I can't remember if I've written about this on here or just made scattered comments on other peoples' journals, but after a conversation on the weekend I was thinking a lot about my views regarding art.

I think contemporary culture has this problem in that the word 'art' is used to mean two incompatible things:

• One, a 'classical' conception based on the idea that a piece of art is an object removed from everyday use and admired strictly for its formal aesthetic qualities. 
• Two, a 'romantic' conception based on the idea that a piece of art's whole purpose is to express the personal experiences of its maker.

(Perhaps these aren't the best terms, but I'm not in art history and I think they're close enough for my purposes.)

These aren't absolutes, but rather ends of a spectrum.  Abstract art I would view more in the former terms, because the more minimal it is the harder I think to analyze except in purely formal aspects.  Politically-charged art I would view more in the latter terms, because while politics is of broader concern than purely personal experiences, it is more concrete and less abstract than formal aesthetics.  And pretty much all popular music I would definitely view in the latter terms, for reasons that some of my examples below will probably make pretty clear.

I think both forms tend toward snobbery, but for different reasons.  The 'classical' conception spawns the "I went to art school for X years and know all these terms that you don't" type of snob, whereas the 'romantic' conception spawns the "Dude, you can't understand because you weren't, like, there, man" type of snob. 

In both cases though, an elite is created on the basis of something that is basically arbitrary and far more socio-economically-based than people are sometimes willing to admit.  In the 'classical' case, this is "I'm better than you because I went to art school for years (which takes money)."  In the 'romantic' case, this is "I'm better than you because I'm so real and genuine and was there when it all went down (where 'being there' probably is in part a result of not having had the money to be doing something else instead)."

In theory I find both of these forms of snobbery equally annoying.  Now that I'm no longer 'young and idealistic,' both are equally likely to rile me along the lines of: "If you are going to engage in overtly elitist wanky social-status-game bullshit, do not expect money from the public purse to support it."

But in practice, I find the 'romantic' elitism more annoying than the 'classical' elitism.  Reason being that I think those of the 'classical' line are usually pretty aware that they are an elite. 

By contrast, with the 'romantic' line you have, for example, the spectacle of some self-taught poet who belongs to five different minorities, acting like they have tapped into something more universal, democratic and generally 'better' than 'the Man' would permit, only to turn around and respond to criticism with "you don't understand because you're not [minority type goes here.]" 

Which to me is appallingly self-deceptive, because it excludes people not even because of what they know (as in the 'classical' case) but on the basis of what they are.  I tend to have far less problem with elitism if a) people just admit that they are doing it, and b) those excluded have at least a theoretical chance of being included if they become more skillful or etc., as opposed to being excluded for the kind of reason I just outlined.

Not surprisingly, problems arise when members of these two artistic subcultures clash.  I figure this is exactly what is happening whenever someone hurts someone else's feelings by criticizing their 'bad goth poetry' on their journal or whatever.  'Bad goth poetry' is a good example of something that is potentially good art according to the 'romantic' definition - so long as it captures its maker's mood and provides some constructive outlet for them, technically it qualifies - but almost inevitably bad art according to the 'classical' definition. 

This in turn points to another issue with the 'romantic' conception: rampant relativism.  The personal experience element I mentioned above, taken to its logical conclusion, implies that only the maker can know whether they've acheived their purpose. 

So the further clash of artistic subcultures manifests as, the 'romantic' side claiming "there is no such thing as bad art as long as it comes from the heart" and the 'classical' side replying "no, fuck you, you cannot vomit some shit out onto your website and act like just because you have strong 'feelings' about it, that somehow magically makes you the next Da Vinci." 

On one hand, I do have sympathy for both of these views.  But on the other I find myself annoyed both by people who don't understand that you can like something without it being 'good' and dislike something without it being 'bad,' and by people who never stop to think that maybe the kind of artistic dissection that's appropriate if you were writing a paper about a work of art might not be appropriate if you are posting on someone's personal journal.

But winding up for now, since this is getting kind of long: in the conversation I had that made me think about this, I think I fell into speculating aloud that some genres of art may be worse than others for the "you just don't get it" factor.  The paradigm case I had in mind is some indie rock band who writes a song with extremely opaque lyrics that don't make a whole lot of sense to anyone else, until you find out in some interview that it was inspired by some post-drug-binge super-specific in-joke that only the band could possibly understand without having it outright explained. 

I try to have some balance between the 'classical' and 'romantic' conceptions in how I judge art, but I think that if you go too far to one end or the other there are problems: too 'classical' and no one really 'relates personally' to the art in question, too 'romantic' and you get the kind of thing I just mentioned with in-jokey songs that people pretend to find clever when really they don't know what the fuck the guy is even talking about, and if they did know they might well be like "I don't actually care about this guy's life that much."  In short, in order to connect with an audience, I tend to think both universal and personal elements are needed.  (In this context, by universal I don't just mean the formal aesthetic stuff typical of the 'classical' view but content of a social/political/religious/etc. nature, or even just generally things people can know without having to read up on the life of the guy(s) in the band.)

In retrospect though, I can see how some people's balance for this is maybe more toward one end or the other.  Combine that with my having an admittedly sheltered life in high school, and I suspect there were a number of bands I dismissed back then along the lines I just mentioned that a) I probably didn't actually know enough about or think about the lyrics of enough that I should have ventured an opinion, and b) are probably just the right balance for other people even if they're too far to one end for me. 

So *shrug*.  I probably should have been tipsily ranting less about inaccessible bands and more about the kind of fans who exaggerate their inaccessibility by, say, writing in-jokey highschool-yearbook-like books about their 'scene.'  *coughcoughMickMercerGothRockbookcoughcough* But this entry is already super long so I'll end this here.