On Aug 6, 12:23 am, mimus hotmail.com> wrote:

If by "meaning" is intended "any intellectual or emotional content"
then the 2nd statement is IMO clearly false. As a character in an SF
novel[1] discussing the question of the "meaning" of art once
observed, the "message" of some art may be simply "flowers are
pretty", which cannot usefully be described as propaganda.

If by "meaning" is intended "a more or less clear argument for a
specific position" than i hold that the first statement is simply
untrue -- IMO much art contains no such argument and is none the less
not in the least nonsense, nor poor art. I defy anyone to argue
plausibly that Bach's "Art of the Fugue" is not art, nor to suggest
plausibly what position it is an argument for.

Thus i find the "Dilemma" a false one.

However, there have long been those who think that the only worthy art
is that which is "relevant" which makes some sort of philosophical,
political, or moral statement or argument. And on the other hand,
there have long been those who feel that any such art is a perversion,
a work of "mere propaganda". I disagree with both groups.

As to the first, my comments on Bach above stand. Much great art has
no rhetorical purpose, nor need it. Good fiction is more likely to
have a rhetorical purpose than music, and somewhat more likely to have
one than painting or sculpture, but one can find examples of good
works of art both with and without such a purpose in pretty nearly
every medium with much of a history. (I defy you to find a rhetorical
purpose in the fictions of P. G. Wodehouse, for example, and if there
was such a purpose in _Pride and Prejudice_ it is now hard to see)

As to the second group, it is all too common that art whose primary
purpose is rhetorical is poor art. "If you've got a message, use
Western Union"[2] or "He sold his birthright for a pot of message".
Quite often, someone trying to use art to argue a point puts the point
above the art, and winds up with poor art and an overloud and
unconvincing message. But art, precisely because it can touch the
emotions, or because it can make general conditions particular, can be
a very effective tool of rhetoric, and in the best cases, the rhetoric
and the art mutually support each other, and each would be weakened
were the other removed. For example Uncle Tom's Cabin (defended on
this point in an SF story[3]) , the social novels of Zola, or
Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath in fiction. In photography, the famous
Vietnam-era photo of a young girl running from an air attack comes to
mind.

Thus rhetorical art is in no way illegitimate IMO, it merely has a
particular trap to avoid, lest it be poor art. But then unbalanced art
is often poor art, this is just one more way to be unbalanced.

SF has had a number of works of rhetorical art -- Most have fallen
victim to the "ranters syndrome" and been poor art, or at least poorer
than they might have been, as a result. In particular the sort of
'social SF" popular in Galaxy magazine in the 1950s (and elsewhere
later) of which _Gladiator at Law_ and _The Space Merchants_ are
perhaps the type cases, usually feel into this trap, IMO. More
recently "The Word for World is Forrest" fell also, but not as far,
IMO. _1984_ also fell into this trap, but again, not as far, i think.
SF has not yet produced anything quite like _The Grapes of Wrath_ in
its exquisite blend of art and rhetoric -- the nearest I can think of
are _Lord of the Flies_ (if you call that SF), _The Once and Future
King_ (but only a relatively small, though crucial, section is IMO
truly rhetorical), or perhaps _The Dispossessed_.

-JM

[1]_The Mote in God's Eye_: Scene in the motie art exhibit

[2] Goldwyn

[3] RAH's Logic of Empire