Literature, movies, visual art, and music are first and foremost entertainment. I don’t go to the movies or read a book or visit a museum because I want to improve my soul. If that was my goal I would be better off consulting a rabbi or spending my hours working in a soup kitchen or volunteering for the Peace Corps. No, I do these activities first and foremost because I want to keep occupied during the day in a way that gives me pleasure and prevents boredom from seeping into my life. I read to be entertained.
Drkshadow03... Interesting post. I don't see that your description of reading differs all that greatly from my own. I read for aesthetic pleasure. This would seemingly be merely another way of saying I read for entertainment. I don't read to improve my soul or make myself into a better person. I doubt art can do that. Perhaps reading can broaden my perspectives... make me aware of other persons, other cultures, other beliefs... but if I am honest, that is not why I read. I read because I enjoy it... because engaging in a dialog with other minds through their writings gives me pleasure.
Where a lot of people around here seem to take their page from Harold Bloom, I have more affinity with Bloom’s student, Camille Paglia. Like her I am unimpressed with the elitist attitude that implies one can only enjoy Madonna or Beethoven... classical music or punk rock. What I love about Paglia is that she can discuss the originality and importance she finds in the aesthetics of Madonna with the same acuity and depth she is able discuss traditional poetry.
For me it’s not about whether rock n’ roll is better than classical music, but rather simply recognizing they are different styles of music which produce different sounds and have depth in their own unique ways. So far this hasn’t overturned judging by aesthetics, but it does call into question whether there really are universal aesthetic qualities.
The "elitist" stance isn't taking a position suggesting that one style or genre is better than another, but rather it is simply admitting that some art and some artists are better than others... that we find them more worthy of expending time and effort upon... that ultimately they are more entertaining... or we derive more pleasure from them. As one becomes more experienced in reading... or in the experience of any art form... one often finds that there is a far greater pleasure to be found in certain works which once seemed difficult... even incomprehensible... and conversely, one may discover that there is less pleasure to be derived from works which are cliche... commonplace... or lacking in other areas that one has come to appreciate: language, originality of metaphor or narrative, the development of character.
I agree that in some ways Harold Bloom represents an older entrenched approach to criticism and aesthetics. As an artist I have long held with Picasso's declaration that great art is produced in the same manner as the Renaissance princes produced their children... by a merger of the aristocratic and the peasant. To a degree, I suspect that had Bloom been alive during the age of his beloved Shakespeare he may have rejected him along with all the other playwrights... for certainly the theater of Shakespeare's age was almost as suspect in terms of aesthetics as today's TV and Hollywood movies. But what we term "high art" (just like culture itself) has always benefited from the influx of fresh blood... "peasant stock"... outside or "low" influences. I agree that the ability to discern great classic rock, jazz, bluegrass, science fiction, horror... or any other genre involves the same sort of aesthetic judgments that one uses with classical music or classic literature. Does this call into question universal aesthetic values? I am not sure I would go that far. T.S. Eliot spoke of all the works of art forming a sort of ideal order or dialog which each new work of genuine merit alters to some degree... however slight. Whether I like it or not I am always making comparisons. certainly I will look at the Rolling Stones or the Stanley Brothers first within their own genres... but then I will also compare them within the whole of music. Of course such judgments are not the same as personal preferences. I can freely admit that in many instances works of art that are less important... less innovative... less brilliant in pure aesthetic terms... may actually give me greater pleasure. I would admittedly rather listen to Puccini... or even the Stones or Johnny Cash... over Stravinsky. By the same token there are any number of writers who have given me far more pleasure than James Joyce... but I'm not about to confuse that personal pleasure with actual artistic merit. That is what I have a problem with when I am confronted by declarations that Proust or Milton or Goethe, etc... are overrated... or lacking is any aesthetic merit... such seems to confuse personal preference with artistic worth.
