on morality of art

This book is a bit scattered, and seems incomplete, like no one really bothered to edit it. Much of it is the author's attempt to take down the fiction of his day, but only by making very broad generalizations about another author's entire oeuvre.

The crux of his argument is that art should be moral. And by this he means, "Moral art in its highest form holds up models of virtue, ... heroic models like Homer’s Achilles." Using Achilles as a model of morality or virtue seems to miss much of the point of the Iliad.

But, Gardner does make some good points. The most important thing I took from him is, "without real and deep love for his “subjects” (the people he writes about and, by extension, all human beings)—no artist can summon the will to make true art; he will be satisfied, instead, with clever language or with cynical jokes and too easy, dire solutions like those common in contemporary fiction."
( )

John Gardner's On Moral Fiction is an interesting discussion of the moral dimension of both art and the art critic. His attempt to develop a philosophical theory of aesthetics, however, is limited by the fact that he focuses primarily on written work (literary art), no doubt because Gardner is a novelist and that is where his expertise lies. While I may grant a more limited thesis that literature, to be true art, must express moral reality, I find this harder to hold as an attribute of other artistic media - "moral" watercolors? "moral" piano concertos? I think not.

Two substantial problems arise in Gardner's book. First, he does not give an adequate moral theory to accompany his aesthetic theory, something that is necessary if you are going to claim that art is moral - otherwise, you are left with what seems to be a question-begging argument: Is this art? To be art it must be moral. Is this moral? Well, without a theory of morality, we seem to be left asking either "is this art" or "is this good." The first question takes us right back where we started, while the second question is simply a restatement of the question "is this moral." (And I won't even begin to discuss the issue of whether a literary - or any other form of art - work can express evil ideas and still be "art").

The second problem is what seems to be a circular argument that arises: only a true artist can produce true art, according to Gardner. If, then, I want to know if something is true art, I must consult with a true artist. How do I know if someone is a true artist? I know this only because he produces true art. But how do I know if what someone produces is true art? And there the cycle begins. I cannot determine what true art is unless I can determine who is a true artist. But I cannot determine who is a true artist unless I can determine what true art is. Hello!

Such issues as these are common in what are considered "naive realist" theories of aesthetics, and this is where Gardner is coming from. The book is interesting, very accessible, and has much to say that is worthy of thinking about. Ultimately, though, the theory Gardner tries to propound simply doesn't work. ( )

John Gardner has opinions and he isn’t afraid to use them. In On Moral Fiction, he launches an invective against mediocrity and immorality in literature. Unfortunately, one almost immediately faces opposition when you throw around the term morality with respects to the arts. Gardner contends that literature, and art in general, must have both substance and a moral grounding. Without these two pieces, then the creation of the artist is nothing but vapid superficiality.

Gardner goes so far as to actually call specific authors out on their shortcomings. Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., Joseph Heller, and Normal Mailer should have apparently enrolled in Mr. Gardner’s seminar on remedial writing. In these authors’ works, he finds that the author in question seems to start with a moral statement and forms the story around it rather than allow the story to come a moral epiphany. Gardner believes that writing with such a design (moral first, story later) will almost certainly lead to uninteresting and didactic writing.

But Gardner’s ire is not simply reserved for authors alone; he indicts fellow critics as well. He explains that the critic has three simple tasks: to determine whether the art is moral, to explain its shortcomings, and to extol its virtues. When critics review a piece with obvious moral flaws and fail to point them out, then they have done a disservice to both their field and the public; when morality is properly upheld and they fail to ensure that everyone sees it, then they do a disservice to the artist who has worked so hard to perfect his craft.

