Why the arts needs (a) defunding and (b) subjection to sustained mockery.
Memo to Tim Egan: price is determined by markets, not by prissy pinheads out to police what other people write and the books other people buy. Oh, and with artwankers like you around, it’s got that way I’m glad I can call myself a lawyer in public places.
[Former writer. Jeezus].
46 Comments
More support for the idea that we should judge books as artefacts entirely divorced from their creators. Having slagged off the author, was anything said about the actual book?
No, he hadn’t read it.
What a surprise.
Heh, I wrote a note about this a few days ago. Evidently our initial reaction was different! Apart from anything else, I thought the article was a little tongue in cheek.
I totally understand the wanker reaction. But I think he’s making a slightly more subtle point, which is that anyone can “write”, but should these people be called “writers” and given any degree of respect for their endeavours in that field? If I slap some paint on a canvas, am I an “artist” in the same category as Rembrandt? To me denying the assertion that Rembrandt is an artist and I am not is just relativist nonsense.
Writing by its nature requires no formal training or qualification, and is open to anyone who can scribble their thoughts down in some form. But it is certainly true that many great authors are never recognised in their time, while loads of drivel is published.
The problem with applying the market in relation to art of any kind is that by definition it promotes the lowest common denominator. Whilst some established elite of self-appointed art snobs is certainly not preferable, a more objective and disciplined attitude to what makes art ‘good’ is surely preferable.
Hypothetical example: what has more value, a book about Joe the Plumber in his own words, or the words of some anonymous ghost writer cranking out “autobiographies” in two weeks, or a book about Joe the Plumber in someone else’s words, written by a good writer with access to Joe and all relevant information about him? It has to be the latter, surely?
In fact, let me put that in one line: I believe he is simply calling for a meritocracy, not a democracy, in writing.
Seemed like a perfect study in preciousness to me. He might want a meritocracy, but then so does whoever paid the advance for Samuel’s book. The quibble is over how exactly what earns the merit of an author. Artistic value or the ability to earn back an initial investment.
Hmm, Egan comes across as an elitist with a big chip on his shoulder. It’s a bit sad really. I’m guessing he has been rejected by a publisher and he thinks his work is more worthy than Joe’s? How can he say without having read Joe’s book?
Personally, I don’t particularly like the phenomenon of novels supposedly written by celebrities myself, but I guess I vote with my hip pocket and refuse to buy them.
Still, I’m not quite convinced by the argument that the market will decide whether the book is worthwhile. As far as I’m concerned, there are an awful lot of bestsellers out there which are not particularly “good literature”. For example, The Da Vinci Code was phenomenally popular, but in my opinion, it was also very badly written. It just had a really good “hook” which made people want to finish it. That is a talent in itself… As Gilmae says, there are different kinds of merit involved here.
Isn’t that the point? The latter has nothing to do with actual merit, yet at present is almost entirely determinative of what gets to take up precious space in the published world.
Anyway, the guy wasn’t calling for anything to be banned or otherwise controlled – he was appealing (in an abstract way) to people who are not writers/dedicated to good writing and urging them to shut up. I have no problem with that.
If Joe is a latter day Shakespeare, then it must just be a big coincidence that he also happens to have just been the centre of massive amounts of completely media attention completely unrelated to his writing and now he suddenly has a book out, eh?
I know you are saying that we should not pre-judge his writing, but surely you can take a reasonable guess that it will not be a literary masterpiece?
(Also I can’t type, so I guess I have no right to tell anyone whether they should be writing or not.)
Yes. It is the point. Egan thinks meritoriousness is a dedication to writing as an art – I presume to pigeon hole him, but I am betting it is the right hole. The publishing houses think meritoriousness is writing that the public will pay for. The publishing world already is a meritocracy but Tim Egan doesn’t like that filthy lucre is what determines merit to a publisher. From the dismissal I assume you share that view. That’s fine, but like Blair -amidst his blizzard of snark – points out, there are other venues in which to publish these days.
Because the book is billed as Samuel – the Man! His Philosophy! – in dead tree format. We’re probably sufficiently familiar with him by now – it’s been fourteen minutes and thirty-seven seconds, no? – that we either know or can readily guess what is going to be in the book.
No, he hadn’t read it.
My bet is joe the plumber hasn’t either.
I am always amazed by these celebrity books that can somehow be churned out in a week.
Also, Joe the “Plumber” wasn’t even registered, so the whole analogy is even more specious.
