The First in the Reviews of Art

The exams are over and you would all probably have been, because of my horrendous infrequence in updating, entertaining either the possibility that I got messed up by the recent bombings in the London Underground or that I have broken totally new grounds in a human being's current state of mental atrophy. It's actually the latter, even though I did start the holidays in high spirits, especially since I had given a performance of my abilities on the piano (or lack thereof) which seemed to be quite a hit with everyone present. Yet it's been more than 2 weeks since the exams ended, and more than 2 weeks of playing the same 3 songs can get a bit boring. And neither the inaccessibility of the computer to me due to it being under near constant use by others nor being a night owl is helping much. And if there's one thing I can't do, it's the mastery of my emotions. Often this leads to a great zest for doing a many things, yet equally often transforms me into a serious sop-so it was that boredom settled in and for some most annoying reasons just doesn't seem to want to leave. But I'm sure we all know the above idle banter are all but excuses. So let's continue with this entry proper.

In the first chapter of John Carey's book "What Good are the Arts", the author attempts to define what exactly is a work of art. He eventually comes up with the answer that anything that anyone chooses to call a work of art is a work of art. Interesting definition, by and large, and one that I would like to try and discuss in this entry.

The question on what exactly a work of art is a philosophical question. Many other philosophical questions also ask for the definition of some elusive subject; life and consciousness being some of the most popular ones being asked. And from what I've been seeing definition questions are the dodgiest ones of them all. Consider the question "What is a Chair"-which I hear YJC Lit teacher Mr Steven Sim once tried out on his students...

A: So what is a chair?
B: Why, a chair is something that you sit on, of course!
A (sits down on floor) : So am I sitting on a chair?
B: Oh-no-ok, a chair is...a wooden structure that you sit on, comprised of 4 legs and...
A (sits on wooden table) : Like this?
B: No! OK well, it's got a back rest along with it's 4 legs...
A: But the so-called chairs in lecture theatres all stand only on a single beam of iron and don't have legs! Is it then wrong to call them chairs?
B: Fine! So a chair doesn't need to have legs! It should have a back-rest though....
A: Sofas have back-rests. What differentiates chairs from them?
B: Well...material! Sofas are more comfortable, because they have something stuffed in them which makes them softer.
A: But the seat at my computer has cushion stuffed into it, and I think it's quite comfortable. Yet I am told it is called a chair!
B: !?
A: And the things in airplaines most people sit on...stuffed full of soft things...doesn't sound right to call them chairs though does it? Seats, maybe? Aircraft seats?
B: !??!?!??!?!??
A: All that you are mentioning are but antithetitcal properties of a chair, you see...

The conversation could go on for ages. The final supposedly "correct" answer, if my memory serves me correctly, is that a chair is what mankind has, since the birth of the word "chair", defined as being one. Sounds alot like the definition Carey came up with doesn't it? Brilliant. Nothing could have being any less clearer! Furthermore, what we are trying to define here isn't even a term like "The Arts" whose definition has being the point of contention for quite some time, but a simple everyday object like a chair-and everyone is supposed to know what a chair is! Of course there is no need to come up with such a precise definition of what EXACTLY a chair is, and whether we call those thingies in airplanes chairs, seats or even sofas is of little relevance. To define the term "Work of Art", however, is a much more pertinent and difficult question, yet we are faced not only with this problem of precision but also a problem of vastly differing opinions. You see, as Carey said, although few would contest Hamlet or Beethoven Symphonies as being "Works of Art", many other things are being termed "Works of Art" even though their appearance hardly suggests it. The Tate Modern bought a can of the Italian artist Piero Manzoni's excretement, for example, and the Tate Modern is a distinguished London art gallery which though I have visited, have yet to catch sight of excretement lying in any place outside the toilets. Actually I didn't visit their toilet bowls either, but that's beside the point.

I did attempt to come up with my own answer, creating the following before I saw Carey's own. A work of Art, I expostulated, is anything anyone can clearly explain why exactly the said object is and should be considered a work of Art. Reasons for this may vary immensely, though the best works of Art, it seems, seem to arouse heightened emotions in their viewers.

That last bit on emotion was added because the quotes at the beginning of the book did indeed suggest it. They are "sacred", "breathe spiritual dispositions into us", "the visible appearance of God's kingdom on earth". It was interesting to note that I somewhat agreed with Carey, mine being a somewhat more precise version. I'll try to explain my specifics though. Anyone who is able to call something "a work of art" probably aleady has some aesthetic inkling in him/her to be able to understand and use the term in the first place, I'd think, and is thus probably able to justify his choice. Yet even though I added this bit so that the term "Art" wouldn't be misused, I suspect there will still be much contention on what is and isn't worthy of the term, considering how our emotions are the one thing on earth that is most susceptible to change. For me, I shall stick to my definition. But Carey's version has reminded me that "every man is entitled to his own opinion" could never be truer anywhere else, and if anyone's arguement strays into the world of emotions, as it inevitably will considering the nature of the topic, I will accept the person's decision as his/hers even if I don't agree-even if he calls that pile of...brown in front of us a splendid towering spiral shaped like a majestic pagoda, emitting scents that smell better than any of the spices or perfumes of the earth, tempting him to eat it more than that of the most fragarant dish that he has ever smelt or tasted...

