Oh, this can't end well

[sholio]

There's a post up this morning at Elizabeth Bear's LJ on the responsibility of the artist to Art that ties in interesting ways to some of the stuff I've been meta-ing about lately, on my own writing and why I write. (Also to the Patricia Wrede discussion, and this post on art vs. humanity, which I agree with 110%.) In fact, Bear's post and her core argument is pretty much a capsule example of Why friendshipper Dropped Out Of Art School. It was to get away from people who thought like that.

... Okay, that's not entirely fair. But when I read that post, my knee-jerk reaction was, "Oh god, it's like I'm a freshman again!" -- and not in a good way. The thing is, I loved studying art; I loved learning the techniques and studying and riffing off famous artists from the past. What I did not love, and what made me realize (among other things) that art-as-a-career was not for me, was the pretentiousness and self-importance of the fine-art world. I realized that I didn't have much in common with ahteeests whose goal as an artist was to discomfit or disgust or sicken their audience under the guise of Making A Statement.

I recognize that everyone is drawn to art (all sorts of art) for many different reasons. I believe that there is a very valid and necessary place in the world for art that discomfits and disturbs the complacent. But I resented (and still do resent), very deeply, the prevailing sense in the pro art world that this is the best and only way to be a "proper" artist. I loathe the pervasive idea that art which is created because it's fun, or created for the sake of pleasing or entertaining people, is less in every way, which goes hand-in-hand with the equally loathsome idea that the artist who creates it is not smart enough or artistic enough or brave enough to do real art.

I hate it because I've spent most of my adult life unlearning that idea and learning not to look down on myself for not being that kind of artist, even though, tangentially, my art is about what's important to me, and sometimes does make statements -- it's just that that's not my primary reason for making it.

The bit from Bear's post that really stood out for me:

My job as an artist is not to console you or distract you from the things in the world that make you unhappy. That's my job as an entertainer, and often it's in direct conflict with my job as an artist--but conflict is what makes narratives interesting, so that's okay. My job as an artist is not to give you characters and stories you care about and invest in and want to spend time with. That's my job as a storyteller, which supports and informs my job as an artist.

Yeah, well, I'm primarily a storyteller, and I'm proud of it. It's not that my work is never about anything -- my original work in particular is very often About Important Stuff. But it's more importantly about people -- telling their stories, getting invested in their lives, caring about them and making my reader care about them as much as I do. There's definitely a valuable place in fiction for making your reader think (and good fiction does), but I resent the implication that I'm not a proper artist if I'm more interested in telling my readers a proper story than poking them in the eye. And I don't think it would have prickled me so hard in the case of this particular blog post if artistic/creative academia wasn't full of this attitude (and if this one particular artist hadn't been brought up for failing to recognize her readers as people in the past, too).

Comments

[kyuuketsukirui.livejournal.com]

In her case, I also can't help but read it through racefail-colored glasses...

[friendshipper.livejournal.com]

oh god, I know...

[ithiliana.livejournal.com]

Lovely, lovely, lovely post--thank you! I hope you don't mind if I link to it (along with some of the other related ones) because the topic and responses are near and dear to my heart!

[friendshipper.livejournal.com]

Thank you! Certainly you may link -- I'll be very interested in your post!

[mellaithwen]

as someone who in two weeks will have finished her first year of studying english/fine art, i totally friggin agree.

The thing is, I loved studying art; I loved learning the techniques and studying and riffing off famous artists from the past. What I did not love, and what made me realize (among other things) that art-as-a-career was not for me, was the pretentiousness and self-importance of the fine-art world. I realized that I didn't have much in common with ahteeests whose goal as an artist was to discomfit or disgust or sicken their audience under the guise of Making A Statement.

....word, yo.
and there's only about a handful of my fellow students who'd agree. the rest are very much for the statement-making-up-themselves-bull *facepalm* each to their own, but still, aaaargh.

[friendshipper.livejournal.com]

Thank you for this! It's nice to know that I'm not the only person who had that experience -- though I do hope you stick with it; obviously, both the creative and academic worlds are desperately in need of people who don't embrace that particular aesthetic!

[sheafrotherdon.livejournal.com]

Reading Bear's post was like a flashback to my days in HP fandom, where people would post earnestly about how angst was the only kind of fiction worth writing, WOE *rending of garments*

In sum, I'm proud to be a storyteller too!

[friendshipper.livejournal.com]

In sum, I'm proud to be a storyteller too!

*high-fives* Yes!

(And yeah, on the AnGsT and WoE ... with a side order of proper artistic suffering!)