It’s impossible not to suppress a chcukle when, in 2008, somebody describes themselves as an “artist”. Surely such creatures do exist, but I’d say only about 1% of those who self-describe. And has there ever been a more worthy group than the “arst community” to jutify release the safety catch of one’s revolver?
No, he hadn’t read it.
Que! That’s bad manners. Unfortunately it’s common as well.
The market doesn’t decide whether a book is good. The market decides whether the author can quit her day job. Emily Dickinson published jackshit during her life. Tom Clancy is mega-successful. If you think he’s better than her you’re a blockhead. (IMHO).
That said I met a subsidized author doing her PhD on ‘Creative Writing’, um, chortle, ah, smirk…. sorry:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I’d like to run a course on creative writing. Pay me $500 and come to class. I come in and write ‘Forget It’ on the blackboard and walk out again.
You can teach skills but creative writing’s a knack that you’ve got or don’t.
Anyway, this published author apparently has five novels. All subsidized by the govt under their multicultural thing (she’s Vietnamese). None of them appear in any library not even in her own university let alone a bookstore.
But the titles appear in the annual report.
I am an artist. I sw the Artists’ Union ad and became an artist. It said:
BE AN ARTIST!
Doctors get up at 6am
Lawyers get up at 7am
Artists get up at 12pm
BE AN ARTIST
(Real ad)
“Hmm, Egan comes across as an elitist with a big chip on his shoulder. It’s a bit sad really. I’m guessing he has been rejected by a publisher and he thinks his work is more worthy than Joe’s?”
Does he?
Must be a different Tim Egan from the one who:
“… is the author and illustrator of several offbeat and humorous tales for children. He is consistently recognized for his individuality and delightful illustrations. Born in New Jersey, Tim moved to California to attend the Art Center College of Design in Pasadena, California. He still lives in southern California with his wife, Ann, and their two sons. To learn more about Tim Egan, visit his Web site at http://www.timegan.com. For a complete list of books by Tim Egan, visit http://www.houghton mifflinbooks.com.”
http://www.houghtonmifflinbooks.com/catalog/authordetail.cfm?authorID=49
I should have thought that the first thing a lawyer would do is to consider the evidence.
I don’t care if Tim Egan’s the best writer since Shakespeare – and I don’t think LE does, either. The fact that he’s still working as a hack suggests that the market hasn’t done for him what it’s doing for Joe the Plumber. Whoopiedo. The issue is purporting to police other people’s book-buying habits and making arguments about quality when you haven’t read the book in question.
Since I’m a libertarian and care only about people’s ability to do their jobs, rather than satisfying some government box-ticking exercise, I don’t care that Joe the Plumber isn’t registered, either. I lived with a building contractor for nearly 10 years and I can assure you that — very often — registration means jack shit. The worst concreting job I think I’ve ever seen was done by a licensed concretor. My partner — a carpenter, btw — fixed it. And that was probably the best concreting job I’ve ever seen.
Interesting, too, that the ACLU had to tear the politically motivated arsehole (and government employee) who went through Joe’s tax records in order to dig dirt a new one, too. No wonder some of us don’t trust the government.
I’ve been a ‘bestselling’ author, and I’ve hacked about to subsidize my writing habit. These prissy, pretentious and — taken too far — downright censorious attitudes are as common as catdirt among the arts crowd. As I’ve told DEM a couple of times privately, my father was a serial crook who knew a lot of other serial crooks, and my brother is a biker — but the nastiest people I’ve ever met are to be found among the arts set.
He is not seriously suggesting government book police. His piece is snark aimed at celebrity book culture. Egans writing is overwrought, but the target isn’t undeserving.
If that piece was supposed to be amusing, then it was fifty kinds of FAIL. I know Americans have deficient irony-metres, but if that was the intent (I’d I’m not convinced it was, so earnest was the style), then I’d say the Brits have the global comedy market cornered until the oceans rise and drown us all.
MikeM, who knows if it’s the same Tim Egan or not? There could easily be more than one. I went to school with a girl who had the same name as me, even down to middle initial (and one wouldn’t have thought the combination was that common). People still confuse us. At least she’s nice. I hope she doesn’t mind being mistaken for me! (I’ve never dared ask).
AJ, I agree – I think Egan’s writing is overwrought and elitist. However, if I’d just read a piece saying Joe the Plumber had brought out a book already, I would have heaved a cynical sigh.
Egan’s piece has the funny effect of making me want to defend Joe although I would never read his book and I ignored his story as told in the media.
SL, the Brits are definitely the best comics; at least, the ironic kind are. I don’t care so much for Carry On up the Khyber kind of humour.
