Monologue On Postmodernism and Art - Part II

But let us be practical: I mean the definition and value of Art. What is "art"? And what does it mean to be artistic? I have a strong view on Art: it must be elitist, elevated above the common herd and into the realm of the sublime. It seems that postmodernism, on the other hand, has a tendency to democraticize my elitist views. Everyone is entitled to a say; everyone is artistic in his or her own way: the Canadian anti-epic novel is just as great as the Homeric epic poems; the wonderful Brittany Spears song is equally memorable as the Bruckner symphony. To anyone who objects to these two (and many other) statements, you will get the ultimate rebuttal: your "universal greatness" is a product of your own culture - in fact, "culture" usually means "cultural memory", since nobody who is in love (these are the people I think who lack conscious cultural memory) with Spears' "music" will ever complain Bruckner's lack of musical quality - complaints are usually the other way around. And just how can any genuine elitist artist (like me, I may not be an artist, but I certainly agree with this elitist position) reply to this kind of ultimate rebuttal? Any attempts to reply to such postmodern-ultimate-rebuttal will be labeled negatively - for example, Harold Bloom, who is always called "a tyrant".

I ask myself: can I honestly go up on the stage and genuinely say, Spears' music is just as valuable as Bruckner's symphonies? I answer decisively: no! Even at the risk of being labeled as a tyrant, I will proudly stand up and say that Bruckner is art and Spears is trash (this part is alright, because it's still my opinion); I will, however, also assert that Bruckner is art and Spears is trash is a universal truth (this is what will get people angry). You, oh great postmodernist, can undermine all you want of my cultural background, and how I am conditioned to think this arbituary way, that all of my values are worthless and entirely artificial. You will support the little guy who is trying to assert the opposite: that Spears' songs are also universally great music. Fine. But remember the old saying: "you can play Bach your way, and I will play Bach his way."

The postmodernist / cultural-relativist got it all wrong: not everything is culturally based. Their argument is: as language determines culture, since language is a human construct, therefore culture too must be a human construct, and hence everything is relative as language itself is relative. But true Art does not aim for cultural production; rather it "reaches" for universality. This great "reaching" is not an authorial intention; it is simply the nature of Art. If a thing is what it does, then art is the reaching of universality.

But what is this "universality" that art is reaching for? This is the way in which elitists like me can overcome the postmodernist.

*End of Part II*