The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post - Are There Any Valid Criticisms? (aka Kalessin's Rant)

Kalessin · 04-04-2002, 09:24 PM

Lush, I really appreciate the points you have made.

I do not agree that "the purpose of art is to entertain". Firstly, without getting too much into definitions, surely it's enough to point out that many great artists neither considered nor cared what the response was to their work - whether it was successful, whether people liked it, whether it 'entertained'.

Secondly - surely art is art whatever its purpose ... in the end, the purpose of art is the same as the purpose of the artists, as contradictory, wide-ranging, obscure, instinctive and/or multi-layered as you can get. If it is the purpose of art (or awareness/primacy of purpose) that determines its quality, why would 'entertainment' be the best or most valid purpose?

Thirdly - there is a great deal of art whose express or primary purpose was not 'to entertain'. Yet it is still great art. The first examples that comes to mind are the best of the Russian post-revolutionary artists, Malevich, Kandinsky, Shostakovitch ... Another example would be religious art and artefact. And in many cases there is at the very least a clear duality of purpose behind much great art.

I also find myself in agreement with Lush again about the nature and importance of 'misery and suffering'. The 'snorting in disgust' is an unworthy reaction, and implies the supposed superiority of an anaesthetised Walt Disney aesthetic. The experience of sorrow and adversity through art are keys to empathy, self-knowledge and tolerance (among other things). The combination of "happy is better than sad" and "the purpose of art is to entertain" sounds like a sinister political manifesto.

Another more general point is to caution people against the knee jerk cliches ie. "the problem with the modern world is ...", or "people today are ..." - as if there is something definitively worse about today that only we the elite can perceive. Throughout history (right back to Socrates) people have bemoaned the falling standards of art and morality. Let's keep things in perspective. In my earlier reflections on postmodernism I tried to identify some pitfalls, and some of the implications of postmodern culture that I have problems with. But pomo has its good side too [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Lush, I always imagined myself as, someday, a tortured and decadent Parisian garrett artist (minus the cocaine, it plays havoc with your critical judgement as an artist), paying for meals by scrawling works of genius on napkins. How could you deconstruct my dreams with such surgical cruelty? [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]

Peace

[ April 04, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

04-04-2002, 09:24 PM	#45
Kalessin Wight Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Earthsea, or London Posts: 175	Lush, I really appreciate the points you have made. I do not agree that "the purpose of art is to entertain". Firstly, without getting too much into definitions, surely it's enough to point out that many great artists neither considered nor cared what the response was to their work - whether it was successful, whether people liked it, whether it 'entertained'. Secondly - surely art is art whatever its purpose ... in the end, the purpose of art is the same as the purpose of the artists, as contradictory, wide-ranging, obscure, instinctive and/or multi-layered as you can get. If it is the purpose of art (or awareness/primacy of purpose) that determines its quality, why would 'entertainment' be the best or most valid purpose? Thirdly - there is a great deal of art whose express or primary purpose was not 'to entertain'. Yet it is still great art. The first examples that comes to mind are the best of the Russian post-revolutionary artists, Malevich, Kandinsky, Shostakovitch ... Another example would be religious art and artefact. And in many cases there is at the very least a clear duality of purpose behind much great art. I also find myself in agreement with Lush again about the nature and importance of 'misery and suffering'. The 'snorting in disgust' is an unworthy reaction, and implies the supposed superiority of an anaesthetised Walt Disney aesthetic. The experience of sorrow and adversity through art are keys to empathy, self-knowledge and tolerance (among other things). The combination of "happy is better than sad" and "the purpose of art is to entertain" sounds like a sinister political manifesto. Another more general point is to caution people against the knee jerk cliches ie. "the problem with the modern world is ...", or "people today are ..." - as if there is something definitively worse about today that only we the elite can perceive. Throughout history (right back to Socrates) people have bemoaned the falling standards of art and morality. Let's keep things in perspective. In my earlier reflections on postmodernism I tried to identify some pitfalls, and some of the implications of postmodern culture that I have problems with. But pomo has its good side too [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] Lush, I always imagined myself as, someday, a tortured and decadent Parisian garrett artist (minus the cocaine, it plays havoc with your critical judgement as an artist), paying for meals by scrawling works of genius on napkins. How could you deconstruct my dreams with such surgical cruelty? [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img] Peace [ April 04, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]