Debunking the idea of "classics"

[Gideonthenomad]

A classic work of art is one which those members of society with the ability to promulgate their opinions on a large scale consistently deem to be

classic over a lengthy (a few generations at least) period of time. This does not mean that a classic is objectively “better than” any other work

of art. The term “classic” can be a value judgment, but in a strict sense it is merely a descriptive term for how particular works of art are

viewed. The criteria which lead said classic work to be included in the canon are multifarious and vary from society to society, and vary within

societies according to the dominant social, political, religious, aesthetic, etc., currents of the time. In addition, judgments of whether the work

of art is “good” or “bad” while always subjective, are further complicated when the work is a classic, as unsophisticated consumers of the art

work almost invariably approach it with the knowledge that the work is a classic, and the belief that this status lends the work some

transcendent “value.” Thus, the classic benefits from a self-reinforcing process of being perceived as a classic (in the value judgment sense)

because it is a classic (in the strictly descriptive sense). This continues over time until the works acquire a sort of greater, ahistoric meaning

outside themselves, The Mona Lisa is no longer a paradigmatic work in the renaissance tradition, it is a “classic,” a short hand for artistic-ness,

genius and high-culture; Shakespeare’s plays are universal accounts of the human condition, not “mere” representative works of a tradition of

English playwriting that is, above all, English, and therefore by its nature limited to a particular time and place. This sort of thinking has fallen out

of favor in academia in the latter half of the twentieth century, but it is incredibly prevalent among those whom, at the risk of sounding

disparaging, I call “middlebrow.” This is a group that unfortunately encompasses the majority of the art consuming public.


Of course the opposite also holds: an artwork is not diminished by being historicized, all art is historic and makes the most sense in the context

for which it was created. “Universality”, as commonly applied, is a convenient fiction. Of course the set of possible artistic expression is probably

limited to a degree by humanity’s shared neurology, but a vast number of permutations exist which can each be “human” while being to a large

degree unintelligible outside of their social contexts. A parallel to language suggests itself, while linguists agree that language is “hard-coded”

into our brains, this fact will not enable a South African to spontaneously speak fluent Turkish. In much the same way, the supposedly

“universal” themes tackled by the canon (the western canon, for instance), are not necessarily relatable, or even intelligible, to all societies.

Unless one is willing to grant that these societies are less human, this appears to prove that the idea of “universal human themes,” as pertains

to art, is bunk.



Feel free to share your opinions.

[PeterL]

I agree that defining something as a classic is simply making a value judgement or a comment about personal preference. Personally, I think that Christopher Marlowe was a better playwrite than Shakespeare, but Marlowe died before he had written much, so Shakespeare is credited as the great one.

As for "universality", there are only a few things that humans bother producing works of fine art about. I am surprised that anyone would fail to relate to them, but it is also a matter of what one calls the theme.

[Gideonthenomad]

I agree that defining something as a classic is simply making a value judgement or a comment about personal preference. Personally, I think that Christopher Marlowe was a better playwrite than Shakespeare, but Marlowe died before he had written much, so Shakespeare is credited as the great one.

As for "universality", there are only a few things that humans bother producing works of fine art about. I am surprised that anyone would fail to relate to them, but it is also a matter of what one calls the theme.

Hey, thanks for responding.

My point is not that saying something is a classic is necessarily a value judgement, classics are objectively "classics" because they are defining works of a particular artistic tradition. In the case of Shakespeare, that would be a tradition that includes Marlowe and several others. The problem is people tend to think of "classic" as meaning something else, i.e. that the work has some transcendent "universal" value apart from its context in the tradition it belongs to. If you are sufficiently familiar with the values, aesthetics, etc., of the tradition that produced the work of art/literature, you can appreciate it, and maybe even be moved emotionally. But you can't then extrapolate your experience to other cultures with distinct artistic traditions.

A musical example: An Indian composer, I've forgotten who, found Mozart to be unbearable-- he simply couldn't see the appeal. Bear in mind that this was a highly regarded composer, well trained in the Indian musical tradition, probably more sensitive to the nuances of feeling music can evoke than the average person, and he listened to Mozart and was supremely unimpressed. The point is he couldn't understand it. Even the sublime harmonies of Europe's crowning musical achievement are not "Universal." By the same token, there is no such thing (in my opinion, of course) as "universal" literature.

