Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Altin" data-source="post: 633635" data-attributes="member: 3107">One could well make an argument that the rigid delineation between elite and popular art is a relatively new phenomenon in western cultural development and it could, in fact, be argued to have resulted in weaker artwork on the whole. This is roughly to say that both Joyce's Ulyseus and any given Steven King novel are flawed in certain ways by their alienation from each other.  Reading Ulyseus is a pain in the rear because it is frustratingly private and 'deep' but once you have gotten through the 'learning curve' there is a lot to be had out of it whereas King is very readable but there is not a whole lot to be had from his work in terms of multiple readings or complex intertwined meanings. On the other hand, if one combines the attractiveness of King with the complexity of Joyce one ends up with someone like Shakespeare who again is possibly a much better writer than either of the other two precisely because of this. Of course, one could equally well argue that the specialisaton of art is a good thing.Above, you're possibly looking for the phrase 'Postmodernist movement' as modernism is a whole 'nother can of beans. I quite agree that the whole politically-correct movement which we're now enduring is not doing anybody any favours but I think it is little rash to deny the ability of art to convery truth of any kind (even a personal truth) simply because it can be used to make something which isn't appear true. In any case, the statement that 'the only way to hook the reader is to appear truer than the truth' is also somewhat misleading, especially given the reluctance of 20th century works to offer any explicit truth and their frequent use of irony to undermine just this appearance.   You are being a little harsh on Mr. Vonnegut; certainly he is fashionable and 'literary' but I don't think the label 'dishonest' would hold up to a close textual analysis of his work.  I think a lot of writers could empathise with this but there remains the fact that the falibility of communication is one of the problems which defines art. Personal meanings are not what an artist is after but they are undeinably present in any reading and in fact will tend to interfere with what you are trying to actually say. This happens in any form of communication (though it is less obvious when one is just talking or what have you) and by no means disqualifies art from being a communicative medium though it does condemn it to being an imprefect or even failed one (the work of Samuel Beckett is a wonderfull exploration of the imperfections of artistic medium and present an interesting 'aesthetic of failure' as a way of dealing with these.) As I say above, an argument could be made that there has been a change in the way we think about creative endevour and that art (however you wish to define that term) has suffered and is suffering because of that. There is also the fact that making art is not quite the same thing as baking bread. This is not to say it is a better or worse thing or an easier or harder thing but it is certainly not quite the same and in an enviroment where it is treated as if it were (for there is no doubt that your opinion is that dominant in our society) there are bound to be difficulties. Also, some of the things that are problematic about art are problematic across the board, not just in instances where talent is lacking. In other words, if the problems inherent in art are caused solely by people being crap at churning it out then everybody is crap, not just the 90 %.Yours,Altin</blockquote>

Verification