint and he hated the tryptich of army life...it bothered him up until his death what he had done..but to me out of hate can come art .


----------



## Justin Rocket (Sep 2, 2013)

Good art is communication.

It is the task of the artist to figure out a way to communicate their message in such a way that the largest number of people will listen and comprehend.  (NOTE that people can hate the message.  It is not the task of the artist to express a message that will be well liked.)

So, art which fails to do that by being something that only the artist likes/understands isn't art.  It is mental masturbation.


----------



## Myers (Sep 3, 2013)

Morkonan said:


> If, that is, people would accept that defining "Art" itself has nothing to do with how appealing works of "Art" might be to a consumer.



And that's exactly why there isn't much value in trying to come up with some general definition. It doesn't affect how we consume or consider the art itself. So what's the point?


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Sep 3, 2013)

Morkonan said:
			
		

> "Art" can be described as a work that is intentionally created by an Artist to communicate something to its consumer. [... tl;dr]





Justin Rocket said:


> Good art is communication.
> 
> It is the task of the artist to figure out a way to communicate their message in such a way that the largest number of people will listen and comprehend.  (NOTE that people can hate the message.  It is not the task of the artist to express a message that will be well liked.)
> 
> So, art which fails to do that by being something that only the artist likes/understands isn't art.  It is mental masturbation.


I totally disagree with this idea that "Art is communication." By this standard, only mass market, mainstream, easily digestible art is successful. If this were true, there could be no valid change or innovation, no value in complexity or difficulty in the arts, because these things are not immediately valued or understood by the largest number of people.

Emily Dickinson is such a perfect example I have to use her again. Most of her work was unpublished in her lifetime; she wrote for herself, and showed her poetry only to a few friends. Is her work mental masturbation? Or look at someone like Plath, who relies on a personalized set of symbols and concerns, sometimes difficult to decipher for the casual reader--is that mental masturbation? In the visual arts there are so many examples it's a cliché, think about Manet's _Olympia_, Van Gogh dying in poverty. Whatever message they were trying to communicate, most onlookers of the time didn't get it. Does that mean their work was bad? What about Poe? Or Rimbaud? People did not understand or enjoy their work during their lifetimes, in large part because what they were doing was new and what they were saying was often difficult, and nobody bothered to give them mass distribution.

If nobody understood or read them while they were alive, were they then _bad artists_ performing _mental masturbation_? Did they then transform magically into _good artists_ with a _message_ after their deaths, when their work became widely known and understood? The people are the same, the work is the same--its valuation changed with its audience. If communication is your standard, then art can have no intrinsic value at all. Value is simply determined by the market, and whoever sells the most is the best--whether that's Miley Cyrus or Thomas Kinkaide or Dan Brown--until they don't anymore.

To my mind, it is the effort of the artist that makes a work good or bad--how much effort is made, whether that effort is honest, whether the artist achieves his/her own goals, whether those goals were interesting (challenging, innovative, important) in the first place. Reception is completely secondary.


----------



## ppsage (Sep 3, 2013)

Art, I consider a vehicle into another mind. Philosophy, of which I consider science a species, is a vehicle to common understanding. There can be a deal of overlap between the two, but always vital distinction. It seems likely that the other mind into which I travel is sometimes my own. A definition of art must, I’d say, be predicated on the understanding that there is more to the mind than intellect. I suppose consideration might be given to whether much published writing qualifies as art, which sort of obviates this discussion.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Sep 3, 2013)

lasm said:


> By this standard, only mass market, mainstream, easily digestible art is successful.



This is offensive.  Half the world's population is of above average intelligence.  There is no reason to believe that art must be "easily digestible" to be popular.  Plus, pointing out that art's value is determined, in part, by the ability to send its message to the largest number of people in an understandable way is NOT the same as saying that any mass marketed content is art.  Art must have a message.



lasm said:


> If this were true, there could be no valid change or innovation, no value in complexity or difficulty in the arts, because these things are not immediately valued or understood by the largest number of people.



