MGM has (or had — do they exist any more?) as its motto, Ars gratia artis … "Art for the sake of art." Which is very, if you will, artsy — we're not in it for the money, for the press, for the ratings, for the entertainment … we're in it for the art, dammit!
Of course, it's a lie — they are (were?) in it fort he money, the press, the ratings, the (if it contributes to the above) entertainment. That's why their big documentary was called "That's Entertainment!" not "That's Art!"
If there is a problem with art in this era — literature included — it is that it's so damned seriously artful and artsy and artistic. It's about being serious, and serious about it, and taking seriousness seriously. And the academic culture around art (including, especially, literature) is all about that seriousness. If it's not serious, then it's not worth it. It might be, perhaps, commercial. Though, of course, it's best if the really serious stuff is the stuff that gets commericial support and wouldn't your corporation like to sponsor our exhibit of "Dadism and the Kafkaesque Threat in Modern Post-Modern Feminist Novel" Glutin-Free Sculptures?
De puts it in even more understandable terms. Seriousness is not all. It's not even most.
Reshared post from +Doyce Testerman
Fantastic break-down of serious writing.
Embedded Link
The Wound at the Heart of Serious Literature
Yesterday I held a cooking party. (I’ll get the final recipes up soon, I promise.) People came over, drank, cooked, ate, talked, had fun. Every one of these I do, they get better. More fun. It takes a lot of work, a lot of hidden prep to make these things go off. An understanding of when to boss people around, and when to let fortunate accidents happen. When to sit down and do nothing, even. To whirl with the whirlwind, to find the stillness at t…
Google+: View post on Google+
Fun, in general, is vastly underrated.
I remember reading a post, once, by someone that was asking for help, in homeschooling their child. The complaint was that the child wasn't doing their work and was focusing on things that were more fun.
The first question that came out was "how are you teaching them?". I'll grant that it isn't always easy to homeschool – or draw, or write, or, anything – well. However, "fun" translates loosely to "learning in a safe environment". Impulse control is a separate issue, and maybe that's what the parent was trying to instill.
Still, too many people look down on fun. They don't respect what we're learning, or don't feel that it's of sufficient value to devote time to. I'm of the mind that more fun, in most circumstances, is a good thing.
I have to wonder how much of that is a combination of old style pedagogy (the only worthwhile study is grinding rote study, and if you're having fun then clearly you're not doing it right) and workplace ethics (Work! Work! Work! Fun is for those unemployed ragamuffins and slackers out there dying of typhoid and scurvy! Work!).
I think one of the advantages that an ostensibly more advanced civilization with leisure time and better understanding of how the brain works should give us is an appreciation for fun as being a goal in life and a useful way of getting stuff done.
Art for Art’s sake
Money for God’s sake
The artist’s lament.