[klostes.livejournal.com]

What I did not love, and what made me realize (among other things) that art-as-a-career was not for me, was the pretentiousness and self-importance of the fine-art world. I realized that I didn't have much in common with ahteeests whose goal as an artist was to discomfit or disgust or sicken their audience under the guise of Making A Statement.

Which is exactly why I am getting a degree in history rather than creative writing--and why I'm doing my M.A. in Public History and not Writing. I do not want to know how to write the way they do. I write to tell stories, and yes, I may make a statement along hte way--but that's because there was a story there to tell first.

the prevailing sense in the pro art world that this is the best and only way to be a "proper" artist. I loathe the pervasive idea that art which is created because it's fun, or created for the sake of pleasing or entertaining people, is less in every way, which goes hand-in-hand with the equally loathsome idea that the artist who creates it is not smart enough or artistic enough or brave enough to do real art.

SO SAY WE ALL! Or, at least, so says me. FUN isn't bad or wrong; it's just different. And I think artists who have forgotten how to have fun, or who have put it behind their PURPOSE in art have lost the ability to make true art. Yes, art's purpose is often to push the boundaries and bend the rules--but it's also about being human, and the many ways that is expressed in our lives. There's nothing wrong or stupid about having fun with art. (This says the woman who is still slightly embarrassed about how much money she's spent on dolls and doll clothing to scratch her creative gene there. It's still about characters and creating and the stories they have to tell--just in a more 3d format.)

[friendshipper.livejournal.com]

Yep, with you all the way! I actually looked into a creative writing or English minor to go with my art major, and after a couple of creative writing courses, I jumped ship to a journalism minor -- not necessarily any less pretentious in its own way, but at least there they were teaching what I really wanted to learn, the nuts and bolts of writing, with less emphasis on being a Tortured Arteeeste.

[michelel72.livejournal.com]

Thank you so much for this. Since when is being a storyteller not being an artist? I've always hated that "real art is ugly and offensive!" mindset myself.

[friendshipper.livejournal.com]

I know! The sad thing is how long it took me to learn not to feel guilty about feeling that way ...

[horridporrid.livejournal.com]

I followed your link and I share your "yeesh". And the eye-roll that goes along with it. :) The idea that all art must make one squirm is so weird to me. It pushes so much out of the heading "art": Michelangelo's "David", Beethoven's 9th symphony, Elizabeth Barrett Browning's "How Do I Love Thee". All three are examples of art that moves, but I don't think any of them make the viewer or listener or reader squirm. I mean sometimes art does make one squirm but to say that's all it can do? I think that's as narrow-minded as saying all art must be pleasing.

[friendshipper.livejournal.com]

I know! I do appreciate art that makes me think, but most of the time I want to be transported -- and the skills that it takes to carry a reader, viewer or listener away from their daily lives should not be undervalued.

I mean sometimes art does make one squirm but to say that's all it can do? I think that's as narrow-minded as saying all art must be pleasing.

Exactly! Well said.

[astridv.livejournal.com]

The thing is, I loved studying art; I loved learning the techniques and studying and riffing off famous artists from the past. What I did not love, and what made me realize (among other things) that art-as-a-career was not for me, was the pretentiousness and self-importance of the fine-art world.

Fortunately I went to design school, not art school, and that pretentious view of art was not common. We studied the techniques; it was all very down to earth...a designer is a service provider after all, and they better realize that if they want to work. In German I call myself illustrator, never artist because the German word 'Künstler' does mean 'arteeeste'.

I loathe the pervasive idea that art which is created because it's fun, or created for the sake of pleasing or entertaining people, is less in every way, which goes hand-in-hand with the equally loathsome idea that the artist who creates it is not smart enough or artistic enough or brave enough to do real art.

Word. I never wanted to be anything else than a storyteller and the thought wouldn't occur to me that it's in any way of lesser value than the so-called high-brow art. It's the same kind of thinking that makes people look down on the comic and fanfic media, and I have no patience for that kind of willful ignorance.

[friendshipper.livejournal.com]

We studied the techniques; it was all very down to earth...a designer is a service provider after all, and they better realize that if they want to work.

*nods* That's what I really wanted to learn, and even at the time, I wished my school (it was a fairly small, local university) had had a graphic design specialty, because I knew I'd probably be more at home there than in the fine arts classes, even though I was really enjoying the work.

I am perfectly okay with people doing their own art in the way that they prefer, but I don't like the feeling that I'm being looked down upon for doing it my own way.

