What is literature? The text defines it as, "imaginative or
creative writing, especially of recognized artistic value." The key component of this definition, in my
view, is the requirement that literature be, "of recognized artistic
value." What are the standards by
which the intellectually well-endowed Poohbahs measure the literary offerings
of today? I fear that we live in an era
in which standards are unfashionable and individuality is preferable to the
recognition or acceptance of any universal unit of measure. The wisdom of the ages is considered folly to
the enlightened and summarily swept into the dustbin. After all, if we've learned anything from
"American Idol," it's that you need to make that song your own, even
if it is rendered unpleasantly unrecognizable in the process.
Of course, despite my own relative
ignorance, I understand that there can be no scientific classification system
that neatly categorizes works of art into their proper genus; however, it seems
there was once a skeleton, unique to each body of art that defined its shape to
some degree and provided a basic armature on which emerging artisans could
build. It is easy to draw a parallel
here to the visual arts, where the same debate rages over what constitutes art. Consider the cubism of Picasso. He breaks all the rules, but he does not do
so without a firm understanding of those rules.
First, he develops the traditional skills, as evidenced in the realism
of his earlier works, and then he deviates from the rules and has some
fun. We need to understand that a
respect for tradition is neither fear of nor an impediment to innovation. Instead, it is the flint from which the spark
of creative genius takes flight.
No comments:
Post a Comment