DO WE NEED AN ARBITER OF TASTE? My answer is: No, I do not think we do. I realize that in saying this I am rejecting a line of literary and artistic criticism which goes back over hundreds of years. I also acknowledge that I am siding with that ultimate philistine, Jeremy Bentham, in taking the position that pushpin is as good as poetry (or, if you will, that pinball is as good as poetry). Critics who seek to become arbiters of taste are ultimately seeking to reduce the number of choices available to the consumer. There is a school of thought that deplores what they call “kitsch” as being destructive of the right political thinking of the masses. There is another school which seeks to eliminate degrading art. I think the critic’s role should be two fold: to serve as a guide in the manner of Consumer Reports (If you like pulp fiction, you may well like….) and to help in understanding and appreciating a work. It should not be to restrict choice. I have been thinking about this since we recently saw a fine local production of the play ART, which is about a man who spends a lot of money for a minimalist painting which is white with a few white stripes. His friends are appalled by this and try to convince him to reject the painting. The question for the critic stands out: if some one likes a work of art, what is gained by persuading him not to enjoy it? The number of people who love minimalist paintings is probably comparable to the number of people who love illuminated manuscripts. Why is one better than the other? It is striking that movie critics embrace pulp fiction movies (lower case to describe a genre). Theater critics would probably dismiss them as vulgar. John Gapper in the post below says about the growth of blogs, “As a diner and filmgoer, I like this because it provides a free market in opinion.” I agree.
Categories
Archives
Recent Comments
- Gary Nuetzel on THE OLDEST FANTASY BASEBALL LEAGUE STARTS ITS 32ND SEASON. (COMMENT).
- Francesca on EATING PEAS WITH A KNIFE.
- avon wilsmore on CHEATING IN CHAMPIONSHIP BRIDGE.
- Anonymous on THE LANGUAGE WEIRDNESS INDEX.
- James Friscia on THE SECOND OLDEST FANTASY BASEBALL LEAGUE.
- Ken Babcock on THE SECOND OLDEST FANTASY BASEBALL LEAGUE.
- Lickity Splitfingers on THE SECOND OLDEST FANTASY BASEBALL LEAGUE.
- Ken Babcock on THE OLDEST FANTASY BASEBALL LEAGUE STARTS ITS 32ND SEASON. (COMMENT).
- David Quemere on THE OLDEST FANTASY BASEBALL LEAGUE STARTS ITS 32ND SEASON. (COMMENT).
- Nicholas Schaefer on THE SECOND OLDEST FANTASY BASEBALL LEAGUE.
Meta
I agree with you: NO, we do NOT need an arbiter of taste.
Universities seem to disagree with you though; at least, Carnegie Mellon does. Its creative departments love to limit the genres of acceptable art and literature produced within their walls. Teachers and students alike sneer at work that goes against the trends, revives an old trend, or is kinda new but doesn’t really break new ground. What you do there has to be new or follow in a train of work that is considered “new” even if it’s older than Ernest Hemingway’s doddering old children.
This is why I have such trouble with positive thinking these days (as I mentioned in a comment on another post), having graduated from CMU less than a year ago. I disagree with placing this kind of limitation on creativity (or goods) and I especially disagree when these limitations are enforced by sneers, laughter, and scolding. If a teacher doesn’t like the “kitschy” sculpture a student has made, why not just paste on a smile, assess the student’s efforts, give constructive criticism, and move on? Why is freedom so disliked these days? Since when has a student’s time at university been all about copying the successful and trendy?
I guess CMU is hoping to train its students to be the kind of “artists” well liked by the New York Times.
But Annalisa, if you gave constructive criticism and tried to help the student instead of sneer at them, where would people like Professor Masters get their validation from? He’s got to have a class full of sycophants writing dreck about outcasts rolling cigarettes (with (Zig-Zag rolling papers—look at me use detail!) in the rain to feel useful.
I don’t believe in Arbiters of Taste. However, I have a problem with a culture which says pushpin is as good as poetry. I guess I’m a snob. I believe that some pleasures speak more deeply to the human soul and are conducive to society’s tone, the medium through which we all move, being more sympathetic to the human heart. Rap music, hip hop, may very well give a lot of people pleasure. But is it really feeding their souls or dragging them into “Id” territory? What would Jeremy Bentham say?
I have no doubt that Jeremy Bentham would approve of rap music.