Has art jumped the shark after WWI?

[Faith No More]

Yes, how we define art is a result largely of cliquish opinions, but let's not forget that there are structures in play that determine what is and isn't art. Determining what is and isn't art isn't simply about a visceral emotional reaction, because we can elicit those emotions from things that are not art. Simply because a catchy song gives you the warm-fuzzies does not mean it is on par artistically with one that has been carefully crafted using musical theory. Creating art requires an understanding of the medium and how to manipulate it, and just because you hear a song on the radio that you enjoy, does not mean that the artist has a good understanding on that medium and has applied that understanding well. Similarly just because an author told a story that you enjoyed does not mean that the author carefully crafted their words at an artistic level.

It comes down to how well does the final product demonstrate the understanding of the medium that the artist had.

---

In short, he writes as we may talk. I see no additional value in word wanking as some authors do. When we're talking about poetry however, it would be a different matter.

It doesn't necessarily have to be word wanking. Phillip K. Dick is a great example of an author that effectively uses words as art without the wanking. It's about your approach and style, not how well you can use a thesaurus.

Stephen King's approach is very simplistic and straight forward. There's no creativity to it.