The Arbitrary in Art

We've had some lovely conversations here about the idea of the objective-ness in art. I've pushed that there's more to art than our preference, that there is some standard of good art and bad art. I've done this for a couple of reasons:

First, I believe there is something in the beautiful that is transcendent because I believe that beauty and Truth reflect each other, and I believe that Truth transcends me. Truth does not depend on my preference. Rather, Truth and beauty depend on what is real--and that is, in a nutshell, that God created the earth to be good, that the earth and everything in it is fallen and corrupt because of the introduction of sin and death (note that death was not and is not a natural part of life), that God in his love and mercy has a plan to redeem (physically and spiritually) his creation, that believers will see the culmination of this physical and spiritual redemption and re-creation in the future, and that currently believers work alongside the Holy Spirit to spread God's kingdom (or you can refer to the Apostles' or Nicene creeds or for a longer version the overarching story of the Bible). Art has the potential to reflect bits and pieces of this, and if it is to reflect bits and pieces of who God is and what he is doing, then there's a standard of excellence.

Second, art is hard work both for the artist (who has some combination of talent and persistence) and the receiver. Yes, I believe that we as the receivers or audience should have to work at the art to understand it. In good art, there are levels of beauty and meaning. Too often, when we say art is bad or we don't like it (which we sometimes confuse to be the same thing), it is really because we are too lazy to understand what the art is saying. We need to approach it on its own terms. We need to understand why it's there. We need to understand the genre, culture, and time in which it was created. (I talked about this before using the example of Duchamp's Fountain, which was created from a urinal.) I'm not saying we can't ever read a book purely for enjoyment or see a film that may not be deep but is fun. I'm saying those can't be our only standards. Beethoven's audience refused to work to understand what he was doing with music. They called it bad art. I think we would all agree that it was actually amazing art. On the other hand, some of which has been considered good art through the ages has been forgotten and discarded because in the end, it wasn't good. It wasn't lasting. It was candy, and it tasted good.

Sidenote (the first of many): I watched America's Got Talent the other night (yes, yes, but let's move on). It was an interesting study on the culture (or lack thereof) of Americans. The audience cheered for (what I think is) utter crap (i.e. someone doing an impression by lip-syncing to Tina Turner). There were people with absolutely no talent. Then there were people who could do what they did well, but there was nothing innovative in it. For example, there was a group of cheerleader-types. They danced well--no one messed up, they were together, etc--but there was nothing innovative or special about it. Millions of little league cheerleaders do the same thing. Then there was a man with (what I thought is) a good voice. I'm not arguing he's an artist--I don't know more than what he sang in that one song (plus, it would bring in discussions of did the Three Tenors kill or save classical music, and I'm not willing to go there...). The audience boo'd him like crazy. They hated him. I was livid. He had a good voice! The most talent of anything we'd seen! Then, all of a sudden, on a dime, as they say, the audience went crazy for him. They cheered him. They loved him. The moral of the story is if we use mass reception as a barometer for what is good art (not what sells), we'd never know anything. Perhaps, after all, art is not democratic.

It's ironic, really, that I would fight for anything to be objective. I don't always like the term. For example, "objective Truth"--I hate this phrase. Either it's Truth or it isn't Truth. But I think it does fit in some cases. Also, there's the whole idea of the art of different ethnic groups and cultures and understanding it (and separating it from preference and seeing a bigger picture of God from understanding more of his creation), but that's a different discussion for a different day...

But (you know all this was really leading to a but), there's also a subjective side to art. It's not math (although, isn't there even a subjective side to math--which formulas you use to solve a problem, for example). So what are these subjective things to art? It's hard to separate preference with subjective elements in art. In fact, they overlap. I propose (to start the conversation), that some of the subjective things include voice (a.k.a. tone or style) and if a story connects with you. For example, Empire Falls. I thought it good art. One review I read thought it complete hogwash because of its epic reach (i.e. the same reason I thought it good). Is this preference? Or is this something else, something subjective in what is or isn't good art? Another example regarding story. I'd say that every story has basically the same elements. However, some have chosen to rearrange this elements, such as in Pulp Fiction or Memento. The elements are there, but the order's crazy. Some think this brilliance. Others call it fragmentary and therefore bad art. Preference or the subjective side of art?

I've gone on too long now, and I want to hear your thoughts. So tell me, what do you think to be some of the subjective aspects to art?