art and elitism

[David Mitchell <david.mitchell@new.oxford.ac.uk>]

To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS@bups.org


Nick, I think your criticisms of what I said are a bit unfair.

I never tried to claim that what we might call the transformative quality of art is its sole or defining feature. In fact I was not trying to define art in general at all, but making a point about how we can contrast it with culture which is not art. That is why when I made the point I started by saying 'For instance...'and also that ''art might be said to bring the ind'l to a radical new awareness etc.' indicating that this was one possible way of contrasting art with non-artistic popular culture.

Obviously also aesthetic quality is an important aspect of what defines art, and I never attempted to deny that. Although I would say that the aesthetic quality of a piece is not separable from its ability to bring us to new awareness of our situation, or 'transform'. Indeed if something is ,aesthetically speaking, dull or lifeless it can not provoke this transformation, regardless of what point it is ostensibly trying to make. This idea of the transformative effect of art, as far as my understanding of it goes, has its origins in Nietzsche [particularly 'Birth of Tragedy' and 'Scopenhauer as Educator'], although it will no doubt have a longer history, and I think this idea needs elaboration.
The transformative effect of art does not operate to straightforwardly alter an individuals opinions e.g political/ ethical, but rather during the moment/s of appreciation challenges what might be termed the existential situation of the individual. This challenge then provokes a transformation that Nietzsche calls an 'overcoming of the self', which may not necessarily coincide with any ostensible 'change of opinion', but is witnessed in a renewed way of experiencing the world.

Also I did not claim that everything which had mass appeal was bad, although I'm not sure about that beach boys song! My point was merely to contrast art with non-artistic cultural production, many examples of which can be found in the popular domain of mass culture. Obviously something being part of mass cultutre does not necessarilly preclude it from being art, although I would argue that there are reasons why the logic of mass culture tends to create trash entertainment and sacrifice art and aesthetic quality. [Adorno has a lot to say about this].
Briefly you accuse what I said of being 'elitist' and impracticle. I'm unclear what you mean by 'impracticle', and Im not sure about the accusation of elitism. If appreciation of art is something that only a minority are capable of [because of intelligence, sensibility etc.] and its creation even fewer [because art, as mans highest achievement, is something that takes an incredible degree of talent to produce] then that is the way things are. If mass culture is an endless production line of dull mediocrity then it can be no crime to point this out, and it is not enough to say you find this conclusion repulsive or unfair [so do I] but you have to argue why its not true.

I was going to have a go at properly defining art but i think it might have to wait, as I've used up all my energies defending myself! 
David 



Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.htm