Mr Popularity

There's an internal debate I have, regarding popularity and art: if something is more popular, is it better art? I don't mean, by this, is popularity the only aesthetic quality to draw conclusions from. What I mean is, can popularity be considered one of numberous factors, when judging art? Some days I answer yes, and some days, no.

The argument is often presented in wrestling that the more popular a wrestler is, the better that wrestler must be. I think it's better typified in film, though. For example, the films of Michael Bay are not generally considered to have well developed, deep characters, or plot. But, his films have the appeal of grand spectacle, and have made hundreds of millions of dollars. Now, let's look at another director, in Park Chan-wook. There's a decent chance that you've never heard of this South Korean director. In terms of worldwide recognition, you're going to find more people who've seen Transformers, than Oldboy - there's a high probability that you'll find more people who've seen Transformers, than've even heard of Chan-wook's work.

So, what has this director, whom I'm assuming you've never heard of, made? Plenty, but I'll focus on the above-mentioned film, Oldboy. (We'll go by IMDb information, as we're discussing mass appeal.) Considered one of the top hundred movies made; the highest rated Korean language film; was nominated, and awarded, numerous honours - including recognition at the Cannes film festival; highly praised by Quentin Tarantino; it's worldwide box office gross was a little under fifteen-million dollars. Compare that to the latest Transformers [Dark of the Moon] gross, which was over a thousand million (an American billion) dollars.

As products to be marketed to consumers, there's no comparison. As an expression human existence, there's no comparison.

I am firm in my belief that not all art is for all people. Just because you can't follow Ulysses, doesn't mean it's a bad book (and there's my pretentiousness quota met).

If you've read these ramblings before, you'll realise I have a certain opinion on critics. Now, allow me to express my opinions on audience: sometimes, it's their fault - "it's you, not me."

I'll just let that sit with you.

Taken that in yet? (If not, reread the above.)

Good.

However - allow me to let you in on the parradox - I also assume the audience was never "bad".

Yes, I believe that there are bad audiences, whilst, at the same time, believing that there is no such thing. Why? Because, challenging others never generates self-improvement. But, in believing that it's sometimes the audience's "fault", you remove yourself from blame and it helps with the formation of ideas:

In the cognitive gestation period, the audience is a mere abstract; it's up to them to get "it", and how could they not? You trust in them, and inhibitions fade. When that idea falls flat, you search for everything you could've done differently.

Maybe art isn't for everyone, but can art ever be good in itself?

The idea of art which is good for itself, is something that never sits quite right with me. (Not the most logical of prepositions, I grant you.) I suppose I have a problem with the concept of art which has no audience. There is always a listener for the speaker, even if all you're doing is talking to yourself.

Which leads me back to my intial problem: is popularity a factor when appointing aesthetic value? Not really. This and that is for someone, but the eventual immensity, or modesty, of those someone's doesn't make it any better. At least, that's how I feel today.