This is just more snotty intellectualism (assuming that the average person is just an idiot dragging their knuckles)



lasm said:


> If communication is your standard, then art can have no intrinsic value at all. Value is simply determined by the market, and whoever sells the most is the best--whether that's Miley Cyrus or Thomas Kinkaide or Dan Brown--until they don't anymore.



Again, I never said that the ability to send a message to the largest number of people in an understandable way is the only value determiner of art.  Art must master the message as well as the communication channel.  Something devoid of a message is not art.



lasm said:


> To my mind, it is the effort of the artist that makes a work good or bad--how much effort is made, whether that effort is honest, whether the artist achieves his/her own goals, whether those goals were interesting (challenging, innovative, important) in the first place. Reception is completely secondary.



Effort is not the value of art.  If it were, then I could pile a bunch of dirt in a heap and call it art because it took a lot of effort to do it.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Sep 3, 2013)

Justin Rocket said:


> This is offensive.  Half the world's population is of above average intelligence.  There is no reason to believe that art must be "easily digestible" to be popular.



Apparently, you haven't paid attention to books, TV, movies, or music lately.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Sep 3, 2013)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> Apparently, you haven't paid attention to books, TV, movies, or music lately.




I'm more interested in what people have to say about books, TV, movies, and music.  Most of the people I know criticize the bad stuff and look for good stuff or they go looking for some "other" which will make them feel good about themselves in comparison.


----------



## philistine (Sep 3, 2013)

Justin Rocket said:


> This is offensive.  Half the world's population is of above average intelligence.



I tried reading that with a straight face, but... no, sorry guy, can't do that. Those who buy, read and write books have always been an incredible minority in society, regardless of where you are. The majority of people are unabashedly ignorant and of shockingly low intelligence.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Sep 3, 2013)

Justin Rocket said:


> I'm more interested in what people have to say about books, TV, movies, and music.  Most of the people I know criticize the bad stuff and look for good stuff or they go looking for some "other" which will make them feel good about themselves in comparison.



Then most of the people you know are in the minority.  Awful books, shows, movies, and music wouldn't dominate the market if the majority of people didn't eat it up so eagerly.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Sep 3, 2013)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> Then most of the people you know are in the minority.  Awful books, shows, movies, and music wouldn't dominate the market if the majority of people didn't eat it up so eagerly.



Awful books, shows, movies, and music are cheap and easy to make.  They have to earn less to make the same profit.


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Sep 3, 2013)

I never said the majority of people are stupid. I don't think they are. But they're not specialists, either.

For example: I don't know squat about oil paintings. You show me an oil painting, I might think its colors are pretty, or the subject is interesting, or that it is generally sort of nice to look at, or something along those lines. Things anybody might notice, lowest common denominator things. If there's any particular technique involved, if it's responding to the work of other artists, if it's amazingly original in the world of oil painting, I'll have no idea. Thus I might like a badly-made painting with pretty colors, and dislike a very well-made, historically and culturally significant painting whose colors are less pleasing to me personally. This doesn't mean I'm an idiot, but it does mean I'm not a very good judge of oil paintings.

Art doesn't have to have a message at all. What's the message in a piece of music? In a painting, a poem, a novel? Authorial intention is often obscure or indeterminate, even to the author. Interpretation is highly subjective, even when it's well informed. When neither the sender or the receiver are in any way reliable or even, in one case, identifiable (readers not being a homogeneous or predictable group), the idea that art must "communicate" is absurd.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Sep 3, 2013)

lasm said:


> I never said the majority of people are stupid. I don't think they are. But they're not specialists, either.
> 
> For example: I don't know squat about oil paintings. You show me an oil painting, I might think its colors are pretty, or the subject is interesting, or that it is generally sort of nice to look at, or something along those lines. Things anybody might notice, lowest common denominator things. If there's any particular technique involved, if it's responding to the work of other artists, if it's amazingly original in the world of oil painting, I'll have no idea. Thus I might like a badly-made painting with pretty colors, and dislike a very well-made, historically and culturally significant painting whose colors are less pleasing to me personally. This doesn't mean I'm an idiot, but it does mean I'm not a very good judge of oil paintings.
> 
> Art doesn't have to have a message at all. What's the message in a piece of music? In a painting, a poem, a novel? Authorial intention is often obscure or indeterminate, even to the author. Interpretation is highly subjective, even when it's well informed. When neither the sender or the receiver are in any way reliable or even, in one case, identifiable (readers not being a homogeneous or predictable group), the idea that art must "communicate" is absurd.