[vito-excalibur.livejournal.com]

Indeed, that is a large part of why I realized I didn't want to be a fine artist.

[faithhopetricks.livejournal.com]

Now I'm also remembering that whole thing in Brust's The Sun, The Moon and The Stars where the ONE female artist in the studio group is dismissed for painting 'pretty' pictures....

[faithhopetricks.livejournal.com]

Here via ithiliana, I think -- great post, and your reaction also makes me think of Le Guin's great dismissal of putting Art on a statue pedestal over here, and Entertainment in a clown suit over there. W.T.F.

[friendshipper.livejournal.com]

Thanks! I like the quote; it's a great thought.

[lady-ganesh.livejournal.com]

But I resented (and still do resent), very deeply, the prevailing sense in the pro art world that this is the best and only way to be a "proper" artist. I loathe the pervasive idea that art which is created because it's fun, or created for the sake of pleasing or entertaining people, is less in every way, which goes hand-in-hand with the equally loathsome idea that the artist who creates it is not smart enough or artistic enough or brave enough to do real art.

WORD. Even the art program in my small state college was infested with this-- one of the majors I was friendly with was castigated by the department head for her art being so 'commercial.' Well, you know what, you fucker? There's a place and a role for commercial art, and what a petty, stupid man you were (and are) for not honoring that.

(Linked by ithiliana.

[friendshipper.livejournal.com]

*nods* I went to a relatively small state university, and had a couple of really cool and supportive professors, and there was still enough of that to pretty much burn me on the idea of fine art as a career.

[kriadydragon.livejournal.com]

I had an art teacher that told us about his days in art school: how he painted a realistic landscape, but the teacher took one look at it, picked up a paint brush, painted a line through it and then said it was done. thus my teacher's dislike for abstract art :D

But this teacher, my teacher, taught us art skills, but left the interpretation of what it meant to be expressive up to us.

I wonder if you talk to the artists of old - Michaelangelo, Picasso, etc - if they'd tell you they painted to make a bold statement, or painted what their heart demanded, the statement part more or less an accident ;)

Finally, it makes me think of the Oscars, and how most Oscar winning movies people haven't even heard of, or didn't care to spend money to see. Yet those seem to be the majority movies that win (I think Lord of the rings only won anything because people made a fuss). But ask most people about Iron Man, Batman, Spider Man, Star Trek and Star Wars and everyone is happily talking for hours.

[friendshipper.livejournal.com]

Yeah - the Oscars thing, that's it exactly; there's highbrow art, worthy of awards and accolades, which is serious and tortured and dark, and lowbrow art, which pretty much encompasses all genre/sci-fi films and animated films. Many films which win Oscars are very good films, but there's this very strong bias towards "depressing/gloomy/dark = good". The exceptions, like LoTR, are notable because they are exceptions, though it's nice to see (and rather vindicating!).

[blackmare-9.livejournal.com]

Hi.

I got here via recommendation from perspi, and as a survivor of art school, let me just say AMEN, AND AMEN.

This attitude in academia is much of the reason why, having gotten my bachelor's, I went to work painting murals in people's homes rather than go after a master's degree. I wanted the hell out of that world where the worth of a piece of art was judged according to how much it "challenged the viewer" (which was generally code for being visually unpleasant and/or offensive). I didn't want to live in the ivory tower and be an Art Star in NYC and make things that were meaningless (at best, or hurtful at worst) to anyone outside a certain tiny, overeducated elite.

The notion that art must be antagonistic is really a very modern idea that isn't supported by the art history we all had to learn. I know this, yet I'm right there with you in having to remind myself that there's absolutely no reason to look down on myself for making art that people actually enjoy and want to own.

I don't know much about Elizabeth Bear; never having read her books, my main familiarity is with seeing them in the bookstore and then seeing a little of her in the whole Racefail mess, which I mostly stayed clear of to preserve my own sanity.

However, reading the quote above is enough to make this artist not want to read much else of hers. Storytelling is an art. There's no need to cast it as somehow inferior to the Great Responsibility of the Artist in order to elevate one's own status. Bleh.

And then people in the Art World moan that the Great Unenlightened Public doesn't care about art! Oh noes!

As if it couldn't possibly be their own fault for jabbing the Public with cattle prods whenever the Public approaches.

[friendshipper.livejournal.com]

As if it couldn't possibly be their own fault for jabbing the Public with cattle prods whenever the Public approaches.

hahaha, oh, that's a great way to put it! And, yeah -- the public is not exactly shy about revealing what it likes (see: box office receipts; book sales figures) but those don't count because if it makes a lot of money, it's popular and therefore, it's not ART.

