Everyone is, understandably, so negative these days. There’s endless list of grievance. Our politics is rotted inside out. Our institutions have whittled down into an absurd hollowness. War continues to brutalise and spread untold misery. Why does it matter if people just want to be left alone to enjoy Marvel movies and listen to Top 40? Just let people enjoy things, right?
It’s easy to get wrapped up in the rosy, idealistic sentiment that all art and entertainment is subjective and is thus equal. But that’s far from true, and making the distinction is important. The popular or mainstream is a place of business, pushed onto a broader public with little incentive to expose anything that’s outside of it. It’s not even necessary in this place of business to entertain or provide a quality experience if there are revenue sources. It’s a restricted realm that only accounts for a tiny fraction of the human imagination.
By submitting to a ‘just let people enjoy things’ mentality we normalise an incurious society, unbothered by the wonders or depths of our creativity. It’s not a requirement that everyone needs to engage with the art they experience or the entertainment they consume on a deeper level, but it is certainly grey skies for culture if a push towards something more meaningful is seen as antagonistic.
Read more:
Don’t let taxpayer-funded sex film put off funding daring and provocative art
Some are happy to be left to their own devices, forming a bubble around the criticism pointed toward what they consume through fandom. There are plenty of adults who are content to intellectually infantilise themselves, and encourage this infantilisation, and this shows when we look at the popularity and audience of certain trends.
Physical books have seen a sales revival from their predicted death by Kindle and part of that can be attributed to the success of the young adult fiction genre (commonly abbreviated to YA). While it’s a positive thing that young people are willing to engage with reading tailored to their demographic, that’s not the whole story. 51% of YA books are purchased by people between the ages of 30 and 44, with the vast majority admitting that the purchase was for their own enjoyment.
What do adults get out of books written with young teens in mind? These books are simplistically written, with upfront emotions that relate to a young teenage mindset. Either simple stories with strong, unambiguous emotional beats still have mileage to the casual reader, or there is a state of arrested development, where engagement with the world of literature fails to move past an early high school level.
“As long as people are reading, it can only be a net positive” is a prevalent but hollow pushback. Not all books are equal, and culture sits in stasis if there are no moves to differentiate between the value of works. Historically the notion of high value works was determined by canons, and in literature’s case, the Western Canon. This encompasses all the literary works broadly accepted as exceptional in some way. Shakespeare, Dante, Chaucer etc.
Read more:
Margaret Tait and a reckoning with Scottish film culture
Of course, this has its own problems. It’s dated, problematic, and intellectually incurious to restrain a canon of greatness to Western works and from a Western perspective only, and how can a canon evolve and add to itself if brilliant, new works lack the history of critical rigour required? As much as stiff academics and literary purists swear by the fundamentals of the Western Canon, there is no real answer to differentiating the value of works, but that doesn’t reduce the need to at least attempt to set up simple value judgements.
Engaging with, understanding, and enjoying something like the work of Chaucer is just factually a richer and more meaningful act than the endless reading of YA books will ever be, and points to an example of high creative achievement. It’s hardly elitism to point out fact.
Yet, it should be said that elitism when it comes to art is necessary, and not always a bad thing. Art is richer when it’s inclusive and encompasses varied walks of life, and historic elitism in the arts was directly or indirectly in opposition to such inclusivity, but elitism is still necessary when art is so at the mercy of commercial opportunity and the predilections of the marketplace. If no gatekeeping occurs and no value judgements are made, then art simply becomes a product with no meaning. Art made in a capitalist society will always be pushed to commodify.
Criticism cannot be restrained for the peace and mind of mass, unabated mainstream enjoyment. It’s important that those who engage with the arts, and the critics who serve to observe and critique the arts, understand how popular works operate culturally, in the marketplace, and in people’s heads, and provoke thought and discussion – and dissension – on such things.
It’s an anti-intellectual stance to shut down critique of Marvel movies, Top 40, YA, or whatever widely enjoyed thing it may be. Maybe the world would be a little nicer and a little gentler if we allowed people to close themselves in and let culture flow without dissent. But as political culture shows, culture is a constant battle. Nothing good comes from being on the sidelines.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here