I guess what I'm about to say isn't going to be very popular, but that's never stopped me before.
What the hell is literary criticism?  Who says that what is taught in college as literary criticism is right, worthwhile, or useful?  Can it build a bridge or help put a man on the moon or feed the hungry?  No.  Does it help someone read a book?  They claim it does, but has that assertion ever been tested in a neutral environment by neutral judges?  I don't think so.  Its just a bunch of wankers.  Cultural significance?  I know what that means from an anthropological perspective, but from a "literary criticism" perspective?  Sounds like more snake oil to me.  I've taken upper level classes in literary criticism in college.  I've got some exposure to it.  I still think its a bunch of bull.
The message in a piece of music?  I don't know about you, but when I listen to artists like Bruce Springsteen, Bono, Aretha Franklin, etc. its pretty obvious to me what their message is.  When I read the early Stephen King books, the message comes through loud and clear (fear of institutions including religion, belief in God and in the Universe as ultimately good, family as a source of strength, etc.).


----------



## Kevin (Sep 3, 2013)

Justin Rocket said:


> The message in a piece of music?  I don't know about you, but when I listen to artists like Bruce Springsteen, Bono, Aretha Franklin, etc. its pretty obvious to me what their message is.  When I read the early Stephen King books, the message comes through loud and clear (fear of institutions including religion, belief in God and in the Universe as ultimately good, family as a source of strength, etc.).


 Pop Art ?....love it...but what about...Vivaldi or...Sibelius? How about something like Miles Davis? I'm sure you could read about a message but...they exist solely for the sound. There's no message really, except that you can put these sounds together and_ some_ will like it; some will like its complexity.


----------



## ppsage (Sep 3, 2013)

> I guess what I'm about to say isn't going to be very popular, but that's never stopped me before.
> What the hell is literary criticism?


Literary (art) criticism is philosophy taking art as its subject. It is the intellect _understanding_ these expressions of experience-larger-than-the-merely-rationalizable. Like Miles Davis.


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Sep 3, 2013)

Justin Rocket said:


> I guess what I'm about to say isn't going to be very popular, but that's never stopped me before.
> What the hell is literary criticism?  Who says that what is taught in college as literary criticism is right, worthwhile, or useful?  Can it build a bridge or help put a man on the moon or feed the hungry?  No.  Does it help someone read a book?  They claim it does, but has that assertion ever been tested in a neutral environment by neutral judges?  I don't think so.  Its just a bunch of wankers.  Cultural significance?  I know what that means from an anthropological perspective, but from a "literary criticism" perspective?  Sounds like more snake oil to me.  I've taken upper level classes in literary criticism in college.  I've got some exposure to it.  I still think its a bunch of bull.
> The message in a piece of music?  I don't know about you, but when I listen to artists like Bruce Springsteen, Bono, Aretha Franklin, etc. its pretty obvious to me what their message is.  When I read the early Stephen King books, the message comes through loud and clear (fear of institutions including religion, belief in God and in the Universe as ultimately good, family as a source of strength, etc.).


Some music may have a message, but this does not mean that all music does, or should.

I'm thinking about _Carrie _and _The Body_ and your interpretation of King's "message" seems way off the mark. 

But it's difficult to have a reasoned discussion of literature with someone who thinks that the reasoned discussion of literature is a bunch of  bull conducted by wankers.


----------



## philistine (Sep 3, 2013)

ppsage said:


> Literary (art) criticism is philosophy taking art as its subject. It is the intellect _understanding_ these expressions of experience-larger-than-the-merely-rationalizable. Like Miles Davis.



Literary criticism, much like art criticism, and every other kind of criticism which befalls any kind of artistic expression- is often described as being the revenge of the artless intellectual upon art itself.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Sep 3, 2013)

philistine said:


> Literary criticism, much like art criticism, and every other kind of criticism which befalls any kind of artistic expression- is often described as being the revenge of the artless intellectual upon art itself.