Blah.

If the artistic establishment is becoming irrelevant, it's because it's made itself so, by driving away the very people who would have made it relevant again. I think it's very sad that so many of us had to relearn what makes art fun for us by unlearning what we were taught in school. Throughout history, the majority of art that has survived and endured has been beautiful and often practical -- it supplied a need to both the artists and the people that it was made for. The idea that art is supposed to be shocking and uncomfortable is new(ish), and somewhat antithetical to what art has always been.

[gwendolynflight.livejournal.com]

I'm just glad that my primary model for art is, oh, William effing Shakespeare, who understood the necessity of mixing big tragedy with the small everyday to make something that will last. Oh, but wait, Ms. Bear is an artist? I suppose her works will last. ... What did she write again? [/bitter, bitter sarcasm]

[friendshipper.livejournal.com]

hahahaha ... Shakespeare, I KNOW, RIGHT? Old Will was totally a remix artist, a fanficcer, a peddler of commercial art to the masses, and now look at him -- taught in schools and collected in expensive hardcover editions! If only all of us non-artists could reach such heights. *g*

[lavvyan.livejournal.com]

I first laughed and then boggled at Elizabeth Bear considering herself an artist with Responsibilities. It might be why her storytelling doesn't work for me, but come on, seriously? We're supposed to look at her books as art rather than entertainment now? *rolls eyes*

Never mind that the sheer arrogance of her post reminded me of my beloved and respected German teacher, who looked down her nose at trivial literature. It was the only thing we ever truly disagreed on, and twelve years later, I still don't know why one form of storytelling should be considered less valuable than another. Incidentally, this is why I don't get most meta on writing - the underlying concept of classes of stories just doesn't compute.

[cericonversion.livejournal.com]

I'm in favor of having big dreams and ambitions. But I'm also in favor of reality checks. Like, I would like my upcoming writing to do its part to improving the world and advancing in some small way the general liberation of humanity. But last week I carelessly used "lynch mob" to describe a bunch of angry white guys, and had this kindly but firmly pointed out to me. So I have to think of myself as someone who'd like her upcoming etc etc who also really blew it in a stupid moment right in the midst of a lot of talk about just this kind of thing. The big danger, for me, in goals like Bear's is that they make that incoming clue stick easier to dismiss.

[xparrot.livejournal.com]

I'm not reading the post in question because I'll just gibber and froth and I'm too stressed as it is to deal with it...

That being said, having dealt with similar attitudes from the art history angle (new look, same intellectual elitism flavor!) I'm rather of the opinion that the artistes who insist that The Importance of Their Message trumps entertainment value so insist on this because they just don't know how to entertain very well. Or else they just cannot derive the same pleasure from entertainment that many people do, so decry that pleasure as being inferior, because it's something they don't experience and therefore don't understand. It's the same as the heterosexual guys who can't comprehend why so many women like slash - they don't want to see men having sex, so why would anyone else?

[friendshipper.livejournal.com]

bleh. You were talking in the other thread about populist entertainment. (Must get back to other thread, too!) I am not sure if it's inability, though, so much as just not seeing the benefit in it -- if the distinction is really a meaningful one. I'd say the heterosexual guys + slash thing is much the same ... it's not that they can't it's just that they don't see the benefit in it, and therefore can't really understand why anyone would be interested.

[trobadora]

Oh dear. Most people eventually grow out of that kind of sophomoric intellectual arrogance. *sighs*

[friendshipper.livejournal.com]

In the immortal words of Teal'c, "Indeed."

[reileen.livejournal.com]

I'm here via ithiliana.

I recognize that everyone is drawn to art (all sorts of art) for many different reasons. I believe that there is a very valid and necessary place in the world for art that discomfits and disturbs the complacent. But I resented (and still do resent), very deeply, the prevailing sense in the pro art world that this is the best and only way to be a "proper" artist. I loathe the pervasive idea that art which is created because it's fun, or created for the sake of pleasing or entertaining people, is less in every way, which goes hand-in-hand with the equally loathsome idea that the artist who creates it is not smart enough or artistic enough or brave enough to do real art.

WORDY MCWORD FACE. I hate feeling like I'm not a real artist/writer/musician just because I don't specifically deal with themes that are "edgy" or "dark" or whatever the cool pretentious word-code is these days. Yeah, my creations are personal, and they usually do say something, but I don't necessarily have a "grand statement of ART!!!" that I go by, besides "I create what I want to create, and I try to do it in a respectful manner." I know, cerebrally, that not all ~*~ART~*~ is dark and depressing and gritty realism with lots of flowery words, but I'm still having a hard time excising that ingrained attitude from my heart.

