The Heuristics of the Mystics Wednesday, June 15, 2005

The good folks at Outside the Dome got me thinking about an aesthetic question that I figured I'd throw open to the globe-spanning audience here at Wrong Turn Journal: Where do you draw the line between "smart and stylish" and "pretentious" art?

I'm sure I've talked about this before, mostly in the context of sci-fi movies and public-radio rock music. And I know that it's going to come down to de gustibus. But I'm curious to hear what you all have to say. What are some fine-line examples for you: music, movies and books that just make the cut on the right side, or just fail to? And do you see any common threads among those examples: qualities that make a piece of work seem pretentious, or save it from that trap?

I'm curious about this because I think it says something interesting about personality types and aesthetics. Just to guess, I'd say most people who answer this will say they like stuff from all over the spectrum; but that the favorites tend to cluster at the lowbrow and highbrow end. For instance, I know that the giant brain over at Outside the Dome digs straight-to-tape android-kickboxing movies, but also has lots of love for Monte Hellman, who is not exactly a nachos-and-Sno Caps kind of guy.

I suspect the answer has to do with authenticity-as-aesthetic-virtue. We (meaning thirtysomething genre hounds and fevered aesthetes) want our artists to be honest above all else. Olivier Gruner and Monte Hellman may be light-years apart but they're never anything but straightforward.

Of course, that doesn't account for irony, self-referencing and all the other eyes of newt that end up in the pop cauldron. Which is why I want to hear from you! Theories and examples, please.

@ 7:16:00 AM,

1 Comments:

At 8:07 PM, Blogger Aaron said...

Lately, I draw this line based on where the art goes counter to expectations -- meaning (For theater, for instance) where it becomes intentionally confusing or hard to follow or (for music) where it becomes atonal or dissonant.

I tend to think that art that does this for no discernible reason other than to be different or to, I think, flag itself as "art" as opposed to "pop" is pretentious. Art where you retroactively realize when you're done with it why the artist made the choice (and where the artist leaves enough breadcrumbs for you to figure it out -- I can't stand the whole 'that was just what I felt, man' explanation for obfuscational art)... when you feel the intellectual or emotional reward for seeing or understanding or embracing it, then I think it's really good stuff.

When I feel like the artist is sharing with me, I'm happy (even when what is being shared is uncomfortable or difficult or takes me a lot of work to figure out). When I feel like the artist is subjecting me to something, I'm unhappy.`

 

Post a Comment

<< Home