For shame, SL! American’s don’t do irony? Quite a few successful American comedic acts, stand up comedians and sitcoms alike – Seinfeld, Frasier, M*A*S*H, The SImpsons – were all replete with irony.
‘American’s don’t do irony’ is the whimper of UK comedians who have tried and failed to match the successes of Eddie Izzard and others in the US. It’s what they say to console themselves when they fail in an entertainment market. Just like Egan is whimpering that J. Random Celebrity got the advance instead of Timmie.
Hang your head in shame.
gilmae, you can keep Seinfeld and Frasier, I’m afraid — shite about nothing, as far as I’m concerned. The Simpsons and South Park, however, I grant you. Two of the funniest shows I’ve ever seen, although I wouldn’t describe either as particularly ironic. Satirical, definitely. I’ve never watched MASH, so am not qualified to comment on that one.
Gotta come in to defend American humour here too – Arrested Development is as funny and subtle as anything the UK has produced (and I love UK shows like Blackadder and the like).
Once again I would like to point out that he is NOT saying anything should be “banned” or “policed”, he’s basically telling celebrity authors to shove off (in a personal capacity). Your biggest complaint seems to be about his style, as far as I can see.
The pile on Joe the Plumber during the election campaign was completely disproportionate and probably won a lot of votes back in McCain’s direction (though obviously nowhere near enough.) Evidence of media bias? Maybe not. Evidence of media hysteria? Definitely, for sure, right on. This article is another good example of that media hysteria – for some reason, Joe’s decision to write an autobiography (which will be highly edited, no doubt) has Mr Egan salivating like a wolf.
Obviously Tim Blair was being satirical in his headline, ‘licence all writers’, but it did remind me of this piece by Melbourne poet Geoff Lemon, a cute take on the concept of ‘poetic license’. Read it for an example of satire that is actually enjoyable and well written.
The quickest way to get yourself banned for life from commenting at the soft left blog Larvatus Prodeo is to suggest the arts community shouldn’t suckle on the public teat. I seriously despise prissy, rent seeking soft left types like Egan. No sir, we don’t owe you a living and prestige. You’ll have to earn these in the market place, just like plumbers, licensed or otherwise.
I guess it partly depends whether you believe the marketplace should govern all aspects of human endeavour or not.
I do not. I would rather art gain prominence based upon its artistic merit than what either the marketplace or the art elite ordains.
The key point in your argument, Paul, are the last three words:
I guess it partly depends whether you believe the marketplace should govern all aspects of human endeavour or not.
I do not. I would rather art gain prominence based upon its artistic merit than what either the marketplace or the art elite ordains.
‘Art elite’, in our system, is usually a shorthand for a bureaucratic arts administration, responsible for distributing public funds. The results they achieve are probably no matter than the results a market-based art system is able to achieve. Neither have any immediate connection to questions of artistic merit.
TimT, I’d agree – I’ve seen good and bad stuff emanating from both the marketplace and the arts elite. Of course, it’s all subjective – how do you tell what’s “meritorious” anyway?
What of artwork which is judged meritorious by an arts elite, but no one in the general public wants to see it, watch it or read it (as the case may be)? Why should the public pay for art funded through arts bodies when they wouldn’t look at it or pay for it if an admission fee was charged to fund the artwork instead? It’s not straightforward.
I was wondering how these things would have been done in the olden days (before taxpayer funded grants). I suppose either artists were just totally impoverished, or had to find a noble patron or a religious body to fund their exploits. Or you did stuff to order to pay the bills?
Patronage (or being born wealthy) was one of the only ways one could hope to be an artist in the old days. Which is interesting in that a patron would tend to be either someone with great expertise and interest in that field, or someone with an ulterior motive in paying for “great” art, as judged by others with expertise in the field. Either way, there was a direct incentive to sponsor not necessarily the lowest-common-denominator “most popular” artists, but the best artists. Patrons would generally dictate subject matter, which is one reason why there are often numerous paintings of very similar subjects from particular periods.
I think there is great danger in relativism. I strongly believe that “I don’t know art but I knows what I likes” is not a good method for determining the value of art. To my mind a critical question is not whether some good art might be identified that way, but how much great art would be ignored and overlooked if basic popularity were the key determinant.
As George W Bush demonstrates, popular opinion is frequently not a good guage of quality of any kind.
Tim T – ‘Art elite’, in our system, is usually a shorthand for a bureaucratic arts administration, responsible for distributing public funds.
Yes, no.
One of my first gigs was working for fledgling magazine a bit like this only nowhere near as good.
