aesthetics + the morality of authenticity
This is a bit of an exploratory post. A whole range of recent concerns seem to be crystalising into a theory I may try to explore further. It is something like this:
The idea of authenticity in art can be very fraught. Most famously in the last century Bob Dylan was attacked for selling out when he 'went electric'. What for Dylan may have been an aesthetic or practical decision, a new fascination, a return to an earlier love, or a combination of some or all of these, seemed to become for some fans a moral choice.
I can only speculate since I was only a small child toward the end of the folk revival but I suspect part of the appeal may have been similar to the attractions of noise now. That is that its roughness and weirdness compared to the smooth blandness of the mainstream made it appear unassimilable by that mainstream. I have to admit that this is at least part of the attraction of a lot of the art I like, from Derek Jarman through Henri Chopin.
But although there's clearly an aesthetic preference for something that is less familiar and harder to 'read' here there are also other factors at work. One of which is to take what might be read as an oppositional, or at least resistant, tendency in the work as a moral stance. To assume that because a featureless sameness is being resisted the artist has supposedly 'purer' moral concerns than a desire for success, financial reward, or even aesthetic curiosity and restlessness.
What started to bring these ideas together was the programme on Oliver Postgate that BBC Four showed yesterday. Now some of the connections are obvious - Postgate's socialism, the handmade nature of his films, a love of the countryside - but there was something more intangible. Now I don't suppose I've really begun to pin it down, but I think that intangibility lies somewhere outside of the form a piece of work takes (its aesthetic) and outside of its content. The content might well be moral, but has absolutely no need to be, and the aesthetic has no inherent morality of its own. But between them, intangibly, and where a lot of the perceived morality lies when the art is current, is the perceived intention.
The perceived intention may be made explicit by the artist or it may be presumed, especially where the content appears moral. Although of course that morality may primarily be there as a matter of aesthetic (or even pragmatic commercial) concern. But because the perceived morality is so intangible, may be primarily a shared impression of a relatively small group of artists and lovers of art, it is very personal to each individual. It is in a sense mainly in their head. That makes any perceived betrayal all the more painful.
That intangible perceived intention outside the aesthetic and the content of a piece of work appears to be an interesting area for exploration. You may hear more on this from me.
The idea of authenticity in art can be very fraught. Most famously in the last century Bob Dylan was attacked for selling out when he 'went electric'. What for Dylan may have been an aesthetic or practical decision, a new fascination, a return to an earlier love, or a combination of some or all of these, seemed to become for some fans a moral choice.
I can only speculate since I was only a small child toward the end of the folk revival but I suspect part of the appeal may have been similar to the attractions of noise now. That is that its roughness and weirdness compared to the smooth blandness of the mainstream made it appear unassimilable by that mainstream. I have to admit that this is at least part of the attraction of a lot of the art I like, from Derek Jarman through Henri Chopin.
But although there's clearly an aesthetic preference for something that is less familiar and harder to 'read' here there are also other factors at work. One of which is to take what might be read as an oppositional, or at least resistant, tendency in the work as a moral stance. To assume that because a featureless sameness is being resisted the artist has supposedly 'purer' moral concerns than a desire for success, financial reward, or even aesthetic curiosity and restlessness.
What started to bring these ideas together was the programme on Oliver Postgate that BBC Four showed yesterday. Now some of the connections are obvious - Postgate's socialism, the handmade nature of his films, a love of the countryside - but there was something more intangible. Now I don't suppose I've really begun to pin it down, but I think that intangibility lies somewhere outside of the form a piece of work takes (its aesthetic) and outside of its content. The content might well be moral, but has absolutely no need to be, and the aesthetic has no inherent morality of its own. But between them, intangibly, and where a lot of the perceived morality lies when the art is current, is the perceived intention.
The perceived intention may be made explicit by the artist or it may be presumed, especially where the content appears moral. Although of course that morality may primarily be there as a matter of aesthetic (or even pragmatic commercial) concern. But because the perceived morality is so intangible, may be primarily a shared impression of a relatively small group of artists and lovers of art, it is very personal to each individual. It is in a sense mainly in their head. That makes any perceived betrayal all the more painful.
That intangible perceived intention outside the aesthetic and the content of a piece of work appears to be an interesting area for exploration. You may hear more on this from me.
Comments