Never heard it been put that way, but I like it.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Sep 3, 2013)

lasm said:


> Some music may have a message, but this does not mean that all music does, or should.
> 
> I'm thinking about _Carrie _and _The Body_ and your interpretation of King's "message" seems way off the mark.
> 
> But it's difficult to have a reasoned discussion of literature with someone who thinks that the reasoned discussion of literature is a bunch of  bull conducted by wankers.



I never said that the reasoned discussion of literature is a bunch of bull conducted by wankers.  I said that literary criticism is a bunch of bull conducted by wankers.  If you want a reasoned discussion of literature, you don't go to the University.  You go hang out with some friends who have read the same book.

As for Carrie, in the way that the kids gang together against Carrie, I sense a criticism against institutionalized education.  In the way that Carrie's mom acts, I sense a criticism against religion (which is an institution).  The whole story is a criticism against various kinds of cult mentality.


----------



## Morkonan (Sep 6, 2013)

lasm said:


> I totally disagree with this idea that "Art is communication." By this standard, only mass market, mainstream, easily digestible art is successful. If this were true, there could be no valid change or innovation, no value in complexity or difficulty in the arts, because these things are not immediately valued or understood by the largest number of people.



Poopies...

 

(I mean that in the cute, playfully disagreeable way. I've been away for awhile so.. nice to see you again!)



> Whatever message they were trying to communicate, most onlookers of the time didn't get it. Does that mean their work was bad?



No. It meant that their work was either intended to be consumed by a very esoteric audience. Or, if not, it was failed or, yes, even "bad." What's the "intent" in their work? How well did they anticipate their intent? Did they mean for esoteric subtleties to communicate the desired message? Or, did they mean for the message to be consumed and understood by the mass audience? Primary in my reasoning is that the artist must have "intent" to produce "art."



> What about Poe? Or Rimbaud? People did not understand or enjoy their work during their lifetimes, in large part because what they were doing was new and what they were saying was often difficult, and nobody bothered to give them mass distribution.



Again, the esoteric element in their communication was simply not broadly enough understood for their art to be appreciated. Think about the artistic revolution after Freud? What did his fairly simple, yet revolutionary, ideas help the mass-market audience understand or infer (correctly or incorrectly) about art? Did the producers of "rediscovered" art succeed in their intent? Maybe, but only in a narrow and limited audience. Later, their audience broadened as it was armed with more tools for interpretation.



> If nobody understood or read them while they were alive, were they then _bad artists_ performing _mental masturbation_?



It's possible. Why pick from the corpses of the long deceased, though, in order to seek a rebuttal? Surely, not every bad artist is secretly a savant, right? And, not every rediscovered work is an accident that turned into a diamond, is it? That's what you're implying, though you may not be aware of it.

So, let's say I produce a real stinker of a piece of art. I intend to communicate the beauty of a pastoral scene and, instead, people look at my art and throw poo at it. Then, 200 years later, some wacko has a bunch of theories that grab the population by storm and provide them with tools, correct or incorrect, that they believe enable them to correctly interpret my art. They revisit my art and declare it to be some of the best horror pieces ever created....

Was that my intent? No, it wasn't. Am I responsible for the public's interpretation of my art? Absolutely, within a narrow scope, I am. I am responsible for fulfilling my intent to produce art that contains a message intended to be discernible by consumers and which is greater than just the sum of the parts used in the art. If I do that succesfully, I am a good artist. If I don't always do so and must rely on factors that are completely outside my control, then I am an accidental artist... 



> ..To my mind, it is the effort of the artist that makes a work good or bad--how much effort is made, whether that effort is honest, whether the artist achieves his/her own goals, whether those goals were interesting (challenging, innovative, important) in the first place. Reception is completely secondary.



Reception is primary, in my opinion. I don't mean whether or not the work is judged as appealing or not. What is primary is whether or not the work communicates the intended message to the intended audience and, for Art, whether or not that message is greater than the physical sum of the parts it is constructed with. (The last bit rules out assembly instructions, recipes, purely descriptive pictures and prose, etc...)

