Many moons ago when I was in grad school, a professor went on a rant attacking John Gardner and his "obsolete" views. I was so intrigued that I got the book. I was instantly converted. One of my regrets is that I never went back and thanked that professor for introducing me to John Gardner. I've also read several of his novels. If you are looking for something different, try John Gardner.
"In a world where nearly everything that passes for art is tinny and commercial and often, in addition, hollow and academic, I argue -- by reason and by banging the table -- for an old-fashioned view of what art is and does and what the fundamental business of critics ought therefore to be.
. . . . . .
The traditional view is that true art is moral: it seeks to improve life, not debase it. It seeks to hold off, at least for a while, the twilight of the gods and us."
-- John Gardner --
from On Moral Fiction
Beyond the minute-as-time-limit, and not for the faint of art or the short-attention-span reader (myself being among the latter), there is this:
ReplyDeletehttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/art-definition/
It seems to me -- keeping this within a minute and sensing an irony in here somewhere -- that art must be moral (in that it somehow makes human existence more endurable while we wait for Godot) or it loses its identity as art and becomes nothing more than self-indulgent noise.
R.T.,
DeleteThere are long minutes and short minutes, in addition to the observation the "minute" may also refer to size.
I think Gardner would definitely agree with your last statement: much of art today is "self-indulgent noise," and that goes also for what passes for criticism today.
Correction: faint of heart not faint of art.
ReplyDeleteThe error is a fine irony.
i like it. and blame it on education and money. artists used to create because of inner drives or outer wonder. now they do it for money or subliminal cruelty... imho, anyhow...
DeleteR.T.,
DeleteI think "faint of art" needs no correction. It's perfect as it is.
Mudpuddle,
ReplyDeleteI think there are many reasons why artists create, but much of today's efforts strike me as a great hoax perpetrated on the "buying public," and many critics go along either because they want to be on the inside of the hoax or they just go along with the crowd because they really have no standards of their own.
it's probably impossible to construct an ethical framework in someone else. hence the difficulty of trying to teach a class full of students; all a teacher can really do is try to spark an interest in the student and hope that some sort of standard evolves... RT most likely has faced this many times, in many places and knows much more about it...
ReplyDeleteMudpuddle,
DeleteAgreed. It's only slightly possible, or so I think, when the individual is searching for help and is willing to listen, and that's rare, I fear. Otherwise, I fear it will fall on deaf ears.