the context of criticism

this post is with regards to a few nagging questions regarding art and criticism that have been plaguing me for the past few days after a recent discussion. the debate was with regards to the context in which art is conceived of and created and the notion of the audience it is meant to address. for some people the context seems like the determining factor- the context in which it is created.

like regarding a discussion about baudelaire i had a few months back. to me it was great love poetry; to the other person it could only be felt if it was seen in the context of the paris of the times. i could not fathom this need to frame everything within a strict framework of rights and wrongs. i understand the need to contextualize to be able to understand, but to say that it was the only way to appreciate was to me a little unforgiving.

a similar discussion but rather more violent ensued a few days back regarding the notion of ‘high’ vs ‘popular’ art. it was seen to be ‘postmodern obfuscation’ to demand that art be able to transcend simplistic ‘binaries’. (i use the terms of the debate- so please forgive) i was told that there is a space for straightforward storytelling as that’s what is easy for most people to relate to.

in other words i was accused of being a cultural elitist by liking art that might be complex but therefore more difficult to understand. i wonder whether then we are being patronizing to the audience that we say can only understand things in easy sized bites. like little chunks of easy to use political wisdom. not only did this anger me no end, but also there was in built in it a gibe of my predilection towards lets say ‘high’ art. i was told to patronize or rather like work that was made merely because it did get made- in spite of hardships. it seems that to appreciate a work of art one must be able to see it in the place and time (and budget) it was made in. like a 30 crore film and a 30,000 rupee film can be compared only when their budget is kept in mind. art can have no autonomous presence- or speak to one only when one understands the constraints of the creator.

when i asked whether that would mean that of the two films, 30 crore and 30,000- both being equally bad- i would have to like the cheaper one (because it was politically correct to) i was told- ‘yes, merely because it got made’. i am sorry but i have to aim my own tastes a little higher than that. poor people make good art while rich people make bad is a silly argument that harks back to the times that mao’s cultural revolution destroyed ancient buildings and scriptures because they represented bourgeois ideology that needed to be over thrown.

then there was this other little irritating point. the fact that actually the art that needs patronizing in an age where the state is disinvesting from institutions of culture is actually the ‘classical’ and not the ‘popular’. if a need exists to encourage critical cultural production then it is these experimental (and often difficult) works that must be encouraged by buying a ticket, watching and spreading the word.

so sue me for liking tarkovsky.