** - Corrected weird dbl post


----------



## Bad Craziness (Sep 6, 2013)

I agree with Morkonon, reception is primary.

I believe in accidental brilliance.


----------



## dale (Sep 6, 2013)

Arcopitcairn said:


> Ever created something that everyone hated, but you just know, down deep that it is art and needs to exist? Have you felt compelled to continue to work on something that you know has no future? A piece that you understand as valid and perhaps even important, but you can't explain why? Is that egotistical? Would it be creation out of spite? Or would it be remaining true to your vision, even though everyone despises your vision? Cannot tell.
> 
> If you make difficult, hard art on purpose, does that negate the truth and sincerity of said art?



well, absolutely not. i mean...think about voltaire, as my favorite example. even if people didn't truly hate him at 1st, a great number of
them at least felt compelled to make a pretense of hating him for social reasons. i have been told by a few people that this novel i will be
finishing within 3 days (or i'm really gonna destroy something) is a creation MANY people will hate. when i 1st had the idea of it, my then-wife
told me no publisher would touch it with 100 ft pole. oh well. i think she's wrong. i think it will sell. but even if i thought she was right, i would
have continued it. why? because i like to write that which makes people uncomfortable. it makes me smile. the idea for my next novel is just
as socially cringing. that's my art, though. oh well.


----------



## WechtleinUns (Sep 6, 2013)

If you put effort and skill into something, there will be someone who appreciates it. Furthermore, it doesn't matter how easy you make your art. There will always be someone who hates it.


----------



## InkwellMachine (Sep 7, 2013)

In response to the original post, asking whether your art needs to exist is a bit like asking whether a dog needs to exist (or anything else for that matter). Sure, if you'd like a pet dog, a necessary prerequisite is for dogs to exist. That being said, I don't think there's some gap in the universe that dogs necessarily fill other than that of "dog" which is only there because dogs exist in the first place (we would have no concept of "dog" without first seeing a dog).

The point I'm trying to make is that the intrinsic value of your art is created alongside the piece. It depends largely on your goals for the piece, which are up to you to determine_._


----------



## Greimour (Sep 7, 2013)

I have seen and read "art" that I do not understand. I could not and do not take away any emotion or thought from such pieces. 

On the other hand, many of the people around me in regard to those said pieces had become irritatingly engaged in conversation regarding the piece. 
Using literal art as an example, as I am lazy right now and if I used literature my response would be far larger...

After viewing more than thirty pieces in a gallery and finding nothing at all of interest, I began to slowly slip away from the crowd to sit outside and have a smoke. On my way however I noticed a piece so lifelike I thought at first it was a photo. Not one person stopped to look at the piece for a long time, their comments were often small remarks:

"It's rare to see such a realistic image"
"I have seen people draw life countless times, to do that you may as well use a camera."
etc...

I on the other hand did not see what they were seeing. I was taught in school that art had a focal point. An immediate fix for the eyes. The piece however seemed to be lacking in one. After a while, without my noticing, I found my self stood quite far away from the piece. I realized at that moment I was stood next to two other people.
As I looked to the two other people looking at the piece, they smiled back. I wanted to spark up a conversation about the piece but had no idea what to say. After a time the woman of the pair said only this before we all parted:
"It makes me want to spend time with my family."

At that moment, I realized it was exactly what I was feeling. I smiled as I went outside for a smoke. In years later, my only wish was that I knew what happened to that picture. What was it's title, who drew it, why, were people now studying it?? I would like to see it again, but I don't even know where to begin looking. I was never interested in art that hangs on a wall, but every now and then, when I see a truly exceptional view in nature... I remember that picture. 


My point is this:

One, a hundred, a thousand or an entire nation, perhaps even the globe- may not see anything worthy in what art you make. But one day, at some point in time (as long as it exists), someone somewhere, will appreciate your piece as much as you did - or maybe even more than you. 

