The other day I was reading Nathaniel Hawthorne's Young Goodman Brown, and Edgar Allan Poe's The Fall of the House of Usher. Last night at the dinner table I mentioned what I had been reading, and said I did not know why people considered such depressing stories classics. My brother was quick to point out that this was a good example of art vs. Entertainment. That if we read just to be entertainment then by all means we should just read books that made us happy. But if we read to for the art of the book such as how it was written, subject mater, and point of view (to name a few things to look for) we need to not shun books that we don't enjoy. I understand what he was saying but still I can't help from wondering why couldn't the authors have written on a little lighter subject. Or could have given my minds eye a break by every once in a while focusing on a flower or the person remembering a song their mother use to sing to them.
I ask you my fellow bloggers am I wrong in my thoughts? Have you ever wished the same? Do think it is more effective the way the stories are written? Please let your computer keys be heard.
8 comments:
I have to say I feel fairly strongly about this subject (I should probably write an essay). I hear people say all the time 'oh, such and such is a classic, you need to read it. It's an excellent piece of art'. A good deal of what people call art is opinion. Same with like modern music and movies, I hear reviewers telling me to listen to this album or watch that movie, because it is a piece of art. Half the time, I end up liking the movies that they didn't recommend, and hating the ones they did. I say, decide for yourself if it is a piece of art, or a piece of junk. Of course, art still holds to a standard, and that's what has me worried about modern culture. Everything goes. Everything is art, just because some influential person said so. I don't have to call it art, that's just their opinion. I say we should use our own good judgement to decide on such matters.
Another thing, true art isn't just art on it's own merit, it accomplishes several things, in my opinion. It is meant to stimulate the mind, bring new, good, thoughts into the world, and, no offense to which ever brother said art doesn't have to entertain, I'd have to say I think that one of the vital purposes of art is to entertain and bring joy to the bearer. If it doesn't do that, then it doesn't do much.
I think Joel said it pretty well! But how does one really define art?
I, being a fine-artist(a.k.a. violinist) mysef, would define Art as something which has an enormous potential in it, which has enerdy to make an impact, and which is not very easily percieviable.
And,It is not that ALL the classics are uninteresting.There are many exceptions.
But yes, you do have a point, and some of them do get quite nerve-irking.
i hope you don't mind my commenting here, as I am a complete stranger.
--
www.lifeandcoffee.blogspot.com
--
BTW, midsummer, what is 'the wise one'?
while i think it is fair to say that art is a subjective medium -- be it written, performed, painted, sculpted, etc. -- it is true that not all art need entertain, but exceptional art entertains while it provokes.
as far as poe and hawthorn are concerned, however, both of those works are decidedly art, and they are also highly enjoyable. if you don't like them, midsummer, it is a failure of your imagination -- not a failure of the authors. or, perhaps, you are simply too sheltered and too afraid to face the ugly things in the world, and, if that's the case, you will be incapable of seeing the beautiful within the ugly.
Perhaps It's just not her cup of tea. You don't have to be sheltered to not enjoy Poe or Hawthorne. Besides, don't you think it's a bit demeaning to make such a claim? I would have to disagree, there is no beauty within the ugly, they are total and complete opposites. The thing which you propose is an oxi moron. It doesn't make sense in reality. No, I read things that reflect truth, and the values that we strive to meet.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. I do think that writing can be used to show consequences of bad choices, and be an example of what not to do, but still in an artful way that isn't offensive. For instance, take Thomas Hardy's 'Tess of the D'urbervilles', terrible things happen because of choices people make, and in the end, someone suffers true destruction because of wrong choices. If that's what you mean by beauty in the ugly, then I agree. But maybe you should restate your claim:
We should be able to learn lessons from the ugly, that we would not stumble in the same way. We certainly wouldn't celebrate something ugly, we would be turned away by it.
Take a definition from dictionary.com of the word ugly:
Repulsive or offensive; objectionable.
I don't find repulsive or offensive things beautiful or good, I find them repulsive and offensive. Objectionable. Any other claim would be void of reality.
brad,
Thanks for joining in. I welcome your opinion on this discussion. What I have read of Poe and Hawthorn was indeed not my cup of tea, but what type of tea I like is not what I'm talking about. I was just wondering why they had to be so depressing. I haven't read very much of ether Poe or Hawthorn. I do know however that what I did read I could have gone a blue moon without.
I ws talking with someone about yours and eucharisto's comments. I said I agreed with eucharisto how he said beauty and ugliness can not co exist. My friend said though they understood what eucharisto was saying they wanted to make sure every one was clear that someone can be ugly but have a beautiful heart. I am pretty sure no one here meant different but I thought I would touch on it for my friends sake. brad you did make me laugh at one part in your comment. The part when you said I might have a lack of imagination. Imagination is one thing I have in abundance:) Thanks for commenting I enjoyed listing to our opinion. eucharisto thanks for coming up to bat for us sensitive souls.
Post a Comment