Tuesday, June 13, 2006

A Hierarchy of the Arts?

I was having a discussion with a friend of mine about whether the arts could be organized into a hierarchy. He not only believed that they could, but also believed he knew the correct ordering and its justification. He placed the static visual arts (painting, sculpture, etc.) at the bottom. Above that was art film. Above that was art music. At the top, he placed literature. His reasons were as follows: Most people believe that art reveals some kind of truth. As a result, they are prone to trust that artists base their work on insight and understanding that goes beyond that of the average person. It would seem, then, that a correct hierarchy of the arts would not be based on their inherent potential (this friend of mine did not necessarily think that visual art lacked the possibility of standing on par with literature) but rather on the level of knowledge and understanding of the respective artists. He believed that artists working in the static visual arts tended to work from instinct and taste, and that they were least likely to call their own beliefs into question. Thus, you would often hear them explaining how art shakes the masses from their assumptions, but not how the painter continually challenges his or her own ideas. Furthermore, he felt that paintings had a tendency toward superficiality because they are still images, fixed in time (though, again, this was only a tendency.) For the sake of brevity, I'll skip to his ideas on literature. He believed that great writers were more generally well read than other artists and that their goals tended to revolve around the improvement of their own ideas more than that of the "masses". Furthermore, he felt that literature of its nature tended to demand greater complexity of thought and execution. Finally, he felt that of all the art forms, literature was the least likely to become propaganda. As for art film and art music, they stood somewhere in between these descriptions. [It should be noted that he left all popular forms out of account and placed them together beneath static visual art that aimed to be art. The popular forms include popular music, blockbusters, and pulp fiction like Dan Brown. They had no internal hierarchy, so far as he was concerned].

Before giving my response, I must point out that my interests are primarily in the visual arts and I cannot write with equal confidence about the others. This means, first, that I was not at all happy to have them placed squarely at the bottom of his hierarchy (if such hierarchies are even possible). Second, I will have to come to their defense without being able to sufficiently humble the others. Perhaps some of you could aid me in the effort if you happen to have more general expertise.

I must admit that there was something convincing about his arguments. However, it is generally believed that art aims to reveal the kind of thing that goes beyond the boundaries of language and knowledge (of the ordinary kind, anyway). What this suggested to me was that perhaps his entire hierarchy was upside down. We can all agree that, in general, scientists, mathematicians, and philosophers probably have a greater level of knowledge than artists. However, we do not therefore conclude that they create the greatest art. In fact, artists will often disdain their kinds of knowledge as lacking the kind of insight that is properly called artistic. Could it be that, in fact, the further a type of artist is from scientists and philosophers, the greater their artistic insight? In other words, the fact that literature has more in common with these pursuits may actually work against it. Perhaps visual artists are less likely to seek out knowledge of all kinds precisely because their artistic insight is that much sharper. Perhaps what my friend called the superficial nature of paintings is merely a theoretician's misapprehension of their more directly revelatory nature.

My friend was not altogether satisfied with my response and held to his theory, telling me that based on my premises I should have concluded that the popular arts were the highest. However, I would simply exclude them altogether. I still maintain that his order is upside down and that, insofar as Art is concerned, the static visual arts are the most revelatory and the closest to artistic truth.

6 Comments:

Blogger George said...

Marcus,

In describing your friends argument for suggesting there may be a hierarchy of the arts you say, His reasons were as follows: Most people believe that art reveals some kind of truth.

While I understand what he may be implying there are some difficulties in this proposition. It is based on assumptions and could be reworded to say "Most people (over 50%) voted for Bush because they believed he was telling the truth." This statement is true but if we try to draw conclusions about the truth we are forced to conclude that only some people believe the "truth" according to Bush and that, in fact, it is an erroneous belief.

If I continue to play semantic games with the proposition, paring the language down, I am left with "Art reveals some truth" Looking at this statement we must consider what "reveals" implies and what the "truth" implies.

Revealing suggest the communication of something which is not necessarily obvious, something hidden or obscured by its surround. For the sake of simplicity, I won't argue over the "truth" and will assume that if something "hidden" is revealed, it is a truth.

He continues the argument with, As a result, they are prone to trust that artists base their work on insight and understanding that goes beyond that of the average person. It would seem, then, that a correct hierarchy of the arts would not be based on their inherent potential (this friend of mine did not necessarily think that visual art lacked the possibility of standing on par with literature) but rather on the level of knowledge and understanding of the respective artists.

I assume "they" is the audience so essentially this argument is based on a vote by the audience. Again this argument makes an assumption, that the "trust" of the audience is valid for the reasons stated. It is an assumption, which may or may not be true.

Continuing, He believed that artists working in the static visual arts tended to work from instinct and taste, and that they were least likely to call their own beliefs into question.

