When novices are bitten by the "differentiation bug", they try to exhibit liking for non-popular art. But what are the chances that they will be able to distinguish between non-popular art and bad art?
Whether there's any bad art that is ever produced? This is another debate altogether!
By the way who decides which art is good and which art is bad; it is only human interpretation and not any heavenly classification. Nothing is absolute good and nothing is absolute bad.
Why is it that majority of Oscar winning movies are not commercial blockbusters? Why is it that Booker prize winning book is usually not read by masses and the book read by masses is not even nominated for booker prize?
Do we really need specialists to opine about art. After all art is meant for appreciation by all, pleasure of all.
But will it really be wise to leave all the judgment power to masses? Won't it make all 'masala' movies (having popular combination of violence, sex and lifestyle) win all the acclaim? Will it not prove the universal applicability of journalism's 3F formula (Food, Fashion, Fornication) for media? Is "wisdom of crowds" not applicable in the field of art?
Frankly, as of now, I am unable to side with either school of thought!!
So should one blindly follow the middle path? Well, wait for my next post on "middle path" :)
3 comments:
Apart from the main topic of this post, I would like to comment on the question of "who decides". Since it is the foremost issue these days and the statement: "Nothing is absolute good and nothing is absolute bad" is being established as an absolute truth!
Lust, violence and greed has been spread awfully all around us via lame excuses in the name of art and culture. The main accuser for all this insane disorder is the attitude mentioned above.
As per the norms established by religion we must accept that an art which triggers any of the ,vikaars in our mind is bad and anything which gives our soul a joy, freeing it from the 'entanglements of vikaars' is good. Everyone of us is dominated by vikaars at one or other moment. But those who try to engage themselves in a fight with these are good people and those who surrender, are pitiable :-)
@ Mr. Singh, religion is only a couple of centuries old but art existed even prior to it.
Lets not view everything from religious point of view. Most of the times, religion gets into controversy and earns a bad repute when people try to apply it beyond its boundaries!! It's better both for individuals and religion to keep religion as a "personal subject" and within its domain.
@Mr. Anonymous
I said, "those who try to engage themselves in a fight with vikaars are good people and those who surrender, are pitiable :-)". I never advocate religion without this basic assertion. People like you are irritated by 'religion' because masses are not being derived by the above Truth. Instead a lot of communal politics is going on in the name of religion theses days.
When you say that religion is a couple of centuries old you define the term 'religion' as per western philosophy. In Eastern thought the term 'religion' carries a completely different approach. The tragedy is that these days eastern religions are also using the western model and the result is obvious. One such example is your post. By your definition of religion it may be a couple of centuries old but some basic ethics established by it exist since the creation. These ethics existed even when man was an ape. Sigmund Freud has established this idea very well in his masterpiece 'Totam and Taboo'.
Post a Comment