[Lykren]

Nonsense. People are exposed to art from different cultures all the time and are able to appreciate it. One example of an Indian composer not liking Mozart does not eradicate the experiences of those people. Merely because a work of art takes time to appreciate does not mean that its themes are culturally specific. Furthermore, I have met people with a great love for western classical music who found Mozart not to their taste. So, cultural differences are not the only possible reason the composer did not like Mozart.

I think you are misunderstanding what people mean by universality in art. It does not mean that everyone will immediately like it. It means that the work contains, for anyone who wishes to find it, an expression of a universal experience like birth, death, joy, sorrow, and so on. The process of understanding that expression is often a difficult one regardless of whether one grew up in the culture associated with the artwork or not.

[MorpheusSandman]

Meh, I think there is some truth and falsity to much of what you say, but I'm not terribly interested in going over each point in detail. Simply put, for me, classics are just work that each generation of writers/readers/critics/aesthetes/academics/intellectuals etc. encounter and continue to like enough (or be intrigued by enough) to state, directly or indirectly, that the work should be introduced to the next generation. Where I think you mostly go wrong is in assuming that those that deem works to be classic are some kind of hegemony when they're not; across generations there will be conflicting, contrasting, contradicting voices and opinions that are either influential or not; both TS Eliot and WH Auden thought Hamlet a failure, eg. Sometimes such "outside opinions" are enough to create new classics (Eliot's exalting of Donne into the poetic canon) or topple old ones. You don't have to look far to past generations to see works/authors that were considered classics to them, but not to us. So the process of "classicing" (not a word I know) is more dynamic than you seem to make it out to be. Obviously this classicing is mediated by all kinds of factors, including, as you mention, the opinions of those in power having more force than minority and oppressed voices throughout most all of history; they're also mediated by cultural standards and expectations, so, as you said, a great Indian composer will not be equipped to understand why many consider Mozart great.

All that said, I like the concept that was supported by poets like Blake and Stevens that the purpose of myth and religion is to encapsulate the feelings/thoughts of a society/culture to such an ideal degree that people literally believe them to be true, and that demythologizing and "changing" of mythologies is equally necessary because humans/societies/cultures change. The latter may seem to weaken the purpose of religions/mythologies, but it really doesn't, because very often the last remaining records we have of past societies are of myths and religions the society thought encapsulated their values enough to save from the ravages of time for as long as possible. I don't know if Shakespeare captured absolutely "universal" human truths, but I do think he captured enough things that still feel like truths to us today. When our society/cultures changes to such a degree that we no longer consider them truths then maybe Shakespeare will be forgotten or just be remembered as important relic of past societies like Homer is to us.

[nat.deezle]

Feel free to share your opinions.

Thanks.

So I'm not sure I understand your problem with the term "Classic." I'm also not sure you are accurately representing the majority opinion of what a "Classic" of literature is. If you compare the layman's opinion of a classic, I think you could find a better analogy-

A guy gets into his rental car and starts flipping through the satellite radio stations. He pauses on Leather Pants, a 70's rock and roll station. Exclames guy, "This song is a classic!"

The term classic is being used to describe both the sentimental value of the song and the fame and notoriety that comes along with what was widely, but possibly not in India, known as one of the best bands of the time. Is it necessary for Indian musicians to like Mozart or Led Zeppelin to justify a category to which it belongs? Or, to flip your reasoning, when is the last time you had a hankerin' for some chicken biryani? Does a universal standard actually have more value than the regional approval of the art in question?

I'm not going to argue with you that we may have largely forgotten the artists that were nearly as good, or arguably better, but who received less recognition for their works. But in that case, I think the accusation should fall on the systems in place which lead to record deals or the likelihood of being published. Maybe blaming the Mona Lisa for being the longest running champion on 15th century Rome's "Billboard Top 100" list is a bit misguided.