As a reader I began with genre fiction. Before I ever experienced the unforgettable poetry and characters of Shakespeare, before I ever read the playful tone of Philip Roth, before I ever knew the desperation of seeking true love with Jane Austen, there were spaceships and monsters and demons and chosen ones and the vast coldness of space stretching out with all its terrible mysteries and uncharted territories. Science fiction and fantasy taught me that the quality of prose is not the end all and be all of fiction—certainly I learned later in my life to enjoy aesthetics, to understand what it is that makes Shakespeare the best, to appreciate the rapture of reading a sentence by Hawthorne that epitomizes the very essence of good writing. However, I also learned that a great deal of fiction is about the imagination itself, whose quality cannot be entirely assessed by limiting oneself to focusing on aesthetics.
I surely do not disagree. I cut my own teeth upon science fiction and fantasy and ghost stories... and simple childhood poetry... nursery rhymes... etc... surely led to an appreciation of the flow and the cadence and the music... and the sound of language itself.
Of course the problem with using abstract terms like “aesthetics” is that everyone will have a slightly different understanding of what that term means. One could convincingly argue that the author’s imagination is intimately attached to their aesthetics. In the case of someone like Borges it isn’t a fault or a deficiency that his characters generally remain underdeveloped because that wasn’t the point of his work or what he was trying to do; the term as it is being used here implies that a writer’s goals and how they shape their art, the overall floor plan so to speak, is their aesthetics. However, if I defended the mediocre writing of many science fiction writers on the grounds of their imaginative vision most traditionalists would probably call foul... It seems then that by aesthetics we still in fact mean first and foremost good prose.
Intriguing argument. I would counter by suggesting that the language is the form through which the artist conveys ideas... feeling... thoughts... A marvelous, innovative, imaginative vision poorly presented... given a flawed or stilted form would strike me a quite different from a work of art in which a more commonplace idea or image is conveyed through a marvelous form. Conveying an expression of love...presenting one more image of a landscape or still life or nude... are not the most original visions... but may certainly result in the most brilliant works of art when given a form of true genius. In the visual arts there are artists working within the genre of science fiction illustration who you might argue present imagery that is quite "imaginative"... but the mundane, cliche manner in which this imagery is presented strikes me as seriously flawed where a painter who focuses repeatedly upon a a simple still life motif but does so brilliantly is not necessarily flawed... although certainly "limited" in scope.
I was very struck by one of JBI’s recent comments where he pointed out that it is not WHAT is said, but HOW it is said. This is some great insight, and yet I am not sure it ultimately works for me and my reasons for reading. The problem I have with emphasizing the "how" over the "what" is I feel it transforms the written word into a kind of visual art, in my opinion. The written word can transmit ideas in a way that static visual art with a character, figure or scene perpetually suspended in time cannot. It ignores precisely what is inherently and uniquely different between these art forms. The amount of time we spent trying to figure out what an author meant, what issues concerned him or her, what a symbol meant in a story, the historical background in a work, during my formal academic training has convinced me there are serious problems with overemphasizing aesthetics as the major criteria for judging the written word.
I somewhat suspect you are reducing the notion of aesthetics merit to signify only the beauty of the language. That in itself varies from artist to artist. There is a huge difference between the beauty of Shakespeare's English and Kafka's almost dry, matter-of-fact prose, Hemingway's crisp, minimalism, or Calvino's crystalline prose... but all are clearly "beautiful" and perfectly attuned to what the writer's intentions were. But surely character development, metaphor, symbolism, the narrative... all of this and more are part of the experience of reading... and part of what is taken into consideration in forming a critical opinion. The same is no less true of a work of visual art. Abstract formal elements such as color, texture, composition, line, etc... are all imminently important in that they are the language through which the artist speaks... but this does not negate the image, narrative, emotional impact, etc...
My formal training is in American Literature, I have a Masters in English, and I will soon be finished with an additional Masters in Library Science. I found in my literature classes that talking about an author’s aesthetics was devalued; students and professors hardly ever bothered to make aesthetic judgments.
