Edit: It seems that the site I’m railing against in this post (see links below) is no longer available. Should the reader desire it, it’s possible to find mirror sites, though I’m not quite certain what that looks like. In the end, I suppose we should all consider ourselves lucky that one more parasite has been removed from the pool.
To attempt to cite Plato for a definition of art is to engage in the best kind of mental gymnastics. Not because we don’t know what he said about art or because his concept of aesthetics doesn’t make sense, but because the exercise requires such careful ordering of one’s thoughts as to be practically an art form in-and-of-itself.
Assuming, of course, that we can agree on what art is . . .
As I said before, Plato had a weird relationship with art. He recognized it existed in the form of beauty (i.e. this statue is beautiful) but, in accordance with his metaphysical idea of form, he struggled to create an association between the ideal of the thing and the practical representation of that thing. If the form of a tree is the ideal representation of all trees and each individual tree is a physical representation of that ideal, what is the equivalent for beauty? Is it art? If it is, is there such a thing as bad art?
Consider this example of beauty: a marble statue, specifically this one . . .
We generally accept that this is a work of art; that it is beautiful; that it is worth your time to experience it.
But why? Why is this statue beautiful? The answer depends on the audience. To the lay person, it invokes an emotional response. The lines and curves, the smoothness of the surface, the features of the face, the look in the eyes ~ for although the statue is not a person and we know (or think that we know) that it is not a person, it is made in a manner that makes the audience think it is a person. It conforms to our base psychological triggers; it meets the fundamental definitions of a person, at least on some level. Thinking that it is not a person despite the evidence of our senses creates a sort of cognitive dissonance; we “know” it is just a piece of stone, that it is just an imitation of a man, and yet we feel something when gazing upon it.
But what if we, the audience, are not the Average Joe? If, instead, we know something about the work ~ if we’ve studied art, art history, the artist’s life and history, the controversies surrounding the work in the decades and centuries since it was created; or if we’ve ever worked with our hands, crafting something from wood, stone, metal ~ we have a different perspective. We can see things in the work that the uninformed would miss; we can appreciate the effort it takes to craft such a piece; we recognize its significance in a larger context; and so on.
In this way, art is clearly a subjective classification ~ beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Yet there is something more: the ability of the audience to articulate the significance of a piece of art, to explain their relationship to it and to illustrate (or demonstrate) why a larger audience should consider the work worth engaging. I’ve known for some time that video games can be art (obviously) but I’d never considered that “speedrunning” was somehow worth my time . . . until I watched that video. And although I’m still not terribly interested in it, as an art form, I recognize that it has meaning and value to someone.
I think this is the closest I can get to a practical definition of art: whether or not the audience can articulate the meaning behind the work.
Whenever we encounter something that might be a piece of art, we have three options to assess it. 1) Rely entirely on our personal tastes, generally lacking expertise to explain why the work is worth attention; 2) rely on our individual expertise, in whatever subject area, to ascertain the value of the work; or 3) rely on the expertise of an outside (presumably independent) critic. Given the sheer volume of work, content and crafts produced in a world of 7.5 billion people, it seems we have need for art critics as much as we have need for artists themselves.
Making art requires work. So does evaluating it. Both involve thinking critically about the work and justifying choices made during the creation process (and sometimes after). We can’t be so loose as to go, “that’s just, like, your opinion, man;” that’s the lazy approach. By contrast, we can’t be so rigid as to create boundaries that we never cross. That’s borderline authoritarian; at a minimum, it’s narrow minded bigotry. We should seek to avoid both extremes, in the art we consume and in the critics who evaluate art for our consumption.
There is another extreme ~ for extremes need not exist solely as part of a binary relationship ~ that we should avoid: the shit-monger. Personally, I find these bad art critics damned fascinating; not because they put in the effort that they do ~ as a blogger myself, I’m not here to critique another artist’s content on the basis that it exists ~ but rather that they’re able to find an audience in the first place. It’s the same reason I’m bewildered and bewitched ~ like a moth to the flame ~ by the likes of the Something Awful forums, Your Dungeon is Suck, the Cinema Sins YouTube channel or virtually any of the poisonous Alt-Right circles who have infiltrated practically every single corner of the internet. I’m captivated by their swill because other people are drawn to them in such an earnest and sincere way.