The third sentence of the OP starts "The term “classic” can be a value judgment," which is what you said you didn't say. You do go on to elaborate, but you return to that description repeatedly in your justification. You say later of the Mona Lisa, "it is a “classic,” a short hand for artistic-ness, genius, and high culture." I just think that is really far from the truth, and also reaffirms your premise that "classic" is a value judgment. And I have to reject that labeling classics becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy of some kind..... it's precisely the most financially successful works of literature that receive the label. If you wanna talk about bucking the system, though, I'm bout it bout it. That's just another issue.

Basically, I think "Classic" is more a categorization of the most successful pieces of a given area and/or time period. I think it's helpful the way denominations are helpful: if you live in Utah, you don't have to sit through four dozen different Sunday services to avoid landing in an LDS church. I think it has been a useful tool in helping people get right to the "hits" of that generation, and then going on from there if such an interest exists at all. Remember, google and amazon haven't always been around.

[At some point we'll have to clearly define what you think are the appropriate standards for elevating a work of literature as "good." I think trying to speak generally about standards for aesthetic art and literary art will get pretty messy. A novel's not a poem's not a portrait's not an abstract oil's not a stencil graffiti.]

[HSPS]

As in most human affairs, there is going to be a degree of arbitrariness in determining classics. But given the choice between teaching Shakespeare or, say, Cormac McCarthy in a class, which would you choose? One can't deny that Shakespeare, because of the endurance of his writing and the influence he has had (whether directly or indirectly) on virtually every serious English-language writer since, is at least the more important writer, even if one doesn't think he's better. There is something to be said of literature that has survived for centuries.

On the topic of universality (as I mentioned in another thread) other than psychopaths, who doesn't experience love, jealousy, friendship, guilt, sadness, regret, despair, compassion, etc.? There are always some cross-cultural disconnects, namely language. But the essence of the work, provided the translator is good, should be sufficiently conveyed, and appreciated by a vigilant and intelligent reader. As a 20th/21st century Canadian who lacks a depth of knowledge of history, I don't know much about 19th century Russia, but I can relate to Raskolnikov's self-imposed isolation from the world, his resentment, his vanity, and his guilt in Crime and Punishment. On the other hand, a work of literature can be almost completely culturally or historically dependent, but it's probably not going to be widely read or last very long if it is.

There may have been literature in the past that deserved to survive but, for whatever reason, didn't. We have to work with what we have, though, and what we have is fine--in the true sense of the word.

[Seasider]

Is"The Mousetrap" a classic? It's been running in the same London theatre for the past 62 years.

[Gideonthenomad]

Art is like language, yes, there are somewhat "universal" features in the sense that just as most languages have verbs, nouns, refer to things like food and express emotions, works of art use the "vocabulary" of their particular historic/social milieu to express concepts. The extent to which that art is intelligible, or "relatable" to a person depends on that person's degree of familiarity with the "vocabulary" with which that work is constructed, in the same way that my ability to understand Japanese depends on my familiarity with, not only the language, but the culture and common patterns of thought of Japanese society. To say art can be universal in the sense that anyone can get it if they try is somewhat misguided-- a French novel can tackle supposedly universal themes such as birth, death etc., in ways that would not make sense to someone unfamiliar with French (and in a broader sense Western) patterns of thinking.

HSPS: I agree Shakespeare is more important than McCarthy because he has had a greater impact on Western literature than McCarthy, you can't really have a satisfactory understanding of English language literature without reading Shakespeare. But this does not necessarily imply Macbeth is somehow better or more universal than Blood Meridian.

nat.deezle: quote: "Basically, I think "Classic" is more a categorization of the most successful pieces of a given area and/or time period." That's what I'm saying dude. My problem is Classic almost always gets conflated with objectively, empirically, "good" in some abstract, transcendent way. Hence the Mona Lisa example, and the Shakespeare example. "The most successful pieces of an era" are successful for reasons that only make sense within the societies/philosophical systems/what have you in which they were created.