Your friend may always be correct, but that doesn't mean she is always right. The clue in that comment is the word 'always' ... what is considered wrong now was not always wrong throughout history, what was wrong in the past is not wrong now. The same is true of the future. She may be correct in what she says now, but the future may disagree, so she would be wrong as far as they are concerned. In the past, for example, it was wrong (in some places) for a woman to show any skin below the neck (not including hands) later it was skirts that did not drop below the knee... etc... Artists in the past oftenhad art without value, but after their deaths, the price of their pieces is more than some people earn in a lifetime.

So:

Whatever you create is priceless, because one thing that has infinite value is time, so the time you put into it is the value of the piece. 

The second value on your piece is the value* you* put on it.
Third is the emotional value the person who loves it most invests into it.
Fourth is the value the highest paying person interested puts on it.

Beyond those values, is there any other value you should care about? That's only four values out of a potential 7-8billion people. And two of those values may come from only one person. (all values if you yourself are the only one in the equasion - my cousin has an art piece that he will never sell, because no matter what people offer, he will always value it more than anyone else and he created it himself on a whim)


One mans trash is another mans treasure. 
Care first for the opinion that is yours, because in that opinion is a clue to who you are. 
Change not to please others, but to please yourself.
Adhering to the masses may make you rich, but, adhering to yourself will make you happy.


~Kev.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Sep 7, 2013)

WechtleinUns said:


> If you put effort and skill into something, there will be someone who appreciates it. Furthermore, it doesn't matter how easy you make your art. There will always be someone who hates it.



I'm reminded of a roommate I had in college.  He was underage.  So, he decided to get drunk on cough syrup.  He walked to the pharmacy (a couple of miles), bought a bag full of cough syrup, carried it back, chugged it all down, and got sick.  I got up the next morning to discover a pink bathroom - sprayed with his vomit.  Yes, he put effort and skill into it.  No, nobody would have appreciated it.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Sep 7, 2013)

I don't see the point in trying to define art as something some mythical person centuries later will enjoy.  This seems like such a bourgeoisie attitude as to be revolting.


----------



## Bad Craziness (Sep 7, 2013)

Justin Rocket said:


> I don't see the point in trying to define art as something some mythical person centuries later will enjoy.  This seems like such a bourgeoisie attitude as to be revolting.



To you perhaps...


----------



## dale (Sep 7, 2013)

Justin Rocket said:


> I don't see the point in trying to define art as something some mythical person centuries later will enjoy.  This seems like such a bourgeoisie attitude as to be revolting.


as a former political propagandist, i always used to search for excuses to type the word "bourgeois".


----------



## ppsage (Sep 7, 2013)

> If you make difficult, hard art on purpose, does that negate the truth and sincerity of said art?


I wouldn't say that art necessarily contains these qualities to be negated in the first place. Or, at least, not in a way that can be always discovered. Certainly not in a way that is un-contradicted, in the totality of artistic efforts. I think a lot or artists, once they establish for themselves their mode of expression, can just phone it in, getting credible, or even exemplary, results, which everyone accepts. This is kind of the basis of the star system, in cinema and music and theater and painting and sculpture and publishing and ...


----------



## Myers (Sep 8, 2013)

Justin Rocket said:


> I don't see the point in trying to define art as something some mythical person centuries later will enjoy.  This seems like such a bourgeoisie attitude as to be revolting.



Not everyone who might appreciate or be moved by or understand a certain work of art is going to be exposed to it; or it might happen in a week, a year or a century. Or it might never happen. That doesn't automatically mean it isn't art. It's a pretty simple concept, really. And while you may not agree with it, there's nothing bourgeois or revolting about it. It's more logical than anything else.



Justin Rocket said:


> I'm reminded of a roommate I had in  college.  He was underage.  So, he decided to get drunk on cough syrup.   He walked to the pharmacy (a couple of miles), bought a bag full of  cough syrup, carried it back, chugged it all down, and got sick.  I got  up the next morning to discover a pink bathroom - sprayed with his  vomit.  Yes, he put effort and skill into it.  No, nobody would have  appreciated it.



If anything is bourgeois, it's this; just an extended variation on the old, "hey my kid could do that" thing. I know you're trying to be clever, but when it comes to discussing art, there's nothing more banal.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Sep 8, 2013)

Myers said:


> Not everyone who might appreciate or be moved by or understand a certain work of art is going to be exposed to it; or it might happen in a week, a year or a century. Or it might never happen.