Hence welcome, dear readers, to the absurd realm of relativity. For myself, however, whenever I come across some things I feel may be worth cosdiering for artistic value (and maybe even the ones that blatantly do not), I shall use the space on this blog to pen my thoughts regarding it. Here, I will be on the lookout for tastefully and stylishly-created works that do not need to use cheap run-on-the-mill material to gain popularity. The material should also prefarably be thought-provoking and an be an overall joy to read or watch. I shall try to base my decisions on these criteria where possible, and try my best to avoid straying into the realm of the emotional. Let us hence without further ado start our discussion on Harry Potter-my old Literary flame. Indeed, I once termed it another piece of Aliternative Literature, and the Harry in my online alias was inspired from it. Though my passions were nearly destroyed from the 5th book, I decided to give Rowling another chance with the arrival of the 6th. At present I have finished the first 14 chapters, but will try to base my discussions on my general knowledge of the series.

The storyline is so far enchanting, posessing much of the magnetic holding power that has defined the rest of the series. Indeed, much of this probably is probably owed to the creation of a world that feels amost as real as oursa main highlight of the book and definitely not an easy feat, no? I was unable to discern any Literary value in the book, however, until I looked at some past exam questions from a Literature set text The Return of the Native(ROTN). "Harry is potrayed as being an evolving character who, although fictional, is, like any typical person in the real world, plagued by as many pressures with the most notable stemming from his growing up." There-but I'm not making this a list of possible exam questions on Harry Potter. Indeed, I am beginning to think that many things out there that posess substantial Literary value. Admittedly for each that does there probably is one that posesses none, but I think all we need to do in many cases is simply look.

Admittedly enough a story cannot be perfect, and a gripe I have against this is the content about Harry's direct reactions to Ginny's flirtations with Dean. To some they probably spice up the story even more, and I suppose well...on the grounds that he is growing up it is explainable. But unlike the issue on how the family was annoyed with Fleur's imminent marriage to the extent that it initiated jokes, this to me felt forced in. I am prepared to bet that Rowling's primary motivavion to include this was the countless fanfictions up on the net that narrated a love story between their favourite couple. Indeed, correct me if I am wrong but this is but a side story which the story could have pretty much done without. It takes up valuable storytelling space that does not involve the main plot, should be removed, and is one part of the story, that being crass and superficial commercialism, is not Art.

It is altogether possible, however, that one questions the wisdom of my decision. Why is love singled out and not, for example, the humour? Heck, the whole story is a commercialised ploy if you say it that way! Furthermore, ROTN's ending was addled precisely because the readers wrote in to request for a happy ending was it not? Should you then not be calling ROTN a work of art? Well, even the author of ROTN himself admitted to such an act, and directly stated that "those with a more austere artistic code can assume the more consistent conclusion to be the correct one." Hence I suppose i, with my "austere artistic code" I would indeed have liked to see Hardy's original ending. As for the bit on commercialism, that is indeed a relevant accusation-that most "works of art", when it all boils down to it, is done to help earn the person money. To stay true to one's instincts and write with a flavour that is uniquely hers, however, is something that I do doubt Rowling did. Her flavour, as demonstrated in the first 3 books, is to create a gripping tale of suspense and mystery for Harry Potter in a uniquely-crafted world. It is not to write a romance novel. Of course, a fan of this part of the story may even and ask why I think the love is crass. This is where the problems of the world of relativity start coming in. Perhaps it is my fault, but I do not believe words will avail me to come up with a satisfactory arguement outright. It is likely that that fan will be unable to come up with a satisfactory arugement as to why love should not be termed crass however, and the only answer I can then find is because it is down to our irrational mental preferences. In which case, as I have earlier said, that neither is wrong. If, however, I am wrong, you are welcome to post your views.

It thus seems logical that a definition of Art is relative-because we are all made differently, with different preferences. I stand with what I have said about Harry Potter for now, however, and summarize my decision. For the most part, it is indeed Art. But for a small bit, it, to me, is not.

Thus completes the first of my writings on the arts. Now, my faithful readers, who have not give up on me even after a more than 3-week-long absence, I want you all to tell me which thing you want me to look at next!
-The TV Serial Desperate Housewives.
-The Animes One Piece and Bleach.
-The one that without which this blog would have probably not have born at all-Card Captor Sakura. (Ha! Thought I'd leave this one out did you?)
-Assorted works of "Art" that I saw during my visit to the Tate Modern.

The tagboard is open as usual. Responses will be answered more quickly than this entry took to come out, considering my brother proves less stubborn like he's been recently. Besides, writing this and reading HP6 is not exactly promoting any more atropy. Anyways, it's really late-or maybe you'd consider it early-see when words start screwing around with you!-it's 4.40am here-there! Nice and simple. Time for bed!