For the liberal philistine, there is some profit to be had in his indifference to art; for thereby he can seem open-minded and even magnanimous, of which he is then keen to boast. Consider the following, for instance:
I have always thought it to be a badge of liberal right-headedness to find it impossible to be offended by a work of art. [1]
Naturally one is never offended by those things to which one is indifferent, and if one cares nothing for art, but everything for the arrogation of magnanimity, then one can tolerate all depths of degeneracy—a badge therefore not of liberal right-headedness or generosity but of liberal indifference, fixed to a self-congratulatory and contented philistinism that is willing to sacrifice all things to the idol of tolerance.
.....There is no clearer sign of liberal philistinism than in its conception of art as little but a totem of tolerance—especially for those things by which it is hoped the sensibilities or convictions of its enemies are offended, as our rag-scribbler reveals:
[C]ontroversial art has a worth quite besides its quiddity. First, if it offends the bourgeois sensibility . . . Second, if it offends the bolder, more Nazi sensibility that any risqué subject matter will have a degenerate effect on its viewer. [2]
In the first, we glimpse a little of the infamy of liberal pretension and ingratitude; for liberalism was born of bourgeois sensibility, and is still maintained on its account. In the second, we glimpse a little of the liberal conceit by which a semblance of moral justification for its own indifference to decadence is sought in the defamation of its enemies. Alongside all this, however, is the sight of liberal hubris in the strange boast of being impervious to offence. For sure, the liberal-as-philistine may not care much for art, and can stand any degree of degeneration therein, but should you stand against his idol—in art or in life—you will learn that there is no-one on this earth who is quicker to take offence.
.....
[1] Zoe Williams, “Enraged by the apples”, The Guardian, 11th October 2006.
[2] Ibid.
6 comments:
Wasn't art criticism in the heyday of good art precisely about good and bad rather than the "everything goes" attitude one finds?
I would dare say, though, that should a leftist philistine find art that actually supports, say, such "Nazi" aspects like traditional values and confidence in one's culture, they'd be quite offended.
But you are right: their superiority, which in fact is but indifference, is quite grating and idiotic.
Your last sentence: Good one. Had to look a word up, but quite witty.
"I would dare say, though, that should a leftist philistine find art that actually supports, say, such "Nazi" aspects like traditional values and confidence in one's culture, they'd be quite offended."
Precisely.
Naturally one is never offended by those things to which one is indifferent
From which it doesn’t follow that the reason for the liberal refusal to be offended by art is indifference to it. Poets are liars, as Plato says; grown-ups know that it is best to maintain a critical distance from art as art.
Indeed, I shall go so far as to say that offending a liberal is as easy as falling off a wog.
Your cloven hoof is showing.
"From which it doesn’t follow that the reason for the liberal refusal to be offended by art is indifference to it."
Indeed it doesn't, but by those liberal philistines that are indifferent to it, offence will not be taken, by which they then might take the opportunity to appear open-minded or magnanimous or full of liberal principle, when really they just couldn't give a damn. That is what the post is about.
"Your cloven hoof is showing."
You're rather missing the point, don't you think?
Nevertheless, Cirdan, I have been giving some thought to that last line. Its whole point was to highlight the humbug (and dumb complacency) of persons such as Zoe Williams, who claim to be never (or very rarely) offended by art, and yet were such persons to be confronted by art that they find intolerant or racist, I have little doubt that they would be offended.
At university, I had several friends of this ilk who boasted to me that they were incapable of being offended, and this struck me as hubristic, especially as I was able quite easily to say something in reply that they found very offensive indeed. They had no problem offending anybody else - and extending their "open-mindedness" to things that were designed to offend the sensibilities of others - but their own sensibilities they considered sacred.
Still, I shouldn't be playing this kind of game, and I have come to think that the last line is gratuitous after all - simply meaning that it is unnecessary to make the point in so artless and crude a manner. I shall therefore remove it.
especially as I was able quite easily to say something in reply that they found very offensive indeed
Come on then, let's hear it.
Post a Comment