On Jun 9, 2012, at 7:40 PM, joseph berg wrote:

> To paraphrase Ezra Pound:
>
> - [Bad art doesn't weather] the ages because once in so often a man of
> intelligence commands the mass to [ignore] it.

Now, now. You cannot validly negate a general affirmative in this way and
produce equivalent statements, or use the modified version to rebut William's
Cat-copter ennui.


>From Ezra Pound, "Imaginary Letters: 1. Walter Villerant to Mrs Bland Burn"
(1930):

There is no truce between art and the public. The public celebrates its
eucharists with dead bodies. Its writers aspire to equal the oyster: to get
themselves swallowed alive. They encompass it.
  Art that sells on production is bad art, essentially. It is art that is made
to demand. It suits the public. The taste of the public is bad. The taste of
the public is always bad. It is bad because it is not an individual
expression, but merely a mania for assent, a mania to be "in on it".
  Even the botches of a good artist have some quality, some distinction, which
prevents their pleasing mass-palates.
  Good art weathers the ages because once in so often a man of intelligence
commands the mass to adore it. His contemporaries call him a nuisance, their
children follow his instructions, and include him in the curricula. I am not
lifting m voice in protest, I am merely defining a process. I do not protest
against the leaves falling in automn.

-------

Pound's message here exudes the condescension of the person of superior taste
deploring the baseness of the "public." In the last century, we in Western
cultures have been pummeled with evidence, obvious and evanescent, of various
kinds of biases: racism, sexism, ageism, even specieism and others newly
minted. But I don't remember anyone remarking about rampant "public-ism," the
disdain for the taste and ethos of the generalized public. This public-ism
started with Babbit, perhaps even before, and has proceeded unabated since
then. Writers, artists, philosophers, and others have created a
pseudo-aristocratic ambience of elevated and ennobled interests in contrast to
the mundane and gauche interests of the hoi polloi.


| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Michael Brady

Reply via email to