![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Oh, this can't end well
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 ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
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:
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).
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).
no subject
no subject
But, yeah, populism is pretty dang significant, in my mind. By intellectual standards, it's hard to argue that Harry Potter is "great literature" - but despite this it's informing an entire generation of readers, very likely will influence literature for years to come; even if the series itself doesn't last the test of time, it's leaving more of a mark than a Nobel-prize-winning novel that almost no one's read. Not to mention its popularity says something about our current society; what entertainment is popular can tell you a lot about a people...
...Actually, some heterosexual guys, in my experience, really *can't* understand the attraction of slash. Not fanboys, so much, they tend to be more open-minded; but I've had conversations with "regular guys" who have flat-out denied that men or the male body (much less two male bodies!) can be attractive, to anyone. Apparently women have sex with men for reasons other than attraction...I don't know how this works in their mind, but, yeah, I've actually had to argue the aesthetics of the male form (seriously brainwashed by modern American culture's innate homophobia, those dudes; the Japanese have no problem with accepting that male beauty is as real as female beauty!)
...Yup, gibbering and frothing despite my best efforts! Back to packing XP
no subject
No real surprise that I'm with you all the way here. You know, when people cite books that were life-changing for them, it's often totally goofy stuff -- a light adventure novel in third grade that made them realize they wanted to be a writer, for example. Elfquest was life-changing for me because it made me realize that comics were made by real people (real women!) and weren't just for little kids and that *I* could do that someday. I remember reading somewhere that quite a few real-life doctors in Japan cite "Blackjack" as a formative influence on their desire to go into medicine ... and it's not exactly highbrow!
I've had conversations with "regular guys" who have flat-out denied that men or the male body (much less two male bodies!) can be attractive, to anyone.
...
...
... nope, that's all I've got ...
What's really hilarious about that is that it sounds just like some of the zanier things from the far fringe of feminism (you know, "all sex is rape", the penis is inherently oppressive by its very nature, etc). Though I'm sure those selfsame guys would just hate having that comparison made about them!
no subject