Jerry Monaco wrote:
>
>
> You know, you ask me why I hate good art and it is kind of funny because I once had the same reaction to some of Bert Brecht's opinions. I mean Brecht really hated Beethoven and I think he found much of German art pretentious.
>
> I don't know, maybe in some respects I do hate good art with some of the same reactions that Brecht had to Beethoven, who I love.
("Art" here means literature, but the argument is almost certainly applicable to other arts.) I think a hobby horse of mine may be relevant here (and also to John Thornton's last post). There is too damn much great art! I do not mean just good art. I mean there is too damn much of the very greatest art, so much too much that even the most voracious and powerful reader will have to find reasons for not reading a great deal of the greatest literary art. This would account, for example, for the 10% of disagreement among the artists John T has known.
The first person (at least in English) to notice this, I believe, was John Milton, and he dramatized the knowledge in the Temptation of Athens in _Paradise Regained_, in which the whole of ancient learning and philosophy is brushed aside as of no importance (for only those who already know the truth in a book can recognize it there, and if you already know, why read).
It is true that within those acculturated to a given historically determined decorum there is a remarkable agreement on the list of acceptable works. (John's 10% disagreement is probably not a bad guess at the margin of variation.) And it is probably worthwhile for historians to trace and analyze the elements of this large agreement.
Finally, back to what started this thread -- my reaction to Joanna's sniffing at Faulkner as "not in the same league" as Tolstoy. I would not argue that book A is better than book b -- but I would argue that it is idiosyncratic to exclude a given writer from the catalogue. In claiming that Faulkner & Tolstoy belong to the "same league" (we should probably have a better metaphor from some other field than professional athletics) I think one _can_ appeal to history and the general consensus of a number of readers. And that's where evidence must come from, not from analysis of the works. Analysis of the works only illustrates the argument from history, and provides material for chatter. And it is at least arguable that when all is said and done the chief purpose of art is to serve as conversation pieces.
Carrol