Quality
I cannot figure out what is "good." I'm talking in terms of productivity and creative output. It is interesting that quality is so limited by the fashions of the day. Take Oscar Wilde for example, in his day he was considered a poet. In fact he was a poet long before he became the famous playwright he is known as today. And yet, if you are to read his poetry today you will realize that, generally, it is pretty terrible. It is an emphasis on all the most annoying and dated poetic figures found in Romantic poetry without any of the free flowing soul found in the better poems of the time. It is exceedingly cheesy and over the top and relies on seemingly formulaic compositional elements. All in all, most critics agree that it is terrible poetry (the one exception, for those who like to read poetry, is the Ballad of Reading Gaol, which he wrote regarding his time in prison).
Now, my problem is not that Oscar Wilde could not write lasting poetry. Many good authors have tried their hand at prosody and failed miserably (just try to read CS. Lewis' stuff *shudder*). Not everyone who can write has the gift of verse; and considering that Wilde wrote great prose as well as nice plays, I would say he did pretty well for himself. The thing that disturbs me is that, in his day, Wilde received quite a few prizes for his verse. Is style so fickle? is quality so subjective? is there anything that is actually "good"? Now, of course there must be, for popularity rises and falls, just as styles come and go, and some works of art retain their critical acclaim. It is a bit annoying though, because it is normal for one to write within the contextual style of his age, submitting himself to what is considered good, whether he realizes it or not. One would be more prone to follow the styles of Larkin or Collins than the melodramatic form of the 1800s. But when do you know if you have something "good"? In 100 years they may laugh at it... then again, on the flipside of things, the stuff that you write now may not get full recognition until long after you're dead (lets all say "I'm sorry" to William Blake). Anyway... *sigh*
Now, my problem is not that Oscar Wilde could not write lasting poetry. Many good authors have tried their hand at prosody and failed miserably (just try to read CS. Lewis' stuff *shudder*). Not everyone who can write has the gift of verse; and considering that Wilde wrote great prose as well as nice plays, I would say he did pretty well for himself. The thing that disturbs me is that, in his day, Wilde received quite a few prizes for his verse. Is style so fickle? is quality so subjective? is there anything that is actually "good"? Now, of course there must be, for popularity rises and falls, just as styles come and go, and some works of art retain their critical acclaim. It is a bit annoying though, because it is normal for one to write within the contextual style of his age, submitting himself to what is considered good, whether he realizes it or not. One would be more prone to follow the styles of Larkin or Collins than the melodramatic form of the 1800s. But when do you know if you have something "good"? In 100 years they may laugh at it... then again, on the flipside of things, the stuff that you write now may not get full recognition until long after you're dead (lets all say "I'm sorry" to William Blake). Anyway... *sigh*
Comments
I would say that quality is mostly subjective but that there is some sort of enduring thread of "goodness" to all writing. What it is I couldn't tell you, but I feel that it is there. Does that even make sense?
Been reading a book on drama/writing/art by David Mamet called "Three Uses of the Knife".
I've been wondering the same thing lately and find myself thinking it is subjective...but I also think, that what is "good" then, must appeal to a large audience in some way...must, in fact, strike a large audience as "good". Unfortunately, audience-motivated verse can be utterly bleh.
"Artists don't set out to bring anything to the audience or to anyone else. They set out, again, to cure a raging imbalance."
It must be a fine balance between letting a reader in on a world all your own, and not giving them every last detail...making a reader work for the meaning because your work itself is compelling, and not simply because you're counting on readers wanting to understand you.
or something. (?)
"The purpose of theater, like magic, like religion...is to inspire cleansing awe."
In the future, as globalization unites the World, perhaps we will find a similar standard in good, but that's because we agree on it. But looking to the past, it is impossible to be so intransingent (is that a word?). It's not fair on the rest, its an elitist concept (any elite will define good, not just the "cultured"). I would, in fact, try to somehow remove that word from vocabulary, at least mine, if possible (I don't think it is).
At the end of a meanless rambling, I hate the word "good" as far as evaluating semi-objectively art or any other aesthetic object or experience (including food), I disagree with Kant, I think. But, then again, bound to the concept, who am I to disagree with such a great (read goodx2) philosopher?
AAAHHH!!! No, nothing is good without subjective opinion, and the subjective opinion has infinity of varieties. That's my subjective opinion anyhow.