My boss was an actor and I soon found out that most of what he’d told me about the magazine’s mission was bullshit. What he was doing was using it to publish childish diatribes against funding bodies because he’d (shock!) been refused a grant.
He’d been living on grants for 20 years.
The weird thing about this is that he wasn’t a very good actor. Very good, he wasn’t any good. What he was good at was bullshit. He told me he was one of the stars of An Angel At My Table. He’s in it – barely. Blink and you’ll miss him.
He was an excellent argument against public funding because he would not have survived in any meritocracy. He’d moved out to Australia from Britain in the 70s because anybody could get a grant. He then moved to Qld because Sydney and Melbourne were too tough for him.
Here he was: no talent, no skill, but oozing with knowing the right people and filling in the right forms. And he was publishing a magazine for which a niche existed on public money without ever once intending seriously to have it do what it was supposed to do. He used young people, unpaid, to do the work and take the flack – all because he wanted to throw a tantrum about being turned down.
“It’s fascism” he said to me of his refusal. And he was serious.
When people talk of Arts Elites, they’re slagging some stereotypical claret scoffing, black turtleneck wearers or makers of perversities of some kind. The fact isn’t that we have an Arts Elite but that our so-called creative elites aren’t elite at all. They’re rubbish.
I don’t think this is a product of public funding so much as the culture of the country in general. The private sector is just as ordinary. But you do have to wonder at a system that would allow someone such as this guy to live for decades at public expense without anything to contribute.
I was wondering how these things would have been done in the olden days (before taxpayer funded grants). I suppose either artists were just totally impoverished, or had to find a noble patron or a religious body to fund their exploits. Or you did stuff to order to pay the bills?
Pretty much.
Market, private or public patronage it actually all boils down to taste and whether whoever’s coughing up has any. Usually not.
Herbert Read had an excellent essay on public patronage in To Hell With Culture. And in arguing for public patronage cites a letter by Leonardo Da Vinci where he’s apologizing to a clinet for being slack on some great work because, for want of needed ducats, he has to do something for a bonehead.
Read rightly states: Here is perhaps the finest mind that’s ever existed and he’s being inhibited for want of a few ducats.
And that’s also true. Read understands the problems with public patronage and describes them well He also understands that the market isn’t necessarily going to extract the best from hi-falutin’ minds either.
What can you do?
Paul, sometimes I wonder if we overlook great art anyway… What fascinates me about “classics” is that which is later identified as the work of a great artist is not always identified as such at the time (either by arty types or by the general public). I would love to see which books from my era survive to be classics 200 years down the track, and see if the list bears any resemblance to a present day list of bestsellers, or for that matter, a present day Booker Prize list. Of course, I’ll be long gone by that point.
Shakespeare didn;t make ‘the greats’ list until the 18th century. And then only grudgingly.
It’s all just capitilo-phallocentric hegemony however. The White Pages are every bit as good as Hamlet.
Well I suppose there’s a number of different definitions of ‘art elite’ Adrien. It’s true that some commenters, especially the scalliwags over at places like Bolt and Blairs, will identify both arts bureaucrats and artists under the one tag of ‘elite’. I think an alternative definition of the term is possible – ie ‘art elite’, the ‘body of people in control of public arts funding in our country, who are individually, and as an institution, usually unanswerable to the public.’ That’s more what I was thinking of.
Regarding funding of arts in pre-modern times – well, I guess there have always been a variety of systems in operation. English theatre was for a long time entirely market driven. Composers in opera and other large scale works often relied upon grants by either aristocrats or whatever public body was in power at the time (Berlioz was a french composer, but he toured all over the place – in Russia, one presumes he was paid by the Tsardom.)
I think the current American model of funding for the arts (philanthropy and market based) is interesting and instructive not only because it shows that a private-based model of arts funding can be successful. It also demonstrates that the market systems that were in evidence in some parts of Europe before the 20th century have developed and are sustainable in a world where most other nations have opted for publically-funded arts.
I tend to think Australians spend too much and not enough time contemplating overseas cultural industries.
Too much because there’s always this tendency to say: they do it, so should we, without acknowledging that what works there might not here. Not enough because there’s so much of a tendency for creative cliques in this country to bolster each other up and corral off Australian culture into a protected little circle where it neither has to compete with nor acknowledge the higher standards we find in other countries.
Our culture has almost entirely emerged in the electronic era. This is global. We aren’t isolated by time and space the way The King’s Men were. And we don;t have the traditions that Europeans, Asians and even Americans have to draw upon. There’s an anxiety about the Austrlian-ness of our cultural products.
