...

In my first Art is Bad post, I was wishy-washy. I implied that art that wasn't mainstream, satisfying, or marketable could have value. This is, to be clear, close to what I truly believe (and in most honest reality I also like and find value in the most normie, unchallening, pat-you-on-the-back art), but I want to put my most extreme self out there. There is a part of me, which is louder on some days than others, that believes art, as a whole, is not only not good, but evil. I know this can't possibly be true, but in the spirit of taking nothing for granted, let us entertain this idea.

Let me lay out some groundwork on which my argument relies: First, the predominant political and social ideologies of today (capitalism, technocracy, consumerism, authoritariaism, patriarchy, racism, sexism, etc etc etc...) are suicidal and have and will continue to lead to mass death and suffering. Second, this is bad! Society as it exists must be uprooted to make way for something better. Third, this uprooting must come from the bottom up, the rot at the top is too pervasive, none of it can be salvaged. In other words, the revolution must be born of and carried out by the people(TM). Fourth, one cannot be forced to embrace the revolution by force, each and every person must come to it willingly.

Most important are those last two. Media (which I am using sort of interchangeably with art here) of all kinds works to delay or prevent people's "awakening." In some ways this is obvious: short-form communication has eroded people's attention spans and capacity for critical thought, and echo chambers and hyper-polarization divide the people, making them easier to conquer. In other ways it is more subtle. The end result of a full "awakening" is an emotional and intellectual maturity that seems near superhuman. Nausicaa (from the manga) level stuff, where one can recognize the infinite complexity of life and human connection and fully commit themselves to navigating their world in a way that benefits everyone. It is both extreme individualism and collectivism, because a deep knowledge of one's self is necessary to understand both that the happiness and healthiness of others is the ultimate purpose, and where one best fits in the web.

Art is the act of constructing and imposing narratives, and narratives are necessarily un-wholistic. An individual mind is fluid and can therefore constantly adapt to new circumstances and challenges when it comes to conflict resolution. Think of a narrative as a snapshot of a consciousness suspended in time. Sure, narratives can be iterated upon to BETTER fit circumstances, but it is impossible to fit them perfectly. Now, even in my deepest utopian indulgences, I know the pursuit of perfection is pointless, but rendering a train of thought static by turning it into art just seems counterproductive, when a direct conversation with people and circumstances is a readily available option. In other words, why try and communicate through art when you can communicate directly (and much more fluidly) with other people?

That's pretty much the gist of it.

I know that this is almost certainly a bunch of hogwash, but ever since the seed of this idea first appeared to me a few years ago, it has festered and grown to the point of being unignorable (trust me, I've tried). I figured it was better to put it out there in words than to continue ignoring it. It'll be easier to see the flaws in it this way, I guess. Maybe not for you, ha! Who knows if this is comprehensible in the slightest to anyone but me. If you've read, thanks!