|
A purpose of art is to...
...evoke an emotional response in the observer.
The art doesn't have to be orthodox or even literate, only unique. Edgar Rice Burrough sold tons of books with his sub literate hero, Tarzan. And I loved them.
It's a de gustibus issue. Who knows why we like what we like? Should we have to take a Myers-Briggs personality assay before we know if we will enjoy a book?
Fiction is an art form, like a painting; film; music. What grips us is entirely subjective. Bodice-rippers may be considered inferior literature compared to Finnegan's Wake, but is the pleasure they evoke in millions of readers inferior to that which a few learned readers receive from Joyce's puns in Homeric Greek? Is Mozart superior to Bach but inferior to Stravinsky?
The only thing that make sense to me is that "good" art taps into something "universal" in us. At least, that is what my friends in the film biz tell me. Lol.
The question, I think, is not whether art is "good" or "bad," but rather, "Is the art incompetently rendered." For example, incompetent writing, it seems to me, fails to make itself intelligible and therefore is unable to evoke any emotion (other than bewilderment).
With the advent of ebooks, the traditional gatekeepers, the agents, editors, and critics, take a backseat to the true arbiters, the readers at large. I say "Bravo!"
|