Lykren: quote "Nonsense." I hope not

[mande2013]

Let's keep in mind the reputations of people like Milton, Bill, and Dante, unlike that of Cormac, have withstood centuries worth of cultural discourse. Comparing the reputation of Dante or Shakespeare to that of even Joyce of Faulkner is like comparing apples to oranges since the latter two have only endured decades worth of discourse. Perhaps after centuries worth of ink spilled on behalf of Proust or Faulkner long after we're all dead they'll be seen as the equals of Milton and Shakespeare. 400 years from now when the centuries long span of time between Shakespeare's death and Joyce's birth will seem only the blink of an eye in the eyes of future literati, Joyce and Faulkner will no longer be seen as "vulgar modernists" perpetually playing second fiddle to the beyond-reproach pre-20th century old masters. Being modernist is only relative to the era in which one lives. We might not think of Schubert as a "modernist" nowadays, or even Cezanne for that matter, but they were certainly modern for their respective eras.

If some literary Andre Bazin came along and assured us it was okay to proclaim Faulkner or Joyce the greatest writer in the history of Anglophone literature I'm sure many would feel more secure making such a statement, knowing there was a reliable intellectual source they could fall back on providing credibility to such a value judgement. The issue is people are unwilling to risk losing intellectual face and saying Shakespeare is the greatest writer in the English language is a safe choice. That's not to say he isn't actually great. He is obviously, but my argument still stands.

The problem is this whole we-can-be-as-exploratory-and-eclectic-as-we-want-as-long-as-we-don't-avoid-the-"Shakespeare's beyond reproach" 800 pound gorilla in the room. It's bourgeois and anti-intellectual in a sense, since it prohibits independent thought and encourages a certain level of conformism, which is the death of art. Shakespeare belongs in the pantheon, obviously, but perhaps it would be more useful to view him as one of a handful of say 15-20 great writers in the top tier of the literary canon, instead of allowing him to loom over our heads as that one and only which shall never be spoken of in a qualified manner.

Let's ask. Why is Shakespeare so widely taught in high schools but not Milton? Why are Hemingway, Robert Frost and Steinbeck ubiquitous but not Faulkner and Yeats? Dante in high school? Not a chance. Even Dickens and Austen seem to be disappearing from high school classrooms. You'll rarely come across Hard Times or Great Expectations pre-college these days. As for Joyce, you may have Araby thrown at you in high school if you're lucky but not much else.

[PeterL]

Art is like language, yes, there are somewhat "universal" features in the sense that just as most languages have verbs, nouns, refer to things like food and express emotions, works of art use the "vocabulary" of their particular historic/social milieu to express concepts. The extent to which that art is intelligible, or "relatable" to a person depends on that person's degree of familiarity with the "vocabulary" with which that work is constructed, in the same way that my ability to understand Japanese depends on my familiarity with, not only the language, but the culture and common patterns of thought of Japanese society. To say art can be universal in the sense that anyone can get it if they try is somewhat misguided-- a French novel can tackle supposedly universal themes such as birth, death etc., in ways that would not make sense to someone unfamiliar with French (and in a broader sense Western) patterns of thinking.

Apparently you do not understand universality in literature. The language used is of no consequence. The theme of the work is what can be universal in this sense. It is of no consequence whether a novel about the joy of motherhood (or fatherhood) is written; the content is what is universal. There are works of fiction that are not universal; Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas might be a good example, but I don't know.

[HSPS]

To say art can be universal in the sense that anyone can get it if they try is somewhat misguided-- a French novel can tackle supposedly universal themes such as birth, death etc., in ways that would not make sense to someone unfamiliar with French (and in a broader sense Western) patterns of thinking.

What "patterns of thinking"? I may just be an ignoramus, but I have trouble accepting the idea that there is such a divide between the West and the East that there is no or little hope for a cross-cultural artistic exchange. Why are there so many Eastern artists--not just writers--who are admired in the West? The biggest obstacle seems to me to be language. That is, to Western eyes, Eastern languages are relatively strange and inaccessible, so there is a lack of translators willing to take on the task.

Environment plays a role in the way a person and a group of people develop, but there aren't just differences on a culture-to-culture scale, but on a person-to-person scale as well. If you were to go into a literature class at Yale and ask what each student's favourite writers were, what kind of response do you think you'd get? Even if most of the students were American, the results would hardly be homogeneous. Granted, most of the writers mentioned would be part of the Western tradition, but I'm sure most strong literary traditions from the American to the Russian would be well-represented. There are differences in the way each person experiences the world, but there are also fundamental similarities, and the similarities are what fuel our artistic traditions.

