Art for Art's Sake: But What Is "Art"?

J+M+J

For some time now, I've read, with much interest, the blog posts of conservative writer Matt Walsh. The other day, while perusing some of his older pieces, I came across a commentary on popular entertainment. His words struck a chord in my traditionalist, right-wing heart, so naturally I shared the post on my Facebook feed, only to discover that (surprise, surprise!) there exist others that do not share the mutual opinion Matt Walsh and I hold concerning the immoral and, largely, unintelligent fare of popular entertainment (specifically within the musical industry, but obviously extending into other artistic arenas).

I think it is universally accepted that, as human beings, we are highly influenced by the artistic surroundings in which we immerse ourselves and that art, in ways that often surpass the influence of a lecture or instructive text, through its subtlety, has a profound ability to shape our thoughts, perceptions, ideas, and even persons. For that reason, it is vitally important, if we care not only for ourselves, but for the whole of society, that we consider the weight of the songs to which we listen (especially given the ubiquitous presence of the i-Pod these days) or the movies we frequent or the books we absorb. Our art is a reflection of ourselves, and sometimes that includes the brutal or difficult truths of human nature, but while we can always acknowledge the depraved or disordered aspects of human existence, we should always be seeking to correct these evils, instead lauding that which is best in humanity.

When considering the lyrics of popular music, such as those Beyonce songs detailed in Walsh's original article, our concern is not exclusively over the sexually explicit nature of the lyric content, but also that the songs themselves are vapid, degrading (to humans in general, but to women specifically), and cliche. This isn't to suggest that all art be saccharine - filled with unrealistic, fanciful visions of unicorns and rainbows - but that genuine art should amaze us with its grandeur and majesty, displaying the very best of humanity and pointing toward the truth.

Art is supposed to evoke reflection (whether joyful or sorrowful), provide beauty (even if that beauty is enveloped in sadness or tragedy), and display the truth in an attempt to elevate humanity to the higher aims of goodness, respect, decency, honor, courage, empathy, etc. But, let's be honest, how is singing about oral sex in a limo accomplishing this? It's not championing truth, it's not commenting on social injustice, it's not relating a meaningful story, it's not instructing listeners/viewers...it's simply talking about sexuality and human beings in the meanest, coarsest, most vulgar, and most cavalier of ways, without a hint of subtlety. And the monotony and repetition in "discussing" sex, drugs, etc. renders it dull and unimaginative, failing to offer a glint of true inspiration to its audience. Aristotle said, “The aim of art is to represent not the outward appearance of things, but their inward significance.” Somehow, I don't think Beyonce's blow by blow "account" of a salacious encounter exudes "inward significance." It's like the same junk recycled in the same unoriginal way, over and over and over again, yet somehow, most Americans just can't get enough. And while an individual can obviously have different artistic tastes (different types of musical or literature genres, various types of architecture, etc. certainly appeal to different people), the concept of art itself - its overall aim or intent - should be universal. If we hold art to certain standards, then, naturally, the mere claim that something is "art" does not make it so.

Interestingly though, many insist that there is no universal standard for what constitutes art - that there's a certain degree of sophistication in Beyonce's hyper-sexualized musical offerings, though it's undoubtedly not everyone's "cup of tea," and that it is unduly rigid and wholly inaccurate to suggest that the content is highly, well, stupid. It's been proposed to me that the utilization of Monica Lewinsky's name as a verb somehow elevates a song about having sex in the back of a limousine to some standard of intelligence or insight. Now, I am willing to concede that the lyrics may be sexually "astute," however, when it comes to identifying these words as substantive, meaningful, insightful, or beautiful (even tragically beautiful), I find it absolutely impossible to do so. This music, besides being unbelievably immoral and grossly depraved, is indeed stupid, by which I mean: "tediously dull, especially due to a lack or meaning or sense" (incidentally, further definitions of "stupid" include "inane; annoying or irritating; troublesome" - all of which characterize this type of popular music, in my humble opinion) and the tired, monotonous focus on sex in these songs is just that - devoid of meaning and tedious in its sexual obsession. Therefore, despite the "original" use of a proper noun as a verb, the whole song (and others like it) remains bleakly uninsightful and not terribly *thought*-provoking (though such songs are certainly provocative). Again, simply because something is "original" doesn't qualify it as art: I believe we could all recall various things we have seen throughout our lives which were undeniably "original," yet undoubtedly horrible in their grotesqueness. Any one can label anything as art - regardless of the talent (or lack thereof) required to produce said work - but the real consideration is: does this song (painting, film, etc.) offer genuine artistic insight, beauty, or meaning?

With all my grandiose visions of what art should be, a natural refutation to my arguments is that my "personal" artistic scope is too limited: who am I to impose my beliefs on the world (i.e. the classic contemporary objection to any quantitative and objective moral, ethical, or social claims)? It is true: I, in the great scheme of human history, am of considerably little importance and my personal opinions on any number of issues are of very small regard. However, the definition I provide is not one of my own making: it has been the general consensus for hundreds of years in a variety of societies throughout different time periods that art should offer beauty, enchantment, wonder, insight, meaning, and consideration in the hearts and minds of those it reaches, regardless of the medium. It should champion the good in humanity, criticize the flawed, condemn the depraved, and seek out the truth. It should offer meaning, substance, and yes, entertainment, but not at the complete expense of the other considerations.

Similarly, I recoil at this notion of "different strokes for different folks" as a justification for condemning objective criticism. Certainly, one may not agree with the classical definition of art, but, by dismissing any but the very broadest of definitions, aren't we really suggesting that human beings - despite our unique ability to intelligently discern - are not capable of crafting thoughtful, articulate, and reasonable arguments for judging the nature or content of a given practice, decision, etc.? Is it really so wrong to classify a song with lewd, monotonous sexual lyrics (or the type of "music" it represents in general) as disordered, lacking meaning, and, well, even destructive: destructive to our souls, because of the immorality it upholds; destructive to our relationships, because of the cavalier attitude it encourages toward sexual intimacy; destructive to our bodily and mental health, because it conditions us to settle for the basest aspects of our nature - to give in to animalistic inclination without involving reason; and destructive to our society at large, because it encourages unbridled sexual license (and we all know human beings desire sex enough without further encouragement). Isn't the distinction between man and beast (namely, humanity's intellect) something we should revere and utilize with care? When did making careful judgments become so unbelievably contentious and taboo?

As human beings, we have been gifted with great potential: reasoning faculties, compassionate spirits, and artistic talents, to name some of our most praiseworthy attributes. To offer anything less than our best, whether that be in creating astounding, inspiring artwork, living with meaning, purpose, and conviction, or attempting to correct the ills we witness around us (or within us), is ultimately to cheat ourselves and humanity of so much. So, while a mere song or book may seem innocuous enough, anyone who has heard the poetic words of Shakespeare, or read the vivid descriptions of Dante, or gazed in awe at the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, recognizes art's ability to shape our futures, our minds, our hearts, and our souls.

M.K.