|
I know, you'll start heaving big sighs after the first couple of sentences, but believe me, this is something you and I have to sort out once and for all. The greater the doggedness with which the mind hangs on to the clarity of the familiar, the more exhaustively the alternatives have to be articulated, no matter how bizarre they are. Let's assume for the sake of the argument that someone, somewhere succeeds in elevating his quality criteria to, why not, legal status, sanctions and all, thus enabling him to forbid artists to produce inferior art. Whenever I read negative reviews I always have the feeling that if the author had his way, he'd push the objects of his or her reviews to the point of them never again indulging in similar detested work, on penalty of legal sanctions or, better still, a proper caning. Of course the nib aches at having to write these words out loud, but what other consequence could there possibly be for those who are deemed to fall short of the quality mark? If it isn't the critic's intention to put off the whole world from buying that particular book, CD or painting, what is it that he wants to achieve? That the artist should stop working altogether, or that he should from now on confine himself to producing what the critic likes? And what is it all those selection committees want, or do they subscribe to the straightforward doctrine that society is what you make it rather than spending time considering these issues? Just blank out everything that is deemed inappropriate, causing the unwelcome makers to starve to death in isolation, and the world has been saved. Nothing could be easier. Yet again it is the revulsion syndrome that foils all those angry cultural critics, all those selection committees of grant awarding institutions and art fairs whose moral indignation has caused them to lose the plot. Wouldn't it be helpful if all of them could be rounded up in a large conference building, where they could observe one another fiercely engaged in role play, with the gruesome scenario outlined above all but materialising for a fleeting moment while at the same time the role of the victims has to be acted out as well. And yet I doubt whether this would have the appropriate chastening effect - after all, the incapacity of the losing battle is not something to be trifled with. Which leaves just the one option: that of a straightforward workshop in non-violent revulsion. Head firmly chained up, eyelids propped open, staring and staring at the little boy with the tear-stained face until the same tears are trickling down the cheeks of the shackled observer … |
BACK