We all got a kick out of reading Gosson last class period and his ridiculous notions of the scandalously sinful problems caused by that dratted poetry. But, even as I was reading it in all its unintentionally hilarious condemnation, there was a serious undertone to it in the awareness that all forms of art are constantly under attack. Starting out with our dear Plato, he levels a direct attack on art (I’m using “art” as an all-inclusive term, representing visual art along with poetry, prose, and the works as well), and several of the other authors we’ve read have either been damning art or trying to defend it. This tension is something of an underlying layer to art that I imagine we will continue running into. The parties opposing art always seem to be concerned about the same issue: that art incites emotions, and these emotions can be dangerous. Plato was worried that art encouraged an emotional response, thus jerking the reigns from Reason’s charioteer and giving full power to the horses. Gosson was concerned that art was making people weak, indulgent, lazy, and sinful. This intense concern over the impact of art just goes to prove Sidney’s point: art is powerful. But this also makes it threatening in some people’s eyes, and therefore we have scores of defenses for art as well as for the artists who have had their works banned, burned, and blamed for social issues. Ironically, working alongside this notion that art incites unwanted action is also the stereotype that art is a lazy activity, and is simply that art is a waste of time. Instead of attending a worthless play, as Gosson argues, shouldn’t the people be cultivating their minds or seeking spiritual enlightenment? (I imagine Gosson would have had a fit if he’d known that in the 21st century, a little college in Spokane would synthesize Christianity and education and willingly devote an entire department to the study of literary art). Plato also agreed that art was worthless, a mere shadow of a shadow, which drew us further away from reality. And I think that both of these stereotypes about art still exist today. Consider the censorship that has existed in the past and still exists in many parts of the world. And even just consider how we English majors have to constantly justify our degrees while an engineering student need only state his or her major and be done with the matter. So what does that all have to do with literary criticism? I have no idea. But I think it’s a tension to be aware of, even when it’s not directly stated. That art is constantly trying to defend itself and prove its worth, and that there always seems to be someone out there who wants it destroyed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyIn6eay9Mw
ReplyDeleteThe link is from the Congressional indecency hearing after the 2004 Super Bowl. While indecent exposure is different than supporting the arts, I think the rhetoric of these hearings is at times uncomfortably close to Gosson's words as well as other Puritan speeches against immorality in the arts.
I agree with you Aubrey that art is powerful, and I agree with your description of the differences between Plato's concerns and Gosson's language. How interesting is it that art is again and again being pegged as the reason behind the ills of society. Art supports anarchy. Art drives the innocent into the arms of sin and doom.
While this is ridiculous, do you think there is any value in the questioning of art? I've been to several art exhibits that have offended me, and not that the point of art is appease me, but do you think art ever leans on crutch titles like propaganda or entertainment?
I absolutely think that there is a value in questioning art. There is a definite, intentional misuse of art for the sake of propaganda and entertainment, and some people just love to take the notion of “freedom of expression” as a free pass to insult, incite violence, and lure others into participating in their quirked out agendas (such as Joseph Goebbels’ disturbingly brilliant propaganda for Hitler’s Nazi regime). In my option, that stuff isn’t art, and it ought to be considered something of a tragedy that people blanket it under the term “art.” But even if we do have to deal with it as part of the “art” category, we can remember what Sidney says: it’s not the art that’s the problem, it’s the people misusing it or misinterpreting it. For example, how many dozens of horrible rap songs are there that support violence, drugs, and the subjugation of women? That is a misuse of art, and while I don’t think that anyone can specifically blame a song for an individual’s choices, this type of music/art gives a wrong impression. So basically, there is some really bad art out there that deserves to come under fire. Now, I think when it comes to attacking any piece of art, artist intent should probably come into play. If the artist is intentionally offending to point out a flaw in society, that’s one thing (think of Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” for example). But there are a lot of people out there who abuse art. Because of the power art has, I would think it needs to be treated carefully. As Aristotle says, art is a teaching tool, for we learn as we observe, and the artist has to be careful not to teach people the wrong way. In “Aurora Leigh,” Elizabeth Barrett Browning talks about the responsibility of the poet to use their art as a means of educating society, and as we can well see, not everyone does that. But to take de Pizan’s idea of “denouncing fire…just because some people are burnt by it” and apply it to a different situation, I would say that Gosson’s umbrella attack of all art is ludicrous (213).
ReplyDeleteAubrey,
ReplyDeleteI think you're right. There is great value in questioning art, and art has always been under attack. I think it's more interesting to look at the attackers and why they're attacking. The Puritans were threatened by any value system that was less than concrete and less than scriptural. Hmmm.