01-15-2023, 06:14 PM
(10-15-2016, 10:54 AM)Odin Wrote:(10-15-2016, 10:03 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Culture:
1. Did you learn something from it that you might want to discuss, like something about the human condition?
2. Does it have some high-brow appeal?
3. Does it have lasting merit?
4. If folk art, is it competent in execution even if one finds it simple in conception?
Mindless entertainment:
1. Does it appeal only to debased drives (examples, sentimentality or pure pornography)?
2. Does it offend people of average of higher intelligence and education while being acceptable to people of low-normal or lesser intellect and limited education?
3. Is it strictly utilitarian as a time-killer?
4. Do critics pan it mercilessly?
Standards can change. Once the artist dies one might find his work going from banal to unique -- thus John Wayne's movies (he had more film credits than anyone else) and Norman Rockwell's paintings. Impressionism and Art Deco both had yet to get mass appreciation -- but they get it now. Velvet Elvis paintings are likely to remain ludicrous except as possible satire.
Point 2 on both lists are both subjective and pretty snobbish. Hating things just because they are popular is a common trait of pretentious assholes.
Point 2 in both lists reflects the usual role of a critic as someone smart enough to see through spin and hype and express in credible prose that some art, theater, movie, book, music, or tourist spot is a waste of time and the admission cost or the effort to experience it. Critics are essential to keeping creative people honest and keeping the quality of their efforts above the 'ordinary' level. Smart people can tell what is awful and express why it is awful. Would I go 200 miles and plunk down $50 to see some exhibitionists dance nude on stage? Of course not. Some would, and if they like that sort of thing then that is their choice. But if I am writing a column about that performance I would give a fair warning.
I like to think of myself as rather open-minded on cultural expressions so long as they are neither incompetent, banal, or pretentiously empty. This said, if one tells me that a landscape with no obvious vanishing point is a great work of art, then I could go into some spiel about why vanishing points are important. If I find that some classical soloist is no longer performing up to the old standard (playing out of tune, doing wrong notes, showing a loss of rhythm, or has a cracking voice) then I would rather rely upon that soloist's recordings for my memory of that performer. If someone goes on stage in a poetry reading and offers nonsense... well, one might as well listen to some lame-brained preacher speaking in tongues.
If something has no high-brow appeal it probably is suspect. Yes, some entertainments are tailored to dull-normal people who are likely to believe anything that has an authoritative voice and appeals behind it. This is especially so with television, and the derisive words "idiot screen" often applies all too well. So if you are trying to sell schlock furniture, overpriced used cars, food of low nutritional quality, or (at a certain time) admissions to questionable 'vocational' schools, then there are certain programs with the target audience. A few years ago people were sold on the idea that with some high-cost training that would get people skills necessary for more-appealing jobs (these people are typically watching certain programs on daytime TV either during frequent layoffs, or they have work on the swing or graveyard shift or face belittling management and hate the layoffs or poor conditions, disliking one's co-workers, or having to work night shifts and have no life) they might be convinced that they have their one chance to improve their lives, so why throw it away? Truth be told, there are other things like being able to communicate clearly and effectively, to understand economics and human behavior, and to have imagination and initiative to get ahead in much of the world of work.
Of course it is possible to create art or entertainment that has multiple levels of appeal to different members of an audience. That is Mozart. Just name a movie that you like that gets strong critical reviews. Sporting events are unscripted drama (if good) even if much of what goes on is random in character. The admission for a great movie is no higher than for a piece of cinematic schlock. Read the reviews and see what the critics say. I have made some reviews on movies, and my harshest rebuke for a certain movie is that it is best appreciated drunk, on drugs, or with a low IQ. On the other hand I can also recognize pretentious garbage for what it is -- some exercise in pretentious narcissism devoid of entertainment value.
Yes, many of us must beware of snobbery. Then again, much the entertainment that we are offered really is 'empty calories".
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.