Great essay! And I'm definitely on your side in the debate. One irony that occurred to me is that while Mark Rothko's work is often held up as a prime example of "Modern/postmodern art is a charade!," it is in a sense exactly what it sounds like Scott Alexander wants to see more of: it is raw sensory experience, with all narrative and context stripped away. If someone loves Rothko, it's not because of some sort of _understanding_ of the _meaning_ of it, but purely for the richness of the visual sensation it offers.
To be fair, I didn't read Alexander's article -- I'm just going off of your summary of it. So I don't know if Alexander even trashes Rothko, or if Rothko is just an example you brought in to the discussion. But assuming that, in any case, there is similar work that Alexander fails to see as providing raw sensory beauty even though it ... well... DOES, I wonder if this reveals a mindset that claims to decry art that relies on context, when perhaps instead the art that this mindset decries is connected to certain KINDS of contexts that the critic doesn't appreciate, while the art that is lauded by such critics relies on OTHER kinds of context that they happen to like, and/or don't even realize is present.
I think you raise a great point, and to be fair to Scott, he doesn’t mention Rothko, although he makes some of the off hand remarks in the “I could have done that” vein that often come from folks who do. So I don’t mean to suggest he is saying something he’s not, but I am sort of lumping him in with a larger group for the same of my argument. That said I think your assessment has merit. People who want to believe they’re simply being moved by the art itself, are often failing to account for the way they’re also being moved by (and as you point out) also have a preference for a specific context.
To extend this argument, accusing critics of lying when they praise modern art, or postmodern art, or whatever someone's bugbear is, is a dangerous view for so-called defenders of art and beauty to embrace. A regular person unfamiliar with high art, if asked to listen to Bach or watch KING LEAR or read MIDDLEMARCH, might sincerely think, "That's a boring waste of time—who'd want to do that?". Does that honest opinion prove that critics who like these things are dishonest snobs? I would be bored to tears watching football, but I don't (usually) think sports fans are nuts for liking what they like.
Whenever I can be bothered, I try to ask, "What happens if I take something seemingly un-artistic and look for the value in it?"—in short, to change the narrative frame around it. The French New Wave insisted on celebrating "popular" filmmakers like Hitchcock; the Romantics admired Shakespeare for all the eccentricities that neoclassical critics condemned; the MCU has taught me at least as much about cinema and art as watching "great" films has. I think William Blake put it best: maybe the best, or at least most fun, way to look at art is to try "To see a world in a grain of sand/And a heaven in a wild flower".
Great essay! And I'm definitely on your side in the debate. One irony that occurred to me is that while Mark Rothko's work is often held up as a prime example of "Modern/postmodern art is a charade!," it is in a sense exactly what it sounds like Scott Alexander wants to see more of: it is raw sensory experience, with all narrative and context stripped away. If someone loves Rothko, it's not because of some sort of _understanding_ of the _meaning_ of it, but purely for the richness of the visual sensation it offers.
To be fair, I didn't read Alexander's article -- I'm just going off of your summary of it. So I don't know if Alexander even trashes Rothko, or if Rothko is just an example you brought in to the discussion. But assuming that, in any case, there is similar work that Alexander fails to see as providing raw sensory beauty even though it ... well... DOES, I wonder if this reveals a mindset that claims to decry art that relies on context, when perhaps instead the art that this mindset decries is connected to certain KINDS of contexts that the critic doesn't appreciate, while the art that is lauded by such critics relies on OTHER kinds of context that they happen to like, and/or don't even realize is present.
I think you raise a great point, and to be fair to Scott, he doesn’t mention Rothko, although he makes some of the off hand remarks in the “I could have done that” vein that often come from folks who do. So I don’t mean to suggest he is saying something he’s not, but I am sort of lumping him in with a larger group for the same of my argument. That said I think your assessment has merit. People who want to believe they’re simply being moved by the art itself, are often failing to account for the way they’re also being moved by (and as you point out) also have a preference for a specific context.
To extend this argument, accusing critics of lying when they praise modern art, or postmodern art, or whatever someone's bugbear is, is a dangerous view for so-called defenders of art and beauty to embrace. A regular person unfamiliar with high art, if asked to listen to Bach or watch KING LEAR or read MIDDLEMARCH, might sincerely think, "That's a boring waste of time—who'd want to do that?". Does that honest opinion prove that critics who like these things are dishonest snobs? I would be bored to tears watching football, but I don't (usually) think sports fans are nuts for liking what they like.
Whenever I can be bothered, I try to ask, "What happens if I take something seemingly un-artistic and look for the value in it?"—in short, to change the narrative frame around it. The French New Wave insisted on celebrating "popular" filmmakers like Hitchcock; the Romantics admired Shakespeare for all the eccentricities that neoclassical critics condemned; the MCU has taught me at least as much about cinema and art as watching "great" films has. I think William Blake put it best: maybe the best, or at least most fun, way to look at art is to try "To see a world in a grain of sand/And a heaven in a wild flower".