i get that the application or search for morals or social benefit to every piece of art is bad analysis, but aren't you discounting the extensive history of, say, expressly political art? Steinbeck said his explicit purpose for writing The Grapes of Wrath was “to put a tag of shame on the greedy bastards who are responsible for this" i.e. the depression and the breakdown of unrestrained capitalism. Charlie Chaplin, Victor Hugo, the list of artists who set out to make art with clear moral purpose is endless. i guess unless you simply dislike that entire canon?? there's certainly such works of art that are moralistic and didactic and bad (Ayn Rand), buuuut, i dunno how "art is only what you might wanna say by process of vibing yourself to a point instead of having clear intention" stands up to the slightest bit of scrutiny. even Guernica which might look like a guy fuddling his way to an idea started as a pretty deliberate response to Franco's atrocities. none of this is to discount that there is still discovery of expression while making political or "purposeful" art.
Anything good in those explicitly ‘purposeful’ works is outside that purpose. You provide Rand as an example, so I’ll run with it. Anthem is trash because there’s nothing but message. The Fountainhead is better because it has some accidental humanity beyond its pamphlet intention. The worst parts of art and artists is their stated intentions. The only thing of value falls outside their conscious understanding of their own work.
what is the difference between outside of purpose and informed by purpose? sure enough the point of art is supposed to produce an emotional response rather than a purely intellectual response, but if you feel something purely human at the end of Grapes of Wrath when Rose of Sharon is milking a starving man after losing her baby, it is (arguably) informed by Steinbeck's intellectual purpose of highlighting mutual cooperation and generosity in the face of rampant individualism. if capital-a Art has no moral purpose, as you say, then what is happening in this instance? Steinbeck merely stumbled backwards into it?
No, very intentional. But cheap. I think even very big fans of the work would concede that. Propaganda can be effective. And there’s a craft to it. Some of my favorite art is religious. But as I get older the value I find it it is very much aside from its stated purpose.
ok yeah like i said you can quibble with the quality and what is either too didactic or obvious, but i'm trying to understand when you said "art has no moral purpose" and can't have a polemical "thing i wanna say" embedded in it
Sorry, if I said it can’t, I misspoke. It can. It’s just low-hanging and services the tackiest part of the artist and the audience. I’m not saying it can’t. I’m saying that’s the worst part of art and not from where an informed audience will derive any joy. Entering art with an agenda is ‘fine’ if you’re desperate for a starting point. But if you’re any good, it’ll never be the part that matters.
ok, just kind of a weird absolutism that an artist makes better art the vaguer their intentions are at the beginning, or that having a clear idea or point is desperate, or that deriving moral or political value from an artist's intentions is some tacky byproduct. again, all of those things can be true if the art is bad or unsophisticated as a result, but saying it is "lesser than" de facto is only as arguable as debating one's favorite color. i think the cleaner point is that going into consuming every piece of art with a moral magnifying glass is bad analysis ... but again, i was responding to "there is no moral purpose to art. anyone trying to tell you otherwise is twisting you up to serve their own ends", so if we're just talking preferences then go with god.
i get that the application or search for morals or social benefit to every piece of art is bad analysis, but aren't you discounting the extensive history of, say, expressly political art? Steinbeck said his explicit purpose for writing The Grapes of Wrath was “to put a tag of shame on the greedy bastards who are responsible for this" i.e. the depression and the breakdown of unrestrained capitalism. Charlie Chaplin, Victor Hugo, the list of artists who set out to make art with clear moral purpose is endless. i guess unless you simply dislike that entire canon?? there's certainly such works of art that are moralistic and didactic and bad (Ayn Rand), buuuut, i dunno how "art is only what you might wanna say by process of vibing yourself to a point instead of having clear intention" stands up to the slightest bit of scrutiny. even Guernica which might look like a guy fuddling his way to an idea started as a pretty deliberate response to Franco's atrocities. none of this is to discount that there is still discovery of expression while making political or "purposeful" art.
Anything good in those explicitly ‘purposeful’ works is outside that purpose. You provide Rand as an example, so I’ll run with it. Anthem is trash because there’s nothing but message. The Fountainhead is better because it has some accidental humanity beyond its pamphlet intention. The worst parts of art and artists is their stated intentions. The only thing of value falls outside their conscious understanding of their own work.
what is the difference between outside of purpose and informed by purpose? sure enough the point of art is supposed to produce an emotional response rather than a purely intellectual response, but if you feel something purely human at the end of Grapes of Wrath when Rose of Sharon is milking a starving man after losing her baby, it is (arguably) informed by Steinbeck's intellectual purpose of highlighting mutual cooperation and generosity in the face of rampant individualism. if capital-a Art has no moral purpose, as you say, then what is happening in this instance? Steinbeck merely stumbled backwards into it?
No, very intentional. But cheap. I think even very big fans of the work would concede that. Propaganda can be effective. And there’s a craft to it. Some of my favorite art is religious. But as I get older the value I find it it is very much aside from its stated purpose.
ok yeah like i said you can quibble with the quality and what is either too didactic or obvious, but i'm trying to understand when you said "art has no moral purpose" and can't have a polemical "thing i wanna say" embedded in it
Sorry, if I said it can’t, I misspoke. It can. It’s just low-hanging and services the tackiest part of the artist and the audience. I’m not saying it can’t. I’m saying that’s the worst part of art and not from where an informed audience will derive any joy. Entering art with an agenda is ‘fine’ if you’re desperate for a starting point. But if you’re any good, it’ll never be the part that matters.
ok, just kind of a weird absolutism that an artist makes better art the vaguer their intentions are at the beginning, or that having a clear idea or point is desperate, or that deriving moral or political value from an artist's intentions is some tacky byproduct. again, all of those things can be true if the art is bad or unsophisticated as a result, but saying it is "lesser than" de facto is only as arguable as debating one's favorite color. i think the cleaner point is that going into consuming every piece of art with a moral magnifying glass is bad analysis ... but again, i was responding to "there is no moral purpose to art. anyone trying to tell you otherwise is twisting you up to serve their own ends", so if we're just talking preferences then go with god.
cigs forever
Witchfinder General is co-starring the hell outta Rupert Davies!