[contextly_auto_sidebar id=”wQDbiK53WLrcRyDIHLNO7bs9fTuwmnMY”]
THE novelist Rick Moody tracked me down recently and asked me to go back and forth with him over the issue of aesthetic quality. He — as an emissary of the literary 
blog The Rumpus — was especially interested in the notion of art that was “born to be bad.”
We chewed on this issue for a while — connecting the argument of my book with Bob Dylan’s new album of Sinatra covers, which Rick considers bad in profound and glorious ways. Here’s part of one of his questions:
So the question is: does quality exist? This is a funny question, because it is an immemorial question, and, as such, it is a question that in some ways appears to have been solved since Aristotle.
My conversation with the Ice Storm novelist is here.
UPDATE: My sense from the comments on this blog and elsewhere is a disappointment that neither Rick nor I decisively prove — within a shadow of a doubt — why a given work of art is better than any other, or that quality is a real, tangible, measurable thing, etc.
I don’t entirely disagree. The problem is that if we say that quality does not exist, or that it doesn’t matter, or that it’s merely the result of cronyism/ snobbery/ power/ cultural capital/ etc., we have entirely undercut the ability to have a culture in the real world. You’ve just told politicians that there is no reason to financially support the arts, you’ve told the IRS that there is no reason to give museums and libraries nonprofit status, you’ve told film studios that there is no reason to put out a smart, character-based film that will not earn as much for its parent corporation as a blockbuster sequel.
You’ve removed the language by which a record-store clerk tells a customer asking for a Kenny G album that he might consider John Coltrane instead.
You have told the radio deejay there is no reason to make room for less popular bands or overlooked genres (classical music, acoustic blues, jazz, etc.), and you have told newspapers and magazines and other “media” that there is no reason to give attention to books, theater, visual art, dance, etc unless they earns as much as the latest action movie. (Ie. you will read about an art auction if the sale is about $100 million.)
In other words, you no counterbalance to neoliberal economics and the winner-take-all society. The invisible hand won’t save us.
The complex issue here is that like much of what matters in human life — love, friendship, loyalty, and so on – aesthetic quality cannot be measured or held in the hand or proven definitively. It is not solid the way, say, album sales are — the indicator that capitalism likes. It is not even definitive the way the artist’s race or gender is (the indicator that many of the left like, though it makes Hootie and the Blowfish “better” than Big Star.) Quality can’t run through a Big Data calculation. But however difficult and ambiguous it’s become to discuss or even articulate — as obscure and invisible as it remains — it’s the basis for everything. It’s the reason we’re all here.
The weakness in your discussion, and one that is common in postmodernism, is the idea that a mere declaration of quality is all that is needed for an aesthetic argument. There’s an assumption that everyone must already know the “Truth” and agree with the critic writing. Here’s an example from your discussion:
“Right now we have a rock/pop music marketplace in which a lot of mediocre stuff rises to the top—Taylor Swift, Maroon 5, One Direction, bro country, Imagine Dragons, etc. And crap oldies bands like the Eagles and Billy Joel earn the majority of touring revenues. So what we need some mechanism by which the good stuff rises up—some non-market mechanism by which an interested listener can find the good work, and by which a musician doing something soulful, innovative, brilliant, whatever can be heard and (we hope) make a living.”
You go on to list some artists who are, by contrast, good, with not even a short explanation to justify your distinctions. We only see one subjective opinion and certainly nothing that might justify a “non-market mechanism” for promoting the music you happen to believe in. Big problem there.
In the dialog, perhaps you could assume a shared view with your partner, but the pattern holds for most pop criticism of any sort. Cognoscenti talking to each other and confirming each other’s views of aesthetic superiority…just like…er… those dead white men of classical music. Postmodernism ironically falls into the a priori assumptions of binary thought it was intended to destroy. Whose standards are valid? Postmodernism’s denial of the objectivity of aesthetic standards ironically becomes self-contradictory.
To make matters worse, these non-declared standards too often repeat the same old patterns that postmodernism originally criticized. It is the more “manly” pop singers who prevail in the esteem of the postmodern ethos – all those Dylans standing in their manly, James-Dean-style existential isolation as the cash registers ring. No silly 1950s love songs allowed, except as parody. Especially abhorred is anything too feminine or emotional. Oh the horror of Billy Joel and Elton John. Don’t even mention those U2 sissies. If it’s a girl, she better damned well have a bit of Björkian European artiness, and like Björk, without giving up baby talking. And for God’s sake, none of that operatic Celine Dion bellowing which loses all “coolness” in its feminine hysteria. We see how postmodernism is becoming mired in its own gendered contradictions and artifice. And what would one expect when intellectual elitists criticize elitism? In veiled, embarrassed tones we ask if quality exists. The game is up.
Well, I urge historians of the future to consult Mr. Osborne’s comment when they try to figure out how neoliberalism became the law of the land. One advocate of classical music and culture marginalized by the marketplace is maligned by another for elitism, sexism, etc. (Would you like to call me a racist, too?) If these smarty-pants types can’t sort it out, Why not just let the magic of the marketplace take over?
All kidding aside, to what extent am I (or Moody) a postmodernist?
And however intangible and difficult to articulate the issue of quality is, for those of us trying to make a living on our books, our music, our journalism, etc,, it is a dead serious matter. Without it, there is no counterforce to lowest common denominator winner-take-all.
