[Update: this generated some discussion at the LDS film yahoo group and a lot of discussions turning into four or five threads at the Association for Mormon Letters. I’ll probably gather notes and summarize the discussions here.]

Following is a discourse on the nature of man’s love and hate for art, and art itself. It is based on comments I have actually heard (but whose origin I sincerely forget), but taken into a different setting. Note my blatantly religious assumptions.


Supposing two people are talking about film. In the course of the conversation, the first says: “This film is art. That film is merely a series of shots.” This would be an elaborate way of saying he likes one film and not another, but the statement has very negative effects.

Look closely at this statement. It implies without saying it that the other film is not art. But film is an art form, and films have series of shots edited together. The implication that the second film is not art is glaringly false - then why so craftily make such an obviously false assertion? It leads away from the idea that it is art by a dark contrast. If this film is art but that film is only a series of shots, maybe that film isn’t art. Nonsense. And with this implication - if we ever even get beyond the confusion the obviously false contrast generates, where we are left to wonder just what he means and whether it means this - comes the fear of the unknown; if it’s not art, what is it? It is unfair to cause questions of whether it is art. If the implication is intended, it’s a blatant redefinition of terms, because the implication goes against an inarguable, dictionary definition of film: “A form of entertainment that enacts a story by a sequence of images..” It is well and widely established that films are an art form. Then film being art, and a definition of art being something beautiful, here it is implied in the negative that this other film is not beautiful. If this art is not beautiful to the first man, should it then be ugly to the second? Would this redefinition of art mandate that it be absolutely so? For if it is not art, it cannot either be beautiful, or at least, we are led to severely wonder whether it is. The effect is that it must then be ugliness to the second man, which is an usurpation of his authority to think and judge for himself - let alone that it discourages his self-expression in an environment ironically very uninviting of beauty.

If the ugliness of this situation is ignored, the second man’s view will either fall by the wayside or never be spoken at all. Then again, even if the ugliness of the situation is not ignored, it may get even uglier unless the preposterous redefinition of terms is retracted - or forcibly overturned. The whole setup is antagonistic. If the first man loves a film and says “This is art”, then the second man who does not love the film, if he is to be understood on the firsts terms, must say “No, it isn’t.” It’s all a smokescreen obscuring the fact that either of them are talking about what they love vs. not. Far be it from men to talk about feelings, I guess. Or the second man could see from the outset, and from sad experience with such utterly nonsensical assertions, that it is completely unrealistic - and not engage such a truly stupid dialogue. If it is art only because the first man loves it, and anything that he does not love is not art, the definition makes a liar and a mockery of anyone who will love something the first does not. Removing the question of affections from the definition makes the whole definition a lie, because affections speak truly both for and against everything. This whole setup puts mere, relative aesthetics in a falsely grand, falsely objective arena. It is vain. It is idolatry - placing affection for abstractions and objects above other people’s affections. It has the effect of placing one’s own view on the table exclusively and ahead of the views of others. It is exclusive on a false pretext, it lays ground for deriding others, it is divisive, it is false, it is repugnant.

A person may like art or not like art, but if I am in the arena, no one says that anything is not art. I like knowing what people love - that to me is the only use in any Score, Rank, Weight, or Measure of anything. I like lists of favorites and ratings and compliments such as “artsy” for what they convey - that people love a work. When we get into the game of whether something is objectively art or not, or objectively great or not, we are leading ourselves into contention and hell.

There is a complication - a contradiction. If the definition of art is something that someone loves, it is logical to say that something no one loves is not art. The answer to this dilemma is that it cannot be proven no one loves a work. Can we prove the uncounted and as yet unborn hosts of heaven yet to come to earth do not love something? Or the dead who have passed before and watch our petty arguments with bafflement? Can we even prove that no one on earth loves something? No. Then everything, absolutely everything that anyone makes for the intent is art. This definition is hopeful - it leaves room open to believe that someone may love a work of art, even if one or many do not. The opposing view is despair. For if we can neither prove that no one loves something or someone will love something, which should we rest our belief in? If it isn’t proven, where should our speculation lie? In the realm of the unproven I would choose hope over despair.

I’ve worked up a set of observations relating to this and other things. The first is adapted from dictionary definitions of art.

I. Any work contrived by man for the purpose of communicating, expressing beauty, or entertaining is art.

II. A work of art which one man loves another man hates. Loves and hates for art have origin in two things. The first origin responds to the perception of Truth or Fallacy: the thoughts, feelings or ideas which art communicates. The second origin responds to Aesthetics: the manner of creating sounds, colors, forms, movements, words, emotions, or other elements to communicate.

III. Those Aesthetics which God has given us draw us to Him if our Aesthetic matches that expressed in a work of art concerning Truth. If the art concerns Fallacy, it moves us away from God.

IV. A work of art that does not contain an aesthetic common to its audience is going to have a very difficult time getting through.

V. Whereas one man’s Aesthetic is not always another’s, there is no universal or objective Aesthetic.

VI. The only universal communication is Truth. It may be that in heaven the only universal Aesthetic is Truth. If this is true, it suggests that one should try to embrace as many aesthetics in connection with Truth that one can.

VII. Because there is no universal or objective Aesthetic, any measure that has the effect of marginalizing another man’s Aesthetic is operating under Fallacy.

Note on II: The completely abstract can effect truth by moving the beholder into a humbled detachment from themselves, which detachment may invite new ideas and Truth. This is noted by the devil Screwtape in C.S. Lewis’ THE SCREWTAPE LETTERS. Also, L. Ron Hubbard has argued that excellent craftsmanship (Aesthetics) is the sole constitution of excellent art. That leaves out concerns of Truth or Fallacy and is therefore rubbish. I say this fully aware that I disagree with the man who founded the Writers of the Future contest (which I aspire to enter).

There is much more that flows from this I am sure, but I haven’t bothered pontificating on it..