16 Responses to "Foolish and dangerous critics"
It seems that your underlying assumption is that “art” is nothing but craft, and ideas are indicental to it. I don’t agree. I think it has to mean something to be art, even if it is just a challenge to our aesthetic values or an attempt to elicit emotions. Both the ideas and the way they are elaborated matter.
When you referred to “[judging] something on moral or idealogical grounds” as “not an artistic assessment,” it seemed that you (or at least you advocating for Albee) drew a distinction between art (as craft) and argument. Aren’t the two, ideally, intertwined, with the “manner” reflecting and advancing the “matter,” or the two having some sort of dialogue? Certainly there is “art” where one or the other is weak or nearly absent, but that doesn’t mean they are truly separable, does it? Maybe it just means the art in question is bad art!
Aren’t ideas interesting in themselves? If they weren’t we wouldn’t be having this conversation! Aesthetics can also be interesting in themselves–to wit, the decorative arts. It seems to me you have to have both ideas and aesthetics to call it “art,” and both aspects should be subject to criticism. Just saying that a book is well or poorly written is only half the story. If we dismiss an artwork’s meaning then we have disconnected it from real life–it stops being a conversation between artist and the rest of us and becomes… I don’t know what–an empty show, I guess.
I think I can understand that Albee doesn’t like to see cleverly or beautifully executed artworks denigrated or censored because their ideas are considered immoral or dangerous, but I don’t think retreating into pure aesthetism (is that a word?) is the answer. It’s throwing out the baby with the bath water.
I guess the difference between me and Albee is I think a work of art can be judged both for its “execution” and its “intention.” And, since I think both factors are integral and necessary to art, then judging both is an artistic judgment. But I see that for you, the “intention” is completely optional and outside the realm of art. In that case, do you draw a distinction between fine art and decorative art? Is a Fabergé egg a work of art equivalent to Don Quixote or the Pietá?
Oh no, I do think I get what you’re saying. You’re saying that art without aesthetics is not art, but art without a message may still be art (you mentioned abstract art, and Schuyler’s Poem). I just think both are necessary, not just aesthetics.
Oscar Wilde discusses this in The Picture of Dorian Gray. He writes in a response to (homophobic) critics that art should be judged only on the basis of beauty, not subject matter. However in the book, Dorian is corrupted (in part) by a book that describes all sorts of immoral acts, and he performs all of them, while at the same time developing a passion for the decorative arts. What do you make of that?
Hey, if I came up with more ways to re-state my position does that mean I won??
So to put it all together: If an abstract painting is provocative or elicits emotion it can be considered to be “art” (even if those things aren’t primary, which is fine with me), but it can only be judged (artistically) for its aesthetics and not for the very thing(s) that qualifies it as “art”? Wouldn’t it be more logical to include in “artistic judgment” that which qualifies a piece as “art,” as well as its aesthetics?
Oh, I see. When you said that judging art on a moral basis was not an artistic judgment, I did not get that a moral/thematic judgement *plus* an aesthetic judgement *would* be an artistic judgment. It wasn’t entirely clear that you thought moral/thematic judgement could be part of artistic judgment as long as it wasn’t the only part.
1 | Sylvia
August 12, 2007 at 1:08 am
Bah! I’m with the interviewer. If we are to ignore the “matter” then art becomes all “manner” and therefore meaningless. If “matter” didn’t matter to the artist he or she wouldn’t have put it into the art in the first place. It seems cowardly to put an idea out there and then whine when it gets criticized.