Are There Any Valid Criticisms? (aka Kalessin's Rant)

[Kalessin]

More interesting posts - I don't think this thread is overly cynical (yet). I'm enjoying it [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Aiwendil -

"I should have said: "The purpose of art is to be aesthetically beautiful" - which is basically saying that the point of art is to be art, not to be social commentary, not to be allegory, not to be popular"

I agree that your re-phrasing above is more precise and therefore redresses the populist connotations to which I reacted earlier. However, I do not see an inherent contradiction between 'aesthetically beautiful' and 'aesthetically beautiful social commentary'. If an artist has talent, craft AND insight then there does not need to be a primacy of purpose.

Aiwendil, You also addressed my 'purpose of art' comments thus -

"then it's impossible to judge the merit of a work of art at all, save perhaps against its intended purpose ... The fact that it (Shostakovitch's 5th, as an exemplar of art with a dual purpose) does resonate with the real world increases its beauty. But art need not have that resonance to be beautiful."

Please excuse my merging of quotes from different paragraphs by you - this is simply to allow me to address the key elements together [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

The 'aesthetic standards by consensus' vs. 'timeless absolutes' etc. is one that we hammered to oblivion in other threads! Suffice it to say that in my view the purpose of the artist can be a part of one's reading of the art itself - and that clearly includes evaluating its aesthetic merit. Without this, you emasculate the artist, and allow for the 'ten thousand monkeys writing Shakespeare' scenario. This is so beloved of empirical rationalists, yet so antithetical to the the individuality and humanity of art. If a musician creates a piece intended as a lament, yet people think it's a fabulous feelgood party song, whilst he/she may have achieved some aesthetic beauty one would HAVE to include the failure of purpose when judging the work's merit. If it helps to illustrate the point, I find Britney's happy little songs utterly lamentable [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

I agree art does not NEED other purposes to be beautiful or valid. "Art for art's sake" and all that. But that exists alongside all the wonderful art that DOES have other purposes. And, to draw the issues back to the topic, it should not devalue (or imply inherent failure in) works of fantasy simply that there are a range of driving forces at work.

Some of these vexing questions arise with the study of postmodernism and it's successors in the 'cultural studies' approach to art and artefact. It is a challenging subject area and there is arguably no prospect of resolving divergent views within even a broad consensus - except to say that, as people, you and I have a respect and appreciation for Tolkien, and perhaps share an idealistic and optimistic approach to art. That's more than enough!

Can I inject a personal note and say that my late father was a painter, yet also a political radical, and in his life he struggled intensely with the 'role of art'. As a devotee of European aesthetics he found it impossible to reconcile the theoretical and economic aspects with the struggle against oppression and the deeper contradictions of 'human nature', at great personal cost. I have perhaps a gentler approach, but I am gratified by the passionate convictions and idealism so articulately expressed in this thread (I'm also rather proud of having started it [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]). These are actually the best message boards I have found for stimulating and rigorous intellectual debate. And that is perhaps indirectly a fitting tribute of some worth to Tolkien himself.

By the way Jessica, your posts are very interesting and I was not chastising you at all [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]. I agree with about 98% of what you wrote - and if someone criticises something by saying (your words) "that's gay and stupid", I think they have more problems than simply lack of artistic insight!

Peace