Your questions are good and get to the crux of the matter. The pop music you discuss IS the lowest common denominator. Bob Dylan’s net worth is $180 million. He didn’t get there by challenging market mechanisms or avoiding the low level of mass appeal. Hence the extreme irony in your discussion.
Through postmodern ideals, we elevate the lowest common denominator through a relativization of aesthetic values, and yet embrace aesthetic absolutes to create a hierarchy of quality within pop music itself. The philosophy becomes self-contradictory, and ultimately reflects some of the same biases postmodernism uses to criticize the high arts — such as a celebration of the masculinist orientation of pop music which your evaluations reinforce. That does not make you are anyone else a sexist, but it reflects an ironic acceptance of the status quo for someone who is attempting to challenge it. When it comes to the social forces created by the pop-music-industrial-complex, it is virtually impossible to pick the peas out of the puke.
On the other hand, every view in cultural issues so complex will be incomplete. I think that is one crisis journalism is facing. The idea of the “Authority” is lost and has been replaced by the perspectives of the Demos enabled by the web. Many aspects of cultural journalism as a money-making operation have become anachronistic. Here too you might be embracing the old status quo more than you realize, though you certainly have my sympathies. I’m in the same boat.
And lest there be any doubt, I totally support Scott Timberg’s work, which is exactly the reason I examine it so closely, even if it’s like a kid taking a clock apart who can’t put it back together. Part of the befuddlement created by the collapse of culture is the rubble of small pieces we can’t seem to make whole again. His book helps.
Well, if that’s what I am — and that’s about as good a description as I’ve heard — maybe I AM a postmodernist.
Well, this is deeper than I can dive. But isn’t the problem here that you are trying to make absolute judgements about contemporary art? Has that ever been possible? The whole history of criticism is an account of artists contending with each other for public appreciation (and financial support). It seems to be we can just enjoy the variety, and let time take care of who is the best.
Or do we fear that the things we consider the best (classical music, say) are being submerged in the general clamor and may be lost? I certainly do, But will our standards save them?
Good points, I will build a response into the body of the post when I get a minute
I think it was Adorno who said art rests in a place removed from the push and pull of the economy and politics. Whatever we can decide that Post Modernism is it still maintains a distance from political neoliberalism.
Warhol exploring celebrity or taking charge of marketing his work is not the same as neoliberal politicians constructing a society where they can emphasize populism and personal taste. Those who believe the tired old trope that beauty is in the mind of the beholder don’t believe that excellence in art is knowledge based. They are two different camps. Anyone can have an opinion about art but that doesn’t mean it is a knowledgable opinion worth anything.
Dike Ellington: There are two kinds of music. Good music, and the other kind. ∞
Sure, well familiar with Duke’s quote. But it doesn’t really help w the dilemmas we’re facing w culture in the 21st century. Including the plight of jazz
Hi Scott. I came here by link from Rick’s column at The Rumpus. In one of my comments there I mentioned a book, “Art As Experience” by John Dewey. I think this is a relevant quote –
“The comparison of the emergence of works of art out of ordinary experiences to the refining of raw materials into valuable products may seem to some unworthy, if not an actual attempt to reduce works of art to the status of articles manufactured for commercial purposes. The point, however, is that no amount of ecstatic eulogy of finished works can itself assist the undertaking or generation of such works. Flowers can be enjoyed without knowing about the interactions of soil, air, moisture, or seeds of which they are a result. But they cannot be Understood without taking just these interactions into account – and theory is a matter of Understanding.”
When artistic objects are separated from both conditions of origin and operation in experience, a wall is built around them that renders almost opaque their general significance. In writing, the task is to restore continuity between the refined and intensified forms of experience that are works of art and everyday events, doings, and sufferings.
No, sorry, not a postmodernist. Anyone who says that the idea that some things are better at what they do than other things is “the basis for everything” and “the reason we’re all here” is not a postmodernist, if that term means anything at all. That was refreshing to hear. Don’t take it back!
The concept of quality vexes us; it draws us like moths to the flame because in order to acknowledge it, we have to presuppose a world view that merges the ‘fact’/’value’ split that we say is operative in our world. We want there to be a split between fact and value so we can acknowledge empirical science but then still have an individualized moral system. Robert Pirsig mentions quality frequently in his book, “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance”. “Now it comes! Because Quality is the generator of the Mythos. That’s it. That’s what he meant when he said, ‘Quality is the continuing stimulus which causes us to create the world in which we live….” Copyright 1974, Bantam paperback, page 317.
Author Nancy Pearcey discusses this in her book, “Saving Leonardo”. Copyright 2010.
But her book is ultimately a Christian apologetic that shows how to merge fact and value in a coherent world view, instead of stating the split exists some of the time and it does not exist at other times.
I neglected to mention: the connection of Pirsig to Pearcey is that the tension between fact and value is a major theme of Pirsig’s book, with Zen and Motorcycle representing metaphors for value and fact, respectively. Pearcey examines this same tension over many chapters, tying in art and culture, showing how the tension is expressed in different types of art, and showing the broader picture of value represented by the continental school of philosophy (including idealism, existentialism, postmodernism, romanticism, etc) vs. the analytic school of philosophy (including empiricism, rationalism, materialism, naturalism, etc.)