Thank you for this post.

[friendshipper.livejournal.com]

Thank *you* for this comment! And yes, I could not agree more. There is a very strong and pervasive theme in the Art World that true art must be dark and edgy and the product of SUFFERING!!!! -- and while, yes, some art is like that, I think it's quite damaging that so many potential artists are imbued with the idea that art has to be that way; if it's not how we operate naturally, either we have to unlearn it or force ourselves into a mold that doesn't fit.

[naye]

I just. Am not feeling very eloquent, so I will let my icon sp

eak for me.

As in. Really? Wha...?

Well. I'm going to sit here and listen to my favorite storytellers, who fill my head with pictures and my heart with feelings - things that last, that have an impact, that matter. To me. And anyone who tries to tell me that those things that have made me laugh and cry are worth less than someone's specific ideas of what "art" is can please go away and leave me to enjoy myself and be moved, while they can sit in a corner and be DULL, because. Grar. Life is too short to waste on pretentiousness?

Also, I am sorry this gave you bad flashbacks. *hugs* You're one of my favorite storytellers, and it sucks that such an important part - a part of you that's given me a lot of joy! - should be the target of this kind of ridiculous elitist put-down.

[friendshipper.livejournal.com]

*clings to you*

I think the way you sum it up is beautiful, because, yes! These things matter. I don't know how many times a well-loved book has helped me get through a rough place. So what if it doesn't fit somebody's idea of Great Literature because it makes me feel warm and happy rather than uncomfortable and squirmy? I do think there's a valuable place in literature for both kinds, but it's very frustrating to me to have to struggle against the mental blocks put in place by this kind of, yeah, like you said, elitism.

Bear setting herself up as a capital-A Artist does lend itself to deliciously satisfying snark (http://yonmei.insanejournal.com/1008647.html) towards her less highbrow work, though.

(And I have WHALECARD! *squishes you* ♥ ♥ ♥)

[parisntripfan.livejournal.com]

I haven't read the post in question - but I don't think I am going to. I have never read E Bear's books. I know of partly because of reading her reviews on a show I also happen to watch and enjoy. However, ever since her post on writing COC that started RaceFail I have avoided her posts.

It's at times like this that I consider myself lucky that I found my art rather late in life - so I never went to an art school or learned about the art/craft of photography in an academic setting. I have taken several workshops and classes over the years in help me improve both the art and the craft side of my photography and through that I have seen, read and talked to lot of different people. And that in part has helped to inform my opinions on this subject.

I do agree that I think art is about making a statement - but you don't always need to make the viewers/readers squirm, uncomfortable or make them sick to their stomachs to do that.

[derry667.livejournal.com]

Well, I'm a scientist, so what would I know? (Although it's often been said that my field is an art as well as a scientist, so I suppose I'm sort of an artist as well).

But anyway, whether or not I'm qualified to have an opinion on the matter or not, I think that ahteeests (as you so eloquently put it) who choose define what art is or what the role of art is, almost universally do so in way to prove that their art is better than other people. Like sure, sure Dickens was a better storyteller but hey their own writing is more artistic. Whatever.

IMHO. Art can discomfort, but it can also comfort. Art can hold a mirror up to nature, but it can also go beyond to places that nature hasn't shown us yet. An artist can immerse themselves in humanity or they can stand out alone as an island. Art is many things to many people and those who try to impose limitations on what art is, by telling you what art is not or cannot be are only limiting their own artistic vision.

But then again, does anyone really know much about art, or only what they like?

[friendshipper.livejournal.com]

Yeah; it's not that I think art should always put beauty before substance, escapism before making people squirm. I love that we have both kinds of art in the world, but I hate that the kind which gives people pleasure is often put down while the other kind is elevated. That's no better than doing it the other way around.

(And of course you're an artist, Derry! What is this (http://www.geocities.com/derry667/SGindex.htm), a pile of chopped liver?)

[flingslass.livejournal.com]

*sigh* Isn't storytelling what writing is about? Shouldn't the readers CONNECT to the characters? This is why I can never bring myself to read deep books or watch deep movies. I just want to get away from reality. And reality doesn't have to ALL about pain.
See how far behind I am with your posts. I just enjoy reading them so much that I can't bring myself to delete any, I might miss something good :D