HSPS: I agree Shakespeare is more important than McCarthy because he has had a greater impact on Western literature than McCarthy, you can't really have a satisfactory understanding of English language literature without reading Shakespeare. But this does not necessarily imply Macbeth is somehow better or more universal than Blood Meridian.

I never said it did.

nat.deezle: quote: "Basically, I think "Classic" is more a categorization of the most successful pieces of a given area and/or time period." That's what I'm saying dude. My problem is Classic almost always gets conflated with objectively, empirically, "good" in some abstract, transcendent way. Hence the Mona Lisa example, and the Shakespeare example. "The most successful pieces of an era" are successful for reasons that only make sense within the societies/philosophical systems/what have you in which they were created.

No one can say that a work that is deemed to be a classic is objectively better than one that isn't, but one will eventually reach a point where one must be honest with oneself and admit that the Harry Potter series probably doesn't deserve as much respect or attention as the works of Shakespeare. One mustn't forget that there is a reason why a work is called a classic, and that is that it moved enough people over a long enough period of time. There is no identifiable point in history where we can say that a work became a classic, rather it is a gradual, almost unconscious process. There is certainly no single sinister arbiter or group of arbiters that determine what we're allowed to like and what we're not allowed to like.

[Lykren]

Apparently you do not understand universality in literature. The language used is of no consequence. The theme of the work is what can be universal in this sense. It is of no consequence whether a novel about the joy of motherhood (or fatherhood) is written; the content is what is universal. There are works of fiction that are not universal; Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas might be a good example, but I don't know.

I agree wholeheartedly. Gideon seems to take a very dim view of people's ability to communicate what matters to them.

Gideon, you mentioned Japanese literature. I'm not an expert on literature of any culture, but I would like to point out that one of my favorite books is The Tale of Genji. I treasure it more than I do Shakespeare, or Tolstoy, or any number of western authors. How could that be possible, if, as you say, all cultures are so isolated as to be unable to produce works that have emotional resonance with members of foreign cultures?

[Gideonthenomad]

What "patterns of thinking"? I may just be an ignoramus, but I have trouble accepting the idea that there is such a divide between the West and the East that there is no or little hope for a cross-cultural artistic exchange. Why are there so many Eastern artists--not just writers--who are admired in the West? The biggest obstacle seems to me to be language. That is, to Western eyes, Eastern languages are relatively strange and inaccessible, so there is a lack of translators willing to take on the task.

Environment plays a role in the way a person and a group of people develop, but there aren't just differences on a culture-to-culture scale, but on a person-to-person scale as well. If you were to go into a literature class at Yale and ask what each student's favourite writers were, what kind of response do you think you'd get? Even if most of the students were American, the results would hardly be homogeneous. Granted, most of the writers mentioned would be part of the Western tradition, but I'm sure most strong literary traditions from the American to the Russian would be well-represented. There are differences in the way each person experiences the world, but there are also fundamental similarities, and the similarities are what fuel our artistic traditions.



I never said it did.



No one can say that a work that is deemed to be a classic is objectively better than one that isn't, but one will eventually reach a point where one must be honest with oneself and admit that the Harry Potter series probably doesn't deserve as much respect or attention as the works of Shakespeare. One mustn't forget that there is a reason why a work is called a classic, and that is that it moved enough people over a long enough period of time. There is no identifiable point in history where we can say that a work became a classic, rather it is a gradual, almost unconscious process. There is certainly no single sinister arbiter or group of arbiters that determine what we're allowed to like and what we're not allowed to like.

I never said there was a sinister group of arbiters. Where did you get that from?

[Gideonthenomad]

Lyrken: Either I'm not communicating my argument well enough (entirely possible) or you are attacking a straw man. I never said it is impossible to communicate across cultures, that is a ridiculous assertion that I do not and have never ascribed to. Of course cross cultural communication is possible, and the more familiar cultures are with each other (increasingly true in this globalized age) the easier such communication becomes. What I am disputing is the naive notion that because a work is a classic in a particular culture, then it is "universal" in some mystical way. The meaning of that work is diluted the further the audience consuming it is (culturally speaking) from the origin of the work. This isn't simply a matter of language/translation problems, there are concepts that don't readily translate from one society to the next.