This book was a very interesting one. It will get you thinking more about your reading. While I’m not entirely on board with the “art has to be moral” message, it did help me to maybe get a handle on why certain literature appeals to me while other writing does not. Perhaps we subconsciously register whether a work has met our moral standards or not. Or perhaps the writing is just bad. All in all, Gardner’s message is pithy and vigorous, and if you’re a writer, you should give this book a once over if only to see just where you stand. A short but demanding book. ( )

“We need to stop excusing mediocre and downright pernicious art, stop ‘taking it for what it’s worth’ as we take our fast foods, our overpriced cars that are no good, the overpriced houses we spend all our lives fixing, out television programs, our schools thrown up like barricades in the way of young minds, our brainless fat religions, our poisonous air, our incredible cult of sports, and our ritual with fornicating with all pretty or even horse-faced strangers.”

So thunders John Gardner, who had had more than enough of modern American Art; especially literature, in the 1970’s. What he would have made of a best seller like Fifty Shades of Grey in 2012 is anybody’s guess. He might well have said, but that’s pulp fiction, but I still think he would struggle to recognise anything much written today that he would consider Literature.

John Gardner’s wide ranging book of criticism bemoans that the art of the modern era is a failure of morals. He would like to see a move back to more traditional views where true art is moral; in that it seeks to improve life rather than debase it. He sees art as essentially serious and beneficial in that its serves to protect us from chaos and entropy. Art is necessary for our humanness and should be rediscovered and refined generation by generation and it is criticism’s job to reinforce this process. The art of his era (mid 1970’s) he claims has taken a wrong turn. It is far more concerned with fitting into the latest ism or fashion rather than addressing the major life giving themes. It has become trivialised. He says he is more qualified to talk about fiction, but can see the same issues in other forms of art. He thinks the role of art in a democratic society; should be primarily to instruct, to make clear, to provide alternatives, to enable people to understand the issues facing them, it should help to break down barriers and hold up ideals worth pursuing. It should not be spending most of it’s time sneering and snarling and wrapping itself up in self-defeating cynicism. He says that technically, current American novelist are good enough and shrewd enough and with the help of publishers and reviewers produce work that is much the same: commercially slick, full of misplaced cleverness, posturing and wild floundering, Intelligent readers ask themselves if any first rate American authors still exist, while critics are not slow in coming forward with the next great thing, but as Gardner says: “Never judge the age of the horse by the smile of the farmer”

By chapter five Gardner is ready to name names. He picks out three authors widely praised who he thinks could do a whole lot better; Norman Mailer, Kurt Vonnegut Jnr and Joseph Heller. In each case Gardner finds them sacrificing their creative writing in an
Attempt to deliver a message. The characters in the novels do not take on a life of their own, they are not developed they are just there to aid the author with his clever tricks, his cynical; manoeuvrings and usually dire solutions. In Gardner’s view characters should serve the author with the means to carry out open minded exploration of what he can honestly say, in this way themes and ideas are developed that can take the novel in new and unexpected directions. Saul Bellow and John Barth also come in for some criticism before Gardner asks how many of the so called important artists; Thomas Pynchon, Joyce Carol Oates, Robert Coover, Donald Barthelme, James Purdy, William Gaddis, John Hawkes, Katherine Anne Porter, Guy Davenport, John Cheever, Bernard Malamud, J D Salinger, Eudora Welty and John Updike; How many of them will outlast the century?

So to part II which Gardner calls Principles of Art and Criticism. Generally I found this part less interesting than part I. Gardner starts off well enough by making a plea that bad art should be revealed for what it is – bad, however this leads him on to discuss what he means by bad art and then inevitably onto the age old question of What is art? While I found his ideas thoughtful and lively they did not really lead him anywhere. This section felt like what it probably was: a series of lecture notes that had been adapted to fit into his book.In fact towards the end of this section we are in the realms of poetry appreciation, all good stuff but it feels shoe-horned in

I like John Gardner’s intelligence and enthusiasm for his subject. He writes well and seems to take the reader into his confidence, almost as if he expects you to agree with him, however if you do not agree with his view that the literature of today (late 1970’s) does not compare with literature of the past, then you probably won’t like his book. I found it entertaining and well argued, but although it gives plenty of food for thought, it is a fairly narrow viewpoint and so 3.5 stars.

Edit | More ( )