Sophisticated Taste or Snobbery
Marjorie's response to my "the Namesake" post brought up a discussion I have had time and time again. Does having "sophisticated" taste mean you can't accept something that doesn't match your standard of taste. I used to have a similar discussion with a friend who was now has a Ph.D. in Art History. She believed that not all art is meant to be enjoyed by all people. I think this is absolute bullshit or maybe it's just too Euro, where there is "high art" and everything else, for who I am or something. Culturally, I come from a tradition of functional art...you creatively make things that are useful and therefore understandable...you own a table but that table has flourishes and cuts and designs and symmetry that make it aesthetically appealing. On the other hand, I spent a lot of time as a musical snob. Then I grew up.
While I was in my blues and jazz periods no one could tell me what was good because I knew. I knew that deep in my being I knew what was good music or quality music. In my late 20s, early 30s I grew out of that. Somewhere I discovered that if it (the art) came from the soul of the creator, made with some level of creative inspiration and/or skill, and it touched you that was all that was needed. I soon started to realize it was that way with everything; architecture, music, photography, music, religion, and even politics. I assume that all of us know right from wrong and most of us work to increase the right and/or decrease the wrong. (I'm not that naive, I know it doesn't work this way but I still believe this to be the foundation of human existence.) Art is a manifestation of our existence. Yes, there are bastardizations and compromised ethics but for the most part when someone pulls together a portrait of life as multifaceted, rich, and as engaging as Jhumpa Lairi did in "The Namesake" they have created a work of art.
I recognize many of the aspects of the picture she paints, I have spoken with Indian immigrants (about the same age as Gogol) who also recognize so much of the book. On top of that the characters and situations caused me and others, I imagine many others, to emote, to honestly feel for the characters. Again, this is something that is usually associated with all forms of art. You hear of people weeping in front of Mona Lisa or under the Sistine Chapel. I have personally experienced fear and repulsion while looking at paintings from Goya's "Dark Period". Of course, I cannot count the emotional changes I have experienced during a show by Derek Trucks or Alejandro Escovedo or in the Gospel Tent at New Orleans Jazz & Heritage Fest. I guess my bottom line is that art means nothing if it doesn't appeal emotionally and aesthetically. And it is always a matter of personal choice and social/cultural training.
Just because you think its crap doesn't mean ANYBODY else does, just because you think its great doesn't mean ANYBODY else does or should, for that matter.
While I was in my blues and jazz periods no one could tell me what was good because I knew. I knew that deep in my being I knew what was good music or quality music. In my late 20s, early 30s I grew out of that. Somewhere I discovered that if it (the art) came from the soul of the creator, made with some level of creative inspiration and/or skill, and it touched you that was all that was needed. I soon started to realize it was that way with everything; architecture, music, photography, music, religion, and even politics. I assume that all of us know right from wrong and most of us work to increase the right and/or decrease the wrong. (I'm not that naive, I know it doesn't work this way but I still believe this to be the foundation of human existence.) Art is a manifestation of our existence. Yes, there are bastardizations and compromised ethics but for the most part when someone pulls together a portrait of life as multifaceted, rich, and as engaging as Jhumpa Lairi did in "The Namesake" they have created a work of art.
I recognize many of the aspects of the picture she paints, I have spoken with Indian immigrants (about the same age as Gogol) who also recognize so much of the book. On top of that the characters and situations caused me and others, I imagine many others, to emote, to honestly feel for the characters. Again, this is something that is usually associated with all forms of art. You hear of people weeping in front of Mona Lisa or under the Sistine Chapel. I have personally experienced fear and repulsion while looking at paintings from Goya's "Dark Period". Of course, I cannot count the emotional changes I have experienced during a show by Derek Trucks or Alejandro Escovedo or in the Gospel Tent at New Orleans Jazz & Heritage Fest. I guess my bottom line is that art means nothing if it doesn't appeal emotionally and aesthetically. And it is always a matter of personal choice and social/cultural training.
Just because you think its crap doesn't mean ANYBODY else does, just because you think its great doesn't mean ANYBODY else does or should, for that matter.
Comments
I did see the Namesake movie... Stylistically, it was nothing special. I've like other Mira Nair movies plenty and this one was, well, fine. It did very well to spend most of its energy on the story of the parents, as opposed to Gogol. The character of Gogol is drawn as such an "everyman" that I found him totally off-putting because there was nothing notably indiosyncratically human about him, besides his race, of course. He's a bland guy who is only compelling difference is that he's an Indian-American living primarily amongst white people. And for me, I just want more than that! But it's everyone around him that adds color to the story... and really, I found the heart of it is with that mother character. However, the white girlfriend character was written completely ridiculously, with all her obliviousness-- to the point where I found myself rolling my eyes at her a few times-- which is a shame because Jacinda Barrett is a great actress. But, I mean, the movie is pleasant to sit through. But it all is so focused on pretty presentation that I didn't feel that I, as an audience member, had any work to do. And that's what makes art deficient to me... art that does all the work for you? What's the point? I just want a more full-bodied interaction, you know?
Does that make me a snob? I don't think that it does... and its not a matter of discernment or refinement. It's just that I don't really enjoy being entertained and only entertained.
So, I'm thinking, maybe it's that because I seek out that which is uncomfortable and that which gets under my skin, I'm just a different variety of art-consumer. But I still don't think it makes me an elitist in such a way that I don't think I can still find that sort of challenge in what you term "functional art." That's as good a place to look as any... I guess it's that I question the function of writing like Lahiri's. And for the record, my judgement of her work isn't one of good art vs. bad art... but rather exciting work vs. boring work.
Have I defended myself at all here, or just dug myself a deeper whole, displaying all my snobbiest of true colors?