RE: Quality in the arts
October 13, 2018 at 8:07 pm
(This post was last modified: October 13, 2018 at 8:15 pm by Alan V.)
(October 13, 2018 at 7:51 pm)Belaqua Wrote: I think I want to argue that the qualities of good entertainment, if we spell them out, will be seen to be low-level qualities. Fun at the moment, but if that is all that art could do then all art would become close to brainless.
So, let's propose some qualities of purely-for-entertainment consumer products. Not challenging to one's beliefs. (In fact, subtly reinforcing the audience's ideology is helpful for entertainment.) Clever as opposed to intelligent. 99% familiar to the target audience, with just enough added flair (usually visual, in the form of CGI) to give a variation.
So fine for Netflix and chill, but the sum of the qualities can't be held up as a superior product to more challenging works.
I am so unused to agreeing with you that I'm at a bit of a loss. So I will just add one more point.
I recently attended a family barbeque in which the 53-year-old husband of my wife's niece discussed with the 70-year-old sister-in-law of my wife exactly how dinosaurs fit into the Bible account in Genesis. They were both completely serious, and both completely missed the point that the Genesis stories were mythology rather than factual. My wife's sister-in-law concluded that the Bible was obviously written to make people think!
The point is I realized these entirely normal grownups had no intellectual horizons to speak of. You may say they are a product of what you criticize, and you may have a point. But I can't help but wonder whether they were simply incurious, and no amount of exposure to anything better would help them in any way. After all, they likely had the same kinds of opportunities I had in my lifetime.