Define "move".  Does it mean, "have an emotional response to" (as in the emotional response a black family has to "KKK" being spray painted on their house)?



Myers said:


> If anything is bourgeois, it's this; just an extended variation on the old, "hey my kid could do that" thing. I know you're trying to be clever, but when it comes to discussing art, there's nothing more banal.


 
I'm not the one who defined art as to include what a young college kid does to the bathroom on party night.
Secondly, "bourgeois" and "bourgeoisie" are not the same thing and I used the word "bourgeoisie" because I was referring to the heavy dose of existential crisis felt by the idle rich your definition is based on.
The goal of art as I provided it doesn't depend on believing in some mythical future person who finally finds your paint smears or clay lumps or whatever "moves them" (whatever the hell that means).


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Sep 8, 2013)

Justin Rocket said:


> I don't see the point in trying to define art as something some mythical person centuries later will enjoy.  This seems like such a bourgeoisie attitude as to be revolting.


This is not at all what I said. My point was that a work of art might be good or bad, in and of itself, because of the properties it has or because it achieves what the artist hoped to achieve (which may or may not include communicating a message), or for some other reason that is a part of the actual thing that is created. That is, the thing itself is good or bad, regardless of whether it has an audience or not.

My comments about Dickinson, Poe, et al were meant to show that these people created works which did not reach an audience in their own time, but were nevertheless good--because they show skill and effort and intelligent thought, because they are beautiful or interesting, because they were innovative and original, etc. In the case of these two, their works were later recognized as great. There may be (almost certainly are) other writers or artists whose work never receives any recognition, despite being good.

Art can be personal. It can have an audience of only one or two. I think it's sad that it's such a commercial thing, that we have this idea that success=money and fame and blahblahblah. Little kids love writing and drawing and singing and dancing--then they grow up and we tell them those things are only worthwhile if they do it well, for an appreciative (paying) audience. Why can't we just make art because we like to? Because it's fun and good and healthy to create?

Anyway: bourgeoisie


----------



## Justin Rocket (Sep 8, 2013)

How can the skill by which something is done be determined if we don't first define the properties which make something of that type good?  For example, we can say that a Formula 1 race car is put together with considerable skill because we know what the properties of a race car should be.  If we judged a Formula 1 race car by the properties we expect of a nuclear submarine, we could not say that the car was put together with considerable skill.
In other words, before we can judge whether a novel is put together with considerable skill, we must first identify what the properties of a novel should be.


----------



## Myers (Sep 8, 2013)

Justin Rocket said:


> Define "move".  Does it mean, "have an emotional response to" (as in the emotional response a black family has to "KKK" being spray painted on their house)?



That's probably a conversation you'd overhear at a Klan rally: Hey Billy Ray, do you think what we do is Art? 

We're talking about art, not terrorism, and in that context "moved" might mean any number of emotions that art can elicit; joy, awe, sympathy, excitement or the rush that just comes from seeing or experiencing something beautiful. More importantly, it's about the desire to provide something of value to whoever is taking in the art, probably not something the Klan or someone who would spray paint KKK on a house would care about too much. But I think you probably know that.



Justin Rocket said:


> The goal of art as I provided it doesn't depend on believing in some mythical future person who finally finds your paint smears or clay lumps or whatever "moves them" (whatever the hell that means).



I'm not about putting qualifiers or restrictions on art based on my understanding or personal preferences. And I'm not so arrogant that I can't concede someone else's feelings or opinions about a given work of art are just as valid as mine. It's just a difference in outlook, I suppose, and it's not something we're going to settle here.


----------



## Bad Craziness (Sep 8, 2013)

Justin Rocket said:


> How can the skill by which something is done be determined if we don't first define the properties which make something of that type good?



I understand the point your analogy is trying to get across but I don't think that it can be applied to art, or the interpretation of art. It makes me think you'd value a perfectly completed colour-by-numbers painting, which adheres to pre-defined "rules", over a Picasso, which doesn't. Asking this question in relation to writing, or any type of art, doesn't make sense to me to me at all.


----------

