John Carey's recent What Good Are the Arts? looked at all of
the theories about why the arts in general, and literature in
particular, are alleged to be good for you (ie, it turns you
into a good person -- what about the Nazis?). Along the way,
he cited a slew of scientific studies that debunked the
theory that the effect of the high arts
(insert your example here) on consumers was any different,
much less better, than that of the low arts (insert your
example here). The
"insert example here" is more than a joke; although there may
be a consensus at any given time (which may or may not carry
over to a later time) on what constitutes art, it is just a
consensus of opinions of a bunch of individuals, individuals
with the socal position and/or power to impose their opinions
on their "lessers." Underlying all of this, backing up MrT,
response to art is entirely subjective and it's impossible to
know exactly what someone else is getting from "art," no
matter how high or low, much less that one person's response
is more legitimate than another's, no matter how many more
big words one of them may have to rationalize his or her
opinion.
Mark
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 14 Dec 2006 EST