Again, I would suggest that this is an assumption, a generalization without supporting facts. It may or may not be true, most likely it is only partially true and we have no statistical sample allowing a test of its truthfulness.

Going on, Thus, you would often hear them explaining how art shakes the masses from their assumptions, but not how the painter continually challenges his or her own ideas.

This is a fuzzy sentence, I'm assuming "them" is a "painter". Again it is not based on fact, it is just an assumption.

and on, Furthermore, he felt that paintings had a tendency toward superficiality because they are still images, fixed in time

It is true that Paintings, or other still images are "fixed in time" but this fact has no relationship to the "truth" mentioned earlier, unless we assume the "truth" is mutable.

It is a shaky start. This is getting too long so I'll conclude with some points to consider.

a. Just for fun, if a "hierarchy of the arts" is to be construed to mean the "most popular", I suspect film would be at the top.

b. I would consider each of the different arts in turn and examine how they are perceived, experienced and interpreted by the audience. I suspect one would find that each art form is experienced (etc) and requires a different type of expertise

c. A painting, for example, is not just a static image, it is a record of thousands of decisions made over time. It is perceived both in its totality and non linearly, in a random access fashion. It is more than just haptic sensation, the eye and the brain are one.

d. Of the arts, music is probably the least likely to be used as propaganda by itself, it cannot contain this type of information unless it is combined with another art form.

e. For a rigorous argument, one shouldn't create sub-hierarchies within a form just to make the point. If one compares bad painting with great literature, it's no contest but not much of an argument.

f. Supposing one could come to a conclusion for a "hierarchy of the arts" what would this mean?

Interesting so far, let's see where it goes.

7:38 PM  
Blogger Lile said...

some thoughts, albeit a little late...

perhaps you friend's predilection toward literature is the purity with which the medium can be reproduced and presented without degeneration to its audience. Examples:
music, most would agree, is best perceived live, for reasons such as acoustics, the actual visual performance, the energy of the performance mixed with that of the audience, etc.

theatre can be translated into another medium, video, film, etc. in its original form. It degenerates from the live experience, and infinitely moreso if the performance is produced by another company (different venue, actors, etc.)

the visual arts are poorly reproduced in images of photographs and film/video, especially that of sculpture and installation. one must almost definitely be there physically to attempt to appreciate the medium at its fullest, probably moreso with the visual arts than other media.

For that reason in itself, the purest form of truth should be that which we can experience firsthand. Well, assuming that literature is language, text, it cannot erode in the experience as it is transmitted to its audience, its primary medium being the idea, or more importantly, the synthesis of text and the mind.

Perhaps your friend is right, at least on some level, but he should reevalute his position on truth, and apply that understanding of what he feels is truth to other forms of expression.

8:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

received some mails at my blog - what to do? there are links in those letters:
black black download free porn
download extreme free pornograffitti
amateur anal pic sex
amateur beautiful free picture sex
anal sex chat
bad ass sex
amateur asian sex
asian sex dvd
anal mature sex woman
african gay sex
anal black gay sex
asian gay sex pic free
black white teen sex
anime game lesbian sex
ass bi escort gfe lesbian sex toy whore

9:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hello guys, maybe i shoul sell my collection? to earn some extra cash. Here are some links from my base:
amateur free gallery secure sex
amateur free nude pic sex

ic-sex.html>anal blonde free pic sex

ass big black free sex woman
free passedout sex
asian clip free movie sex
asian free movie picture sex
free clip sexy mature
free gallory mature sex
big boob tits home pics melons free
anal free gay sex video
amateur free hardcore nude sex teen
black free picture sex teen
clip free hot lesbian sex video young

-sex.sexonmovies.info/clip-free-hairy-hairy-pussy-sexy-video.html>clip free hairy hairy pussy sexy video

free hairy pussy sex video

10:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Happy to anounce my before wedding only men party:
amateur blog free sex video
anal asian free pic sex
anal free gallery hardcore sex
ass free sex video
free classified sex ads
asian beauty download free gallery sex teen
banner clip free hairy mature sex video
female free mature nude sex video

free gallory mature sex
big boob tits
anime free gay sex video
big boob free natural sex teen
clip free hot movie sex teen
amateur free lesbian sex
first free lesbian sex time video
hairy sex free picture

9:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'd like to untroduce my home video
amateur download free picture sex
address anal email flim free sex without
anal free give sex
access free pass sex
free passionate sex video
asian filipina free sex tgp video
amateur free mature sex
classic free mature movie sex
ass big bigtitsroundasses picture
big black tits
asian gay sex pic free
bi free movie sexual teen
clip free hot movie sex teen
anime free lesbian sex
first free lesbian sex video
hairy sex free picture

8:37 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home