On Terrible Art.

Let it never be said that I'm fair and even handed when talking about art I like or dislike. I can put together a fair and pretty objective description of an album, movie or book, and I've had enough experience (with movies and music at least) to know the basics of the language and describe them in a way that other fans would understand, but that isn't liking or disliking something. The enjoyment you derive from something is completely subjective and largely pretty capricious. You could make the argument that it's more about the precise and unique mix of specific elements than the specific elements themselves and that you could potentially enjoy anything, but then it would make a nonsense of analysis of art in the first place. Not every artist is unique and there are a whole bunch of forms that art conforms to, yet people's tastes can run the gamut from completely exclusive to one form all the way to liking basically everything you experience. Your taste in anything subjective is subject to so many internal and external factors that trying to pin down who would like what and why is an exercise in futility.

From an analytical perspective it's a huge bother, but from an "enjoying life and experiencing new thoughts and emotions" perspective, it really makes appreciation of art one of the best things you can do with your time. Whether passively absorbing something or actively thinking about or participating in the creation of something artistic, it's pretty much a part of everyone's life, you can't avoid it. Hell, as you read this right now, you're taking part in said process. However, what this also means is that discussions about the quality or perceived value of a piece of art are about as stupid a thing to do as trying to figure out just how many apples you'd need to make an orange. Sure, it's interesting and fun, but it doesn't necessarily go anywhere or mean anything.

From a purely objective standpoint, "Hit Me Baby One More Time" by Britney Spears is just as important and influential as anything done by The Smiths or Nirvana. That's my hypothesis and I'm sticking to it. Hell, I remember being filled with tremendous disappointment when an ex-girlfriend considered The Vengaboys to have been a more important group than Smashing Pumpkins in the 90s. At the time, I implored her to at least listen to Siamese Dream, or concede that they had more integrity and talent, but looking back, that was retarded. For one thing, she didn't like rock, she liked bubblegum pop and dance-y stuff, so even if she did listen to the record, odds are she would have told me it was too distorted, too depressing and she hated Billy Corgan's voice. As much as I'd like to think I'm on the all important cusp of whatever is new and fantastic, the fact is, as long as people are listening to, absorbing the message or aesthetics of and telling other people about a certain song, it's important.

That's kinda disheartening, isn't it? You'd like to think that stuff you find to suck is somehow objectively sucky and that you picked it, even though no-one ever defines what it means for something to suck in the first place. You can bitch about the execution or the message or the budget or whatever, but in the end, people still saw Transformers and were excited for the sequels. That shit made money, despite the fact that anyone with even the most paltry education in the art of cinema could tell you exactly what it did wrong.

Any time I write a review of something, or even express my opinion on it, there should be a big, unspoken caveat to all of it that reads something like "Every view expressed on this subject is, at its core, based on something purely subjective anyway, so all discussion is done for the enjoyment of discussion, not some sort of universal taste precedent." Yeah, you could spend hours extolling the virtues or failings of a particular piece, but in the end, that's still just technical stuff that has no bearing on how much an individual person may enjoy it. Sure, YOU might only like movies that are well shot from a technical perspective and written with the grace and delicate touch of a truly talented and educated writer, but something shit could just as easily turn out to be a classic... sometimes things are greater because of their flaws, rather than in spite of them; pretty much the entire 90's alt rock scene was built on relatively poor production, unusual equipment and a rejection of technical excellence, yet I'm listening to Failure right now.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, unless you're me, your taste in everything is shit and you'll never convince me otherwise.