Reading John Gardner's On Moral Fiction, I found some ponderings on the purpose of art that strike me as profoundly true:
"Moral art in its highest form holds up models of virtue."
"Great art celebrates life's potential, offering a vision unmistakably and unsentimentally rooted in love."
"In art, morality and love are inextricably bound: we affirm what is good -- for the characters in particular and humanity in general -- because we care."
"True art [. . .] clarifies life, establishes models of human action, casts nets toward the future, carefully judges our right and wrong directions, celebrates and mourns. [. . .] It designs visions worth trying to make fact. [. . .] It strikes like lightning, or is lightning; whichever."
Therefore:
"We need to stop excusing mediocre and downright pernicious art."
5 comments:
Those are great observations! I continually struggle with a decent personal definition of what art is anyway, and Gardner's ideas seem insightful. Thanks for the post.
You would love this book, Scott! (Is it okay to tell *you* to buy books, too? :) )
Beth
Okay? Yes!
Safe?
Er, probably not. Too late, though.
Does Gardner discuss the difference between moral fiction and moralizing fiction? Sometimes the line between the two seems a bit thin.
Megan -- absolutely. He isn't the least bit interested in seeing fiction "moralizing" about life. He is concerned with fiction showing truth -- and truth is undeniably a moral issue.
Scott -- oh, good -- I can corrupt the whole family's economic system this way! :)
Thanks both of you for visiting --
Blessings,
Beth
Post a Comment