Art

2008-08-30T22:48:41Z

Browsing through the photographs in the photography competition at the DuQuoin State Fair today, I noticed that I usually agreed with the judges' opinions about which pictures were the best. But not always. Sometimes I couldn't understand why they'd picked one particular photo over another. On second look, however, it came clear. For instance, a third place photo was of a line of semi tractors shot from the side. Not among the winners was a much more interesting photo of a riverboat in some exotic locale or park. I definitely preferred the second, and couldn't understand the supposedly superior value of the first, until on closer examination I realized that the composition of the former was clearly better, with the fronts of several gleaming semis of different colors all offset at an angle, compared with a fairly straightforward shot of the riverboat and its environs. But the subject matter of the photo was, nonetheless, relatively mundane and uninteresting compared to the riverboat. That doesn't mean I think they gave third prize to the wrong photo; it was a photogragaphy contest, after all. But it put me in mind of a behavior I have noticed among people who are partisans of a particular art form, whether it be writing, poetry, cooking, winemaking, photography, or what have you. These partisans may or may not be practitioners of the art form in question; they may merely be aficionados. But these partisans often have one thing in common: valuing form over content. When confronted with an example of their art, they do not, as a layman would, evaluate it primarily on the basis of its content—for instance, how satisfying a meal is, or how interesting a photograph is. Instead, they evaluate its form—that is, how well it conforms to the conventions of the art. Not that those conventions cannot be broken; they can. But to be worthy, art that breaks the conventions must do so deliberately, being fully aware of the conventions that its breaking, and the result must be equal or superior in the very criteria—form—that current conventions enshrine. Eschewing form—for instance, paying no attention to good grammar in writing—will get your work condemned as unworthy before the content even gets examined. Similarly, a photo of an extremely interesting subject, or a poem containing vivid imagery or profound feeling, that does not demonstrate an awareness of the established conventions of good form (or, perhaps, an extremely rare genius of new form) will not be seen by these partisans as legitimate representations of the art form—unworthy, in fact, even for consideration, so that the content, however valuable it might be, never even gets evaluated.

This is a mistake, in my view. No, I am not saying that form is bunk and content is king. Nor am I saying that these "art partisans" completely ignore content (notice I do not say "function." The form/function debate, while sharing some similarities with the current discussion, is actually quite distinct) in their worship of form. Not at all. If a work of art has vapid content, the best form will not save it. But at least the content gets looked at. This is not the case with art (often lay-produced) with poor form. Again, this is not to say that form has no place. Comparing two photographs with equally interesting subject matter, the one with the better composition will undoubtedly be more pleasing to look at. Nor am I saying that a competition such as the one that inspired these thoughts should pay less attention to form. In evaluating the relative worth of art qua art, a close attention to form is appropriate. What I am saying is that to dismiss a photograph, or an argument, or a movie, or a piece of writing, as without value out of hand because it doesn't measure up to your standards of composition, or structure, or cinematography, or grammar, is a mistake that can blind you to otherwise worthwhile art or ideas, and what's more—since the general public, in any given medium, is innocent of most of the fine conventions of that medium— leave you baffled as to why most people like what they do, and mark you as ivory-tower, snobbish, and out of touch with everyone except your fellow aficionados. The supreme irony of all of this is that in those media in which you are not well-versed, you are percieved by that medium's partisans as just as much of an unsophistocated, unworthy bumpkin as anyone else.

Updates

2008-04-03T03:51:44Z

If you want to be automatically updated when I post something here (which is a really good idea if you actually want to know when something is posted, because I often post things under an old date, meaning it will only show up in the middle of all of the other posts), go to http://www.livejournal.com/manage/subscriptions/user.bml?journal=calion and tell it to notify you when I post a new entry. That, or just subscribe to the feed. This should make life much easier.

Note: If you’re a close friend of mine, and you haven’t friended me, you’re missing out on some posts.

Calion's Blog Detritus

Art

Updates