A recent video by a bishop named Robert Barron discussed, among other things, the Catholic Church’s alleged need to modernize (this link will take you straight to the relevant section.)
After listening to Fr. Barron speak on that, I drew a connection with the notion of “progress” in art — namely, that no such thing exists. In fact, it cannot exist.
It is popular to identify the newest of something with the best; this mindset comes from the undeniable role that science and technology have played in improving human standards of living worldwide. When you’re looking for medical care, a decent car, a fridge, etc., you usually want the most recent iteration of it, since improvements are always made over time. Likewise, if you’re doing any kind of scientific research, you always want to see where things are at currently. Couple that with the tendency of the computer — the defining invention of the 21st century (though it was built in the late 20th century) — to improve in performance every year, and you have a cultural environment primed to think of newer as better.
The problem comes in when one applies this thinking to non-scientific fields such as art and literature.
Modern and postmodern art do not automatically “look better” than Baroque art, even though both forms came far later. Japanese light novels do not compare to the work of Edgar Rice Burroughs and Abraham Merritt. An older movie can look a lot better than a newer movie.
This is because aesthetics have little to do with a work’s newness. Exchanging one aesthetic for another, or throwing aesthetics out altogether, does not mean that something will look better or read better. While artistic, cinematic, or literary techniques can be in reaction to older things, it does not mean that the result will improve on what it’s reacting to. In fact, one can say that most people don’t want new things so much as familiar things with a touch of the unknown. If people wanted 100% new things, the Hero’s Journey and the three-act structure wouldn’t be so popular with audiences, despite being used very, very frequently. Folks get attached to things that don’t change as well — it’s the reason most sitcoms maintain a status quo.
One can argue that science and technology often change social structures and attitudes, so art must change to reflect the new conditions. While that sounds reasonable, it still does not follow that older aesthetic forms must be abandoned simply because they are old. Artistic and literary works are not like cars or computers; its essential appeal does not change because of improved technology elsewhere. The aesthetics that worked in 1620 can still work in 2020 with only cosmetic alterations. Having computers does not make classical painting any less beautiful. Having GPS does not make the works of Appendix N any less entertaining. If someone created works in those styles, living in a high-tech society would not make them less enjoyable.
So unless you’re dealing with scientific or technological subjects, don’t worry about being up-to-date. Worry about being good.
—–
Shining Tomorrow Volume 1: Shadow Heart takes place in a world full of modernists who think they’re traditionalists, even though any real traditionalist would laugh in their face as that world’s social mores are only possible due to industrialization.
Rawle,
I’ll have to listen to that video. I”ve listened to the Bishop back when he was a priest.
In any case you’re quite right that neophilia is unnecessary even for technology. To be honest, I really like my latest versions of Wordperfect but there are just times I miss WP 5,1 for its leanness and focus on writing than typesetting.
And the same gomes for cell phones.
Your concluding point that’s more important to be good (and all of the associated virtues) points an urgent requirement to rehabilitate the humanities.
Just today, I saw an tweet by a Catalan Hellenist who just published a new translation of the Illiad in verse. This after 2 years of work. It’s published by the Catalan equivalent of Loeb’s Classical library.
TL;DR, We really need to figure out how to reclaim the humanities and rekindle knowledge of the Classical languages (Latin, Greek, Sanskrit, Aramaic, Hebrew, Syriac, Persian, Classical Arabic) Ideally people should be able to read and understand some of the those languages.
xavier
Some newness is necessary in art, but people do like the familiar. It gives them comfort (I think that’s a big reason Japanese isekai sells despite its staleness.)
The cult of the new is also why I think so many storytellers are obsessed with “subverting tropes” and such. They want to show how clever they are. Note that I’m not immune to this, as I often want to find novelty as well.
Rawle
It’s not novelty per se but how you package the components and present them. Storybtelling has been around 6000 years or so . Thus there’s really nothing new to come up with per se.
The novelty is how you put the various plots and tropes together. Exactly the same way you build a house the end result for both can be beautiful or ugly: satisfying or dissatisfying
That’s the challenge all creators face.
Take heart. Your novelty comes how well you craft the components for a satisfying story.
Not creating anything de novo. Leave that up to our Lord.
xavier
That’s a great way to put it.
Rawle,
You’re welcome. This insight goes back to my undergrad days. One professor pointed that at the BA level your originality comes from marshaling the references and arguing as cogently as possible. True originality is at the PhD level.
xavier
Art can progress in that new techniques can be perfected. Mastering perspective for instance. A larger bag of tricks means that the tricks that best works can be applied.
Another form of technology.
You are correct there; a perspective painting requires far more skill than a cave doodle. Also, advances in art can come from advances in technology (for example, the entire medium of film, as well as pixel art.)
“This is because aesthetics have little to do with a work’s newness. Exchanging one aesthetic for another, or throwing aesthetics out altogether, does not mean that something will look better or read better.”
You see this with a lot of forms of art. Music comes to mind. I’d disagree with this, and with your post, only to the extent that new doesn’t NECESSARILY mean better. But this statement I quoted is spot-on, 100 percent, I-wish-I-said-it, true.
“. . . don’t worry about being up-to-date. Worry about being good.”
This. I have nothing to add except “and don’t try to be topical.” Because nothing will date your work quite like trying to be topical.
Great post.
Thank you. It could’ve been better, but I’m glad you enjoyed it.