In Defense of ‘Good Bad’ Art

george-orwell-2I have a twinge of panic, laced with guilt,  when asked to judge if some piece of “art” — theater, writing, what have you — is “good.”  I mean, what right have I? Also:  I almost enjoy more seeing where someone tried, and didn’t quite land, as opposed to experiencing a seamless, which is usually soulless, product.  So!  Happy am I that this review of George Orwell‘s essays shores up my own feelings.  His view of  “good bad art” is that it  “had the advantage of propagandizing for humble and obvious ideas rather than dangerous, overambitious ones. Good bad books are written by ‘natural novelists … who seem to attain sincerity partly because they are not inhibited by good taste.’ ”

Whew!  I’m going to try to recycle that the next time I’m invited to a showcase of a new play presented in some blackbox theater in the hinterlands of downtown.

Pop Matters [via Ideas/NYT]

This entry was posted in Art and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to In Defense of ‘Good Bad’ Art

  1. Stuff like this really makes my head spin! (But I liked reading it, nonetheless.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s