Literature and Art, good or bad?
As with good literature good art will evoke an emotional response. I have a large piece of paper with scribbles on it that I just love. I know it is odd but it is so. My wife hates it. The word she used for it was hideous. It must be good art because it evokes an emotional response. Many years ago I read Lois Lowry's, "The Giver." I was riveted by the story and hated it. I read the whole thing through and have not been able to read any of the sequel stories to it. There are others I know that love that story. The point is it evoked an emotional response. Just because I did not like it did not make it bad literature. It is actually very good literature. Because my wife does not like the artwork does not mean it is bad. We all have different tastes but if there is an emotional response of some kind I am sure it is better than above average. If it captivates, enthralls, entrances it must be good. If it repulses, horrifies or aggravates it must be good. What makes art or literature poor? Whether literature or art if it does not evoke an emotional response I think that is what makes it poor. Mediocre works just stagnate and stall, taking the observer or reader nowhere.
If “good art will evoke an emotional response” Then all evil art will not evoke an emotional response? Perhaps the word effective is more in line, is it good as in effective not as good the opposite of evil. Not that a dislike of any work of art or literature makes it evil or bad or ineffective as you said.
ReplyDeleteThank you for that clarification. I do agree.
ReplyDelete