Jerry wrote:
>[...]Art is in part an aspect of our necessity to delude ourselves. [...] All art is systematically misleading because it gives us false narratives and false meanings where there can't be any. [...] Art helps us to invent meaning to deceive ourselves
>[...]I don't believe that that the "truth value" of art is anything but harmful to artistic creation. [...] I believe that art provides us with illusions, disillusions, and delusions. One of the important functions of art is [...]to deceive us into thinking that we are something that we are not.
>
sorry to butcher your reasoning. but all of the above statements, to me, say nothing about art. they are all an apology - and a pretty pessimistic if not downright reactionary one - for ideology.
>You don't need good art to tell the truth. Bad art can also help an
>oppressed class or people to understand the world.
>
good art is truth. bad art isn't. (and don't mistake me here for being some kind of elitist or art snob - buffy has it's moments). the ability to clearly distinguish good from bad exists and that is what i have been trying to underscore throughout this debate. bad art - if valorized by those in authority or if it simply exists in the relative market-based realm of "art is ultimately all a matter of personal taste"- does precisely the opposite of your contention. it prevents the oppressed from understanding the world.