Geoffrey wrote: ↑Sun May 18, 2025 4:45 am
...american writer joyce carol oates said: "
my belief is that art should not be comforting; for comfort, we have mass entertainment and one another. art should provoke, disturb, arouse our emotions, expand our sympathies in directions we may not anticipate and may not even wish."
Oh, no, not that horrible quote again! You trot that out on a regular basis as if it is some kind of universal truth about art. It isn't.
From William Blake's "Auguries of Innocence":
Some are born to sweet delight,
Some are born to endless night.
(And, I would add, Some are born somewhere in between!)
There is no one way to define art, just as there is no one way to define a person: art comes in many forms and styles, as do the people who create it and as do the people who enjoy it. If Oates and others enjoy discomforting, disturbing, dark, negatively provocative and violent art, then so be it, they can go right on ahead and make it and enjoy it. But, there are a lot of people who prefer the opposite things (in art and in everything else!), and they may create and enjoy art that is comforting and beautiful, that expresses the joy and delight and wonder of life and the world and the universe, and the positive side of humanity.
It is arrogant and pretentious and ignorant for someone like Oates to come along and say that what the above people do and what they enjoy doesn't count as art. What is the point of denigrating and devaluing other works of art (and at the same time, disparaging the people who make and/or enjoy it) just because they fail to embrace the darker side of humanity and the disturbing elements of life in which people like Oates apparently want to wallow and revel?
I actually agree with Oates that art can "
arouse our emotions" and "
expand our sympathies in directions we may not anticipate", but I vehemently disagree with her that it has to be unpleasant and negative: one can have positive emotions aroused, and have their sympathies -- and even their minds and hearts and lives -- expanded in all sorts of wondrous and beautiful directions when they experience art that resonates with them and that moves them.
Art is an expression of a person's feelings, of their experiences, of their psyches, of their biases, of their passions, of their perceptions, of their personalities, etc. -- art is a personal expression of who somebody is and how they live and how they feel and how they exist (and art is probably a lot of other things, too, just as people are a lot of things!). Some people express themselves differently than others in works of art, or they are drawn to certain types of art but not others -- of course they do and of course they are, because not everybody is the same! -- and people may create and enjoy and appreciate certain types or works of art over others, but who is anybody to come along and say that what somebody else makes and what they do and what they enjoy and appreciate is somehow inferior and unworthy of the name of art?
I absolutely despise that kind of narrow-minded thinking -- it creates false boundaries and it places unjustifiable limits on how other people should and can live their lives. There is room in this world for every type of artistic expression, for every type of artist, for every type of person, and for every type of art, and it is reprehensible and ludicrous to suggest that there is a right and wrong way to make art, and that art has to be a certain way and not another: there is no place for "should be" or "shouldn't be" in the assessment of art -- art can be anything and everything. It is an insult to humanity and an injustice to the human spirit to try to place shackles on creativity, expecting everyone to fit into the same dismal mould that people like Oates occupy.
And you, Geoffrey, are arguably a bit of a hypocrite for repeating Oates' quote as if it is some sort of personal mantra: you have said that you enjoy and admire the paintings of van Gogh, and the music of Schubert, and the poetry of Shelley, amongst other artists who have created transcendently beautiful artwork that totally defies Oates's negative ideals, and also, many of your own pictures (even if you eschew the label of "art" for them) are actually really quite nice, one might even say comforting -- hardly disturbing! Why can't art be those things, too? It can be, and it is!
I don't like the kind of art that Oates creates and advocates -- I don't want to be disturbed and negatively provoked by art -- there's more than enough of that for me in the world outside of art, thank you very much -- but I would never say that what she does or enjoys isn't art or that all art should be beautiful and positively life-enhancing or anything else, because that's not how it is. Oates and others can have their endless night, while I enjoy its sweet delights! To each their own!
I really felt that I had to respond to Geoffrey's quoting of Oates, because it is something about which I feel very strongly. Beautiful and uplifting art is often, for me and many others, a salvation, a peaceful oasis, a necessary respite from the grim realities of life, an inspiration, and something to remind one -- even if and when there is darkness and despair all around -- that there are still beautiful things in life, and beautiful people creating more beautiful things. Why anybody would oppose that is incomprehensible to me.