And their work is poisonous, make no mistake about it. Not just toxic, but cancerous or like a virus, spreading lies and misinformation for the sole purpose of infecting healthy minds and propagating their own brand of anti-intellectualism.
Consider the following:
Big Joel’s video is specifically directed at the sort of argument made by the likes of Thunderf00t, Sargon of Akkad or the Amazing Atheist, and he does a great job of breaking them down to their core components. For our purposes, though, the following applies:
This video is about one thing. It’s about the way that art is interpreted and about how it’s given meaning. . .
What are these arguments here to do? What do they want from us? And the answer is simple: these arguments whittle away our ability to interact with media as media. To prevent us from making any kind of claim about the impact or the importance of art. . .
. . . people like these make these arguments to try and control your mind ~ intentionally or unintentionally ~ they are alienating you from one of the most fundamental things about being a human: your ability to understand and interpret art as a person who lives in our culture, your capacity to recognize messages, and to treat the minds and ideas of other people as important. You give all that up, and what do you even get in return?
Big Joel, Anita Sarkeesian and the People Who Hate Her
For anyone brave enough to venture into the depths of the cited “critics,” I must advise caution. Their work is a perfect example of Joel’s warning in action. They use buzz-word pejoratives like “SJW,” trusting that their audience will accept the “common sense” definition mustered from browsing toxic social media posts. They belittle their imagined opponents, reinforcing the “other” as a false contradistinction to their own “in-group,” inviting the audience to join them in their mockery. They question every claim made by their targets, demanding proof and evidence, never accepting it when provided, moving goalposts and shifting definitions to suit their purposes in the here-and-now. They seek only to make the “other” appear weak, always on the attack, never playing defense, hoping that the audience won’t take a moment to question their motives, their techniques or their asinine obsessions.
All of this serves to whittle away at the audience’s ability to evaluate art; to recognize content for what it is (and what it represents); and to empathize with our fellow human beings. Indeed, they are worse than the likes of the YouTube “rationalists” Joel cites, as they exist only to tear down and destroy the works of others, offering nothing in return for the audience’s attention.
(my mistake: apparently, they do “create” stuff, though their creations amount to little more than EdgeLord(tm) tripe meant to bait their audience into an argument only to try and turn it around with the hackneyed gaslighting of, “u mad, bro?” and “why so serious?”)
Dear reader, please understand me, I do not mean that you, as a consumer of content, should not have an opinion. I do not mean that you should not express your opinion or find others who share your opinion. These are, in-and-of-themselves, good things. They are standards for human interaction ~ like attracts like ~ and they are signs of a healthy, functional mind.
Nor do I mean that the reader must always, at all times and for all things, engage in rigorous study or debate. Yes, there are lots of things to know about this world; yes, learning as much as you can about a lot of stuff will broaden your thinking and make you a better person; but it is also work and I do not fault anyone who says, “You know what? Not today. Today I’m taking a break.” And it is up to each member of the audience to decide how much of a break they need at any given moment.
No, dear reader, I am not arguing against the expression of an opinion or the engagement with trashy art. I am arguing against the engagement with trashy art critics. Their world is a cesspool of myopic, nearsighted, infantile masturbation. Their peak performance ~ the best thing they’ve ever “created” ~ is a screed indistinguishable from a monkey playing with its own feces.
We can do better. There are critics who evaluate art on a level that’s worthy of attention. Who offer insight and growth as a result of their work. Who are capable of demonstrating why something is bad without resorting to constant negativity. And who just might be able to help you see the good in something, no matter how awful it appears on the surface.
(P.S. I must confess, I do not always adhere to my own advice, this post being a perfect example. I have a hard time looking away from these train wrecks and I sympathize with the reader who is compelled to browse their work. it’s absolutely amazing to me that people allow themselves to be drawn in by this schlock, even as I am drawn in myself. but the key difference is that I try to maintain a higher standard for myself, despite the damage these critics threaten to do to my mind and soul. and as time passes, I’ve learned to do away with their shit. I can only hope that, on some level, I’m able to help the gentle reader do the same.)
Crossing the 'Verse 