After visiting an art museum recently, I began to wonder about the similarities between art and writing. Fine art, as in a painting, can be considered subjective in terms of good vs. bad. What’s pleasing for one individual is not necessarily for another. You might adore Renoir, I might love Kandinsky. Artists and art critics, however, do have their own standards about good art. These revolve around color, texture, line, impasto and chiaroscuro (shadows and light) among other qualities. But in general, most people would agree that art is subjective. (I might fail to see how a large canvas simply painted red is art, but if you like it, well . . .)
History proves this subjectivity. In the 1930s and 40s, the Nazis not only murdered people, they exterminated art, artifacts, and literature. Hitler and his comrades (Goebbels, in particular) decided which pieces of art were good and which were bad. To them, the old masters, artists that portrayed life as it really was, like Rembrandt, were worthy. The modernists, impressionists and post-impressionists were entartete kunst – degenerate and despicable, destined for flames. (It is worth noting that in 1937, an exhibition titled Entartete Kunst opened in Munich. The exhibition was designed to ridicule creative works by such artists as Picasso, because it insulted German womanhood. Ironically, it turned out to be one of the most popular museum exhibitions ever displayed, with queues out the door from opening to closing, every day. )
Beyond art, the Nazis attacked literature. Ernest Hemingway, Jack London, and Theodore Dreiser, considered socialists and “corrupting foreign influences,” were among the authors whose books were burned. In the eyes of Hitler, it was the social impacts of the writing that condemned them to the fire.
So, what about prose? Is it subjective like art? Are there standards for quality writing? What are those standards, then, and who determines them? Is it merely the telling of a good story in a compelling manner? What about proper grammar and spelling? Sentence structure? Dialogue, description, character development? Is it a function of the time period in which they are written? How does Bram Stoker’s “Dracula” hold up to Anne Rice’s “Interview with a Vampire” today? Is one objectively “better” than the other? What about classics like “Ulysses” by James Joyce where grammar, sentence structure, et al, are lost in a stream of consciousness?
Bottom line: Is writing simply subjective? Can books, like art, be judged good or bad . . . based on the eye of the beholder?
What do you think?
Oh yes, writing is absolutely subjective. At least, that’s my opinion.
Thanks, Mark.
I often think the most useful reviews come from fellow artists who have practiced in the genre being reviewed/critiqued. I know there is danger aplenty in that sentiment; but there is nothing more frustrating than reading a review by someone who just does not get what you are doing. Our culture says it is unseemly for an artist (including a writer) to reply to a bad review. But when a bad review is an unintelligent review?… I think that more than wanting to be loved, we want to be understood.
John, your comment brings to mind what I learned about critique groups. Even if the writers in the group write in a completely different genre, they are still your readers. As readers, they have their own thoughts on “good” and “bad” writing, so to speak. As writers, are we aiming for only a small target audience who understand us? Or do we want to please a larger readership? Something to think about. Thanks.
Hard questions. Renoir and Kandinsky are a good reference point: bottom line, artistically speaking, neither of those two guys cared what you or I or anyone “might like” when they were doing their work. These days we feel the force/burden of markets, and MARKETING, even when we are hiding away for two years writing our story. But to ignore your soul and try to shape your work to please someone you don’t even know seems like a sin, not to mention a waste of very precious time. For the best results, we have to try to think like Renoir and Kandinsky.
Philosophically, I agree, John. Practically, it might be harder to sell your books but it is sure more enjoyable to write them!
Standards of artistry are subjective, but they’re reached by a sort of consensus of those who care, and not just at present but throughout time. Think the ancient Greek playwrights and Shakespeare. Can this consensus be wrong? In the short run, yes. How do we know?. Because works held in high esteem didn’t withstand “the test of time.” Think Thaddeus of Warsaw. (Never heard of it? That’s the point.) Can the consensus overlook great works? Yes. Think Moby Dick and The Awakening. But once interest in something revives, the the test of time kicks in. Can the test itself ever be faulty? I hope not. But if the world becomes a radical caliphate, a Christian fundamentalist theocracy, or a Trump Idiocracy, it could happen. My bet, though, is on humanity surviving in its fullness, partly or maybe mostly because of works of art reminding us who we are.
All good points. Thanks, H. Scott.