First, a taste of Kipling, then a less-than-vitriolic rant.
When the flush of a new-born sun fell first on Eden’s green and gold,
Our father Adam sat under the Tree and scratched with a stick in the mould;
And the first rude sketch that the world had seen was joy to his mighty heart,
Till the Devil whispered behind the leaves, “It’s pretty, but is it Art ?â€
In an age when “expression” is a catchall for so-called “art” and non-speech grunts, groans squeals and inarticulate scribblings, I think Kipling’s Devil asks the right question to start talking about what is so very wrong about “art”—graphic, musical, literary, dramatic, etc.—today and a bit of what that says about our society in general.
In “The Conundrum of the Workshops, Kipling outlined a feel for creative endeavor… and how critics kill creativity. And he had his “Devil” ask the question so asked by critics of kipling’s day—often critics of his poetry—qho sought to belittle efforts of others with creativity the critics usually lacked themselves: It’s pretty, but is it art?
But Kipling’s devil can’t ask that of rap “music” (or much other popular music today) or of defacing of nature with great swaths of fabris and calling it “art” or of “serious” literature (or “serious” music for that matter) or darned near anything from Hollyweird, because almost none of it even passes the “pretty” test. Almost all of it is ugly, base, venal, stupid crap.
Holly Lisle’s disquisition (OK, rant) on How to Write Suckitudinous Fiction is enough to dispense with most pretentiously “artful” literature.
…the quest for good fiction is not the only way. There is … another path. A dark path. And it is a path rich in tradition and esteemed by many. It is the Path of Suckitude.
Not all bad fiction is Suckitudinous. Some of it is simply bad — written by people who are completely tone-deaf to the language, blind to character and motivation, and incompetent with conflict.
Unlike bad fiction, Suckitudinous Fiction takes a dedication to the fine art of sucking that, if pursued with sufficiently rabid fanaticism, can win Pulitzers. (Yes, I think an inordinate number of recent Pulitzer-prize-winning novels suck. Hugely.)
Yeh, Read The Whole Thing…
Some of what Holly Lisle says there can be directly applied to Hollyweird and other purveyors of fecal matter* in place of food for the soul. As for the rest, let me rearticulate: if it ain’t at least pretty and/or well-made, crafted with care and thought and heart, it ain’t art.
Most pop music fails in all of that. Sloppily-written, poorly-performed crap is fit only for sloppy-thinking people with lead-for-ears hearing.
Oh. What am I thinking? I just described most people I know.
If you can discern pitches and keep a steady beat (at the minimum), try this: go to a high school choir concert, listen to one (if you can stomach it) episode of American Idol. Try to count the number of people performing who have good pitch recognition and an ability to stay within an established tonality, who can actually make rythmic sense as well. You will probably not have to use all the fingers of even one hand.
Disheartening.
And that’s just performers. “Songwriters” who write lyrics that are nonsense, tuneheisters who, well, have no sense of musical teleology, arrangers who lack the ability to, well, write and instrumentalists who (apparently) have no idea there are human voices in the mix abound, as well.
Move from amateur venues (where it’s easy to hear why 10 40 crap isn’t heard by consumers for the crap it is) and listen (if you have the ability to actually hear) to top 40 crap for a while. If you can stand it. Some will be good. Scratch that. Very few will be good.
And that’s just accounting for basic musicality—the ability to reproduce harmonious and sensible sounds. What’s worse is the underlying ethos, or rather what the underlying ethos lacks.
Continue reading ““…but is it art?””