I forget who said that Australian culture is like a blank sheet of paper and its people are the committee sitting about wondering what to write on it. The important thing is to write on it. And whatever.
Two of the largest impediments to this are as follows:
One is that we insist in the public and private sectors on building a hedge around Australian cultural products. In video stores, in bookshops, in libraries, in galleries – Australian art, Australian literature, Australian cinema are on their own shelf. What does that say?
The other is this persistent literal-minded, social realist and politically orientated requirement for artists. I mean political in the broadest sense – some commitment to a social principle of some kind. I remember once sitting in on a script class at AFTRS. There were three scripts. One was a very funny piece based around a series of absurd-surreal coincidents in a suburb. The other two were dull ’social-realist’ pieces, they read almost verbatim like the transcript of a conversation at a shopping mall.
The tutor praised these and condemned the comedy because it wasn’t realistic!
Again and again there’s this herd push that says anything that strikes its own path or is ‘weird’ in some unfashionable way is unacceptable. This is why our movies are s devoid of beauty, why the dialogue is always dull. It’s a will to beige. And it appears compulsory.
I like that phrase, ‘a will to beige’.
I did some volunteer manuscript reading when I lived in Newcastle for a local publisher. One of the manuscripts I had to read was a collection of rather bad poetry, amongst which was a poem lauding the virtues of ’sepia’. It said something like sepia was the ‘colour of life’.
I looked it up afterwards and found that it was a type of brown. Oh.
I’ve hated sepia ever since!
‘Strine poetry is real good, you
Just take sentences and break them in two
And throw in a some lofty words like schmo
And if anyone says it’s shit say least I’m havin’ a go.
Dear god let it not include any Philip Roth or S. Rushdie… boooooooooring. Those books might as well start with the dedication “To my dear Booker/Nobel Prize selection committee, here is my Extremely Long and Serious Novel, yours in pompous boringness, the author.”
So in summary none of us has a perfect system for allocating money/attention, and the inherently subjective qualities of experiencing art mean that an objective system is nigh on impossible to come up with?
Adrien, I think you’re spot on about social realism being equated with artistic merit.
I’ve just been going through a Terry Pratchett phase (great to read in the middle of the night when breast feeding). I’d prefer to read his books any time over Rushdie’s (I’m with you there, Paul), and I find his social commentary all the more biting because it’s so funny. But that’s not classed as “great literature”.
I was having a discussion on another blog about Australian film. One of my problems with Australian film is that many are depressing and miserable. I don’t really enjoy watching terrible stories of drug addiction, mental illness, domestic violence etc. It gets me down. Again, social realism is equated with “arty”.
Mind you, as I also noted, there was also a stage where Australian films were seriously overdoing the “quirky” thing too. I’d really rather Australian film was less self-conscious, and just tried to make a damn good story!
Paul, a good summary – I don’t know what the answer is. All systems are flawed in one way or another.
Hayek once pointed out that markets are not perfectly meritocratic. They’re roughly meritocratic, in that there is reasonable correlation between talent and success (financial, lifestyle etc), but it’s perfectly possible to be very worthy and as poor as a church mouse. Rather, markets are the least worst system. I’m always reminded of the famous quip from Churchill — that democracy was the worst system of government in the world, except for all the others that had been tried.
LE- . I’d really rather Australian film was less self-conscious, and just tried to make a damn good story!
Self-conscious – exactly. That’s the problem. This is possibly related to the malaise in this country where people seem to think they need authorisation to be creative. thinking which is, um, flawed.
.
Skeptic – Hayek once pointed out that markets are not perfectly meritocratic.
In the culture I think there’s all sorts of problems with merit generally. It’s pretty obvious in this decade that the criteria for success in, say, the music industry isn’t artistic integrity or talent. The demands of the industrial system have been in tension with the vicissitudes of culture ever since they came together.
Of course just because something is popular doesn’t mean it’s not great and just because something is not popular doesn’t mean it is.
And of course public patronage (and private) fall prey to the same problems of mediocrity. In every era where cultural activities are seen as glamourous or important you’ll find the rooms crowded with inspidic little twerps waxing lyrical their banal opinions thru some superior nasal vulgarity. It can’t be helped. Go into an average gallery opening, swing a cat, you’ll hit at least ten flat-headed wankers possesed of the creativity and taste of a capital account ledger.
Swing that cat hard.
I’m sorry. That last bit of the comment was terrible. I apologize to all cats.
Mew!