Art

Art as expression is fine and simple. While we might quibble over what expressions rise to the level of art, I still like the theory laid out by Keats. "Truth is beauty, beauty is truth." If you think about that, the simplicity and sublimity is dazzling. Like Keat's poetry, the beauty of the expression is couched in its simplicity and truthfulness. Any artwork should be considered in reference to the truthfulness of its expression.

This covers quite a bit of art one encounters and provides a certain amount of direction to the artist. It probably expands what a lot of people might consider art. I don't apologize for that. I think most people have a overly-narrow concept of what constitutes art. The only real problem is the definition of truth, with which is something we all will struggle. [At this point, I was ready to quit, but Cindy asked me Pilate's question, "What is truth?" So, I feel like, perhaps, I must go on.]

I have always thought that what Keats meant when he said that "truth is beauty" was that a work of art is art because it speaks the truth. This would mean that when you are watching a movie and there is a love scene or a scene of violence, you must gauge the scene and its relationship to the movie by whether or not the scene is truthful and necessary to the telling of the movie.

For instance, I remember going to see a movie called "The Air Up There." This movie was about an American basketball coach traveling to Africa in order to recruit a tall African for his college basketball team. At the beginning of the movie, there is a scene in which the college coaches are in the office of the head basketball coach and they are discussing travel to Africa to recruit this player. The scene is peppered with profanity. Now, I don't for one minute doubt that basketball coaches use profanity quite often. I seem to remember some of that when I played basketball in high school. However, the rest of the movie is very mild, and we never see the basketball coach curse at any other point in the movie. It was my opinion that the makers of the movie had the original scene put in the movie so that they could get a PG-13 rating, because otherwise the movie would definitely be a g-rated family picture. The falsity of the use of those words at the beginning of the movie was quite evident. The rest of the movie was true to its telling.

On the other hand, I enjoyed the movie, "The Commitments" which is set in working class Dublin. There is quite a bit of language in this movie, and other scenes which definitely protray the characters' lives and lifestyle. I really didn't have a problem with this because it was clear that the language, for these characters in this setting, was absolutely true. It was a good movie and I didn't have a problem with the language.

I do have a problem with using images and language just to shock for shock's sake. I understand that some use of language and depictions are necessary to convey to the reader or the viewer the sense of the plot and the movement of the action. But some movies and books seem to throw the images and the language in simply to get a reaction. That isn't art. That is pornography, in a sense. Even if it isn't pictures of nude people in suggestive poses or images or rough language.

Of course, everything becomes a matter of taste at some level. My wife has varying tastes in movies depending on who is watching the movie with her. Some movies seem to be good or bad depending on whether her husband is watching with her or her daughter. On the other hand, she has a real problem with cats and dogs cursing in mystery stories. I remember that from a mystery book I bought her which got thrown out pretty quickly thereafter.

I have the same problem with animals speaking in the forest at all. I was reading a novel called "The Forest" in which the book starts with the human characters discussing some matters which were later involved in the plot. In the next chapter, the writer depicted some deer discussing their recent escape from the local hunters. At that point, I laid the book down and set it aside.

Don't get me wrong. I have read some books in which the main characters were animals who thought and unfolded their feelings about the humans around them. One book, told from the viewpoint of Traveller, General Lee's horse, didn't present a problem for me at all. I understood that the writer was telling a story from the viewpoint of the horse.

But when you tell a realistic, supposedly historical story from the viewpoint of various human characters and then interpose a chapter where the animals in the forest speak, I lose it. It could be a matter of taste, but I think not. The truthfulness of the story suffered, in my opinion, by inclusion of the chapters in which the forest animals spoke. Just silly.

Once again, perhaps just a matter of taste. In my mind; however, the truthfulness of the telling is the important part. what kind of work is it? What is the writer trying to say? Is the telling truthful to the work? Is the work believable and truthful?