Still Crapping On About Art

[sharplittleteeth]

I ask two things of art: that it moves me, and through moving me, it grants me new insight into the world. It’s a simple philosophy, forged in the fires of rock and roll.

There’s a scene in Dead Poets Society where Robin Williams reads to his class from the introduction to a book of poetry. The introduction tells us how to measure the greatness of a poem, by graphing its artfulness on one axis, and its importance on another.

Robin Williams laughs and orders his students to rip these pages from their books. And he is right. Art is should be lived and breathed and revelled in. Not approached with callipers and a scientific disdain.

But he is also wrong. Because gut instinct is a vague and inconstant guide. It does nothing to tell a classroom of teenage boys why Shakespeare is more highly regarded than the new White Stripes album.

So -- at risk of mockery by short American comedians -- let me offer my own graph axes: Craftsmanship. Originality. Insight.


(Haven’t slept properly in days. Mind won’t stop wrestling with Art. Sounds all very romantic. But I’m bleary-eyed and just want to sleeeeep.

Curse you, Mathew Barney! Curse you AND your lamb-eared dancing girls!)


EDIT: No. Not happy with those axes. Revised version: craftsmanship, emotion, insight, orginality.

The problem with this graph-paper approach is that it doesn't really capture the interdependence of these traits. Craftmanship invokes emotion, emotion leads to insight.

But I think I'm getting closer to it.

Comments

Who's your Dada?

[drzero.livejournal.com]

I'm completely with you on the axes you've named. Not so hot on the originality axes (I haven't considered it enough, but sometimes someone comes up with a love poem that makes you sit up and listen, etc., need more thought, then there is parody, satire, etc.).

Re: Who's your Dada?

[sharplittlteeth.livejournal.com]

Not so hot on the originality axes

No? Which is better: a poem that says the same stale things in the same stale fashion, or a poem that says something new, and finds new ways to say it?

Re: Who's your Dada?

[andricongirl.livejournal.com]

</>No? Which is better: a poem that says the same stale things in the same stale fashion, or a poem that says something new, and finds new ways to say it?

that seems a rather black and white interpretation of originality.
and i like all shades of grey ;p

what about the same old thing but told from a different perspective?
may not be original context wise, but it may be insight wise?
what about a completely original idea but told within the constraints of tradition?

and im all for appropriation and self referential dribblings in art. wank, perhaps, but I think its interesting.

I find these detremining aspects of good v bad art difficult.
i wouldn't be able to set any down. i think different art brings different things into play, and i find the idea of being original a difficult one to find where draw the line at.

Re: Who's your Dada?

[sharplittlteeth.livejournal.com]

that seems a rather black and white interpretation of originality.
and i like all shades of grey ;p

It was a black and white example. To make a point.

I never said originality was a yes/no affair. I said it was a scale on a graph. And then said that the graph approach doesn't really express the subtleties.

In the perfect work of art, all four elements would be inseparable: dazzling new techniques provoking startling new emotions leading to profound new insights. In lesser -- but still great -- works, we get pieces strong in some elements, but weaker in others. Like all the examples you mention. Lesser still are things like the Hollywood blockbuster (strong craftsmanship, no emotion, insight or originalty). And at the bottom we get the rubbish.


I find these detremining aspects of good v bad art difficult.

I find it difficult too. But I also think it's important.

It's important in the way that all knowledge is important.

But it's important too in defending art against those who would say "Matthew Barney? He's a wanker. Shut down that bloody Guggenhiem and give the money to Jerry Bruckheimer."

Re: Who's your Dada?

[http://users.livejournal.com/raven_/]

Yes. Keep the money away from Jerry Bruckheimer.

Interesting concept, which my brain is too small to contemplate fully today. :-)

Re: Who's your Dada?

[strang-er.livejournal.com]

i'd perhaps replace 'originality' with 'imagination', for mine.

[baralier.livejournal.com]

The original graph is artfulness vs importance. And while both are excedingly subjective in appraisal importance is usually something that only time will allow a result on.

Is the new White Stripes album important to this week's chart listing? Possibly. Important to the continuance of a musical genre? Probably not.

Yes gut instinct is vague but if enough people have the same reaction to it then that art becomes great. I've seen Shakespeare done where people are reading the line with no real concept of what they're saying. That's what you get when people tell you that something is great therefor you should believe it too.

But then I think most abstract "modern" art is a pile of steaming faeces.

Re:

[sharplittlteeth.livejournal.com]

importance is usually something that only time will allow a result on

It does seem to be begging the question- "Its greatness equals its importance". Although in defence of Dr. J. Evans Pritchard and his maligned introduction to poetry, when he says "importance", I think he actually means "profoundness".


but if enough people have the same reaction to it then that art becomes great

So the new Britney Spears album is greater art than Mathew Barney's Cremaster Cycle? Emotional reaction is an important part of what makes art great. But there is more to it.


But then I think most abstract "modern" art is a pile of steaming faeces.

I think Modern Art emphasises originality and insight (or at least ideas) over crafstmanship and emotion. But I will humbly admit I'm not an expert in the field.

Re:

[andricongirl.livejournal.com]

I think Modern Art emphasises originality and insight (or at least ideas) over crafstmanship and emotion. But I will humbly admit I'm not an expert in the field.

I think theres some artists that practice 'craft' in lieu of insight, and some who have the insight and forsake the craft.
and then some are expert at both or none.
and perhaps contempary art is actually post, post post modern now. so anything goes? ;p

The Third Dimension

[morsla.livejournal.com]

All worthy qualities to look for - but a three-dimensional graph might be hard for the schoolkids to draw in their notebooks...

Re: The Third Dimension

[sharplittlteeth.livejournal.com]

Well, it's been ammended to four, now. Less of a graph, more of a character sheet.

I have Covenant CDs for you, if you still want them.

[morsla.livejournal.com]

Hmm. Moveable sculpture, or mobiles? Four dimensions is a bit trickier, but you can still show it with plasticene and a time-lapse camera...

CDs sound good - I'm at work today, but I'll drop in to the computing centre tomorrow, with some music for you.

Re:

[sharplittlteeth.livejournal.com]

Sweet. CD piracy goodness.

[strang-er.livejournal.com]

Coming in late after spending all day thinking about this, i've ended up back at my original thought that the 'reaction' and 'graph' approaches are not at odds, but different takes on the same thing.

The way i look at it is that the fact that an artwork moves you and gives you insight is *what* is great about it. The combination of craftsmanship, emotion, insight, orginality is *how* it manages to achieve that. The 'greatness' of a work is not a function of those elements, it is a *result* of them being combined effectively.

Which is probably what you meant anyway..

Re:

[sharplittlteeth.livejournal.com]

Pretty much.

Basically, I'm trying to pin down why something like Buffy can move me much more than the Cremaster Cycle, and yet I can still acknowledge the Cremaster Cycle as the greater works of art.