Arguably, this is much due to the fact that aesthetic judgments are imagined as somewhat "elitist" in many academic schools of thought. It also owes to the idea that in many of these same schools of thought art is not to be appreciated as art... for the pleasure that it gives... but rather is a means to an end... a way of illustrating certain appropriate and inappropriate ways of thinking. The content... the WHAT is far more important than questions of form or HOW. My own formal "training" or education was in visual art... in creating artistic works. It was accepted that everybody has their own vision... their own concerns that are important to them. In discussing the art of others one did not ignore the content... WHAT was being expressed... but neither was it open to criticism that might suggest that "I don't like what you have to say; I don't like what you find important" or "I don't like the way you think." The goal was to develop the artist... not to remake them in the teachers' or student's own image of what is acceptable or valued... and as such the focus was upon developing the formal language through which anything must be conveyed... the form/HOW.
That’s why I am always bemused when people seem to think what literary critics primarily do is sit around and make aesthetic judgments. Discussion in my classes revolved around deciphering the texts and making an interpretation of a work’s meaning and central ideas.
There is certainly something to be said about an excess of discussions about who is better that whom. By and large these are pointless. On the other hand, when someone has asked why Shakespeare is a great writer or Tolkein is mediocre I have seen a good deal of discussion centering upon far more than the aesthetic merits of the prose. My initial introduction to criticism was through art criticism. The classic form of art criticism involved 1.description, 2. interpretation, 3. judgment.
Discussion of a work’s aesthetics only mattered in so far as it could help reveal the author’s meaning.
By "aesthetics" I presume I might substitute "form". Different schools of thought emphasize form/how over content/what, or the inverse. My experience in art school was almost purely "formalist". My experience when attaining my license for teaching was quite the opposite. Content was everything, and to even make a suggestion that a work was formally weak or flawed was considered close-minded. Personally, I feel that there must be a balance between both content and form because content is inherent in form. The experience we gain from reading Shakespeare or listening to Mozart or looking at Giotto can not be reduced to a simple meaning or definition divorced from the form because the content... the experience is part of the whole... is engaged through the form.
I could have began my essay by saying art begins with meaning. We don’t tell ourselves oral myths to appreciate the texture of words in a story, we didn’t start drawing pretty cave paintings for the sake of aesthetic pleasure but rather to enchant the animal with magic and be able to eat that night (to draw on one theory); certainly, these things might have aesthetic qualities, but that wasn’t their primary purpose. The primary purpose was to convey meaning, to transmit truths...
Perhaps... but then there comes a point at which one recognizes that there are multiple works of art where the intention... on the surface... is the same... and yet some works resonate more... longer. Why? Because they offer a greater or more lasting form of pleasure. They convey a story... enchant with magic... present a beautiful image... they do so though a marvelous form. Yes, Michelangelo may have wanted initially to merely tell the narrative of the Biblical creation... to convey an admiration for the beauty of the human body... but those abstract elements... the texture, the value, the line, the artist's touch, the seductive colors, the anatomical mastery... and distortions... all of these became just as important to the artist... and just as important to the experienced audience.
I find Oscar Wilde's art for art's sake problematic to say the least.
I've always found that Oscar Wilde was right about everything... and said it with greater wit than most. Seriously, I don't imagine art-for-art's-sake as meaning that the content is irrelevant... but rather that it is irrelevant in offering a judgment upon artistic merits. The alternative is a criticism based upon external or non-artistic values... where one can devalue a work of art because it doesn't fit into the accepted religious values, social values, political values, etc... To my mind this leads to a false art... an art that gives form not to what the artist really believes, but what he or she has been told to believe... or has been told is acceptable. To my mind this leads to the death of art.
Maybe literature and art is for the good of improving your soul because entertainment itself is good for the soul.
One can only hope.
__________________
"Anyone can become angry - that is easy, but to be angry with the right person, to the right degree, at the right time, for the right purpose, and in the right way - that is not easy." - Aristotle
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Jozanny
