What to do about: True Art

True Art and its subpages constitute probably the most glaring anti-intellectualism on this site, at least outside of the forums: half tropers completely missing the point of acclaimed works of art, half Complaining About Works You Think Are Overrated. The pages are in the YMMV index, but that does not excuse their ignorance.

Going through the index, we have:

• The main True Art index page: Mostly lolrandom humour, presumably intended as a shallow parody of modern/postmodern/abstract art ("But OTC told me they were the same thing!"). This is followed by a short paragraph alleging some nebulous quality that "critics and artists" think "allows an otherwise normal work to transcend itself and become a statement on the human condition", a ridiculous strawman. The language used is vaguely reminiscent of typical criticism of the New Criticism movement, but completely misrepresents it, opting instead to whine about elitists.
• True Art Is Ancient: The first of several attempts to find some universal property that causes works to be labelled as "True Art" and demolish it. As no critics are cited, all that we have is an argument directed at nobody in particular. The page quote is a sonnet by Shakespeare, meditating on the destructive powers of time and expressing the hope that his art may withstand it. At the foot of the page we are referred to the Sci Fi Ghetto for no adequately explained reason.
• True Art Is Angsty: This one does cite an actual person's opinion that vaguely resembles the one criticised (Franz Kafka's), but again goes well beyond what he actually said and attacks a strawman, this time attributed to "the experts", whoever they might be. The examples section is no better, making no reference to the ideas of specific critics or academics (the closest we get is the aforementioned Kafka quote; there's also a vague rant about the opinions of tropers in the reviews section of this site and a grumble about high school English classes), instead opting to attack entire genres and complain about works that tropers apparently feel are overrated, or overly dark.
• True Art Is Complex: Complaining about "critics" (none cited) who allegedly believe complex shows are preferable to simpler ones.
• True Art Is Foreign: The page description describes an (unattributed; surprise, surprise) mindset privileging foreign works over local ones. In other words, every rant about weeaboos you ever read without using the word "weeaboo". The examples mostly consist of... foreign works that people like. Um, what? Written from a very Anglo-America-centric viewpoint.
• True Art Is Incomprehensible: Doesn't seem sure whether it's describing an actual mindset or a fictional stereotype. The examples are mostly tropers complaining about works they didn't understand.
• True Art Is Offensive: Again, no critics cited, just a simplistic strawman. As with the previous, seems undecided whether it's describing an actual fictional trope or a real attitude, and accordingly, there are two example boxes. The second box is "Real Art and Artists". Once again, an ignorant mess.
• True Art Is Realistic: Lamenting that some people prefer fiction to tackle real issues rather than fantasy escapism.
• True Art Sticks It To The Man: A lengthy rant. Does cite some actual critics in the examples, but also incorporates a lot of vague generalisations.

For these reasons, I don't think there's any point in retaining these pages, and I propose that they be cut.

Sure, keep the main index and cut the rest. Say that the concept of true art doesn't make a lot of sense and say no examples.

They are, at least some of them, tropes. However, perhaps we could restrict them to in universe examples only?

^^ But what is the point in noting that a strawman doesn't make sense?

^ Agreed that the actual parodies of art and art criticism in fiction aren't the problem here.

I definetly think that there's a truth to the fact that media itself often portrays "True Art" or artistic endeavors as...well, incomprehensible, offensive, etc etc. And as such, I can't say I'm against the pages/tropes themselves. But they need a massive rewrite that doesn't sound like a highschooler who's mad because he has an assignment on picasso

I'm tempted to suggest an addition of Citation Needed to examples...

As a trope, I think it's better to keep to in-universe examples. That way it also doesn't have to be on the YMMV pages.

I'd say cut them completely, because I can't imagine a use for them.

At the same time, do we need to come across like a bunch of art (or literature as the case my be) majors that are getting all bent out of shape just because people are parodying and satirizing their chosen fields?

The thing is, this is a legitimate trope about how many people view and, more importantly, depict in fiction certain aspects of the art community.

edited 21st Jan '12 5:51:15 AM by Catbert

That is a false dichotomy. There is no need whatsoever to sound like mad high schoolers or mad art majors

Lets just stick to the facts.

I say keep them. All these points are legitimately raised. Demanding citations will just turn us into Wikipedia.

These are tropes, but the examples should be limited to In-universe.

For example, in the R Austin Freeman story The Stoneware Monkey, the pretensions and ignorance of a character are highlighted when he gives a lecture on the "true art" status of a crude piece of pottery, declaring that it demonstrates the soaring genius of the man who made it. In fact, everything that he's praising as meaningful is the result of the fact that it is the guy's very first attempt at throwing a pot on a pottery wheel. And the guy who actually made it isn't the guy the lecturer thinks made it.

I agree with though Bobby is right some definitions could use a rewrite to be less hostile.

At the same time, a website devoted to art and media shouldn't have such anti-intellectual pages on it anyway.

edited 21st Jan '12 9:42:22 AM by Culex3

In this matter it may not be a bad thing. If I may speak candidly, I think that the True Art pages demonstrate that, as a website, we're not really the best qualified people to engage in meaningful discussion or criticism of "high art" (and certainly, I include myself in that reckoning).

edited 21st Jan '12 9:54:44 AM by TheGloomer

The tropes are usually used in hostile way — to make a character who espouses them look like a fool, a poser, or a jackass.

The descriptions on the page should not be hostile.

edited 21st Jan '12 9:43:59 AM by Madrugada

Tvt is certainly pretty low on the list of places I'd go for meaningful analysis of art

This is true, but the thing about strawmanning art and literature analysis is that it, aside from actually being a false painting of critics, paints a tone for the site that actually draws a line against what we're allowed to say.

The True Art is Ancient page is pretty much implying anyone who likes Shakespeare or Canterbury Tales is an idiot/sycophant.

TV Tropes shouldn't be drawing such lines about where we fall on art and what it's like. We're not an analysis site, we're a toybox but we should want our toys to be well made, at least.

Also, TV Tropes is a place for discussing Media, not social commentary. Even if you do believe these are valid issues, TV Tropes is not an appropriate venue to discuss it.

edited 21st Jan '12 10:04:32 AM by Malkavian

This isn't exactly a professional academic forum for English lit majors. Nor are we, as the front page says, "a stuffy encyclopedic wiki".

Anyway, I'm fine with turning these into "in universe only" tropes as long as we turn them into objective tropes while we are doing so. Artists poking fun at the pretensions of art and most especially art critics happens all the time, and is very much a trope. Just look at Calvin And Hobbes. Also, in doing so, we need not abandon a certain bit a fun, or take on a Tropes Are Bad attitude toward this trope. This need not be a place for critics that take themselves entirely too seriously.

If anything, the existence of this thread has made me think that rather than cutting these, we need to expand them by making a True Art Must Not Be Mocked trope.

Yeah I always thought these tropes should be limited to in-universe. I do feel like it's a pretty common trope to make fun of how incomprehensible "True Art" can be and I feel that most of the in-universe examples aren't complainng.

All the more reason not to attack actual literature analysts, especially not strawmen of them.

I agree that in-universe are the only legit examples, and that the articles should be redrafted to reflect that what we are talking about is how the attitudes portrayed are portrayed by the works.

TV Trope doesn't have opinions about esthetics. The only judgement we should ever show (in the white pages) about a work is whether or not it is too creepy to comment on.

Sounds cool, though I'm curious what the standards for "too creepy to comment on" are.

That's been covered in numerous other threads.

And it appears that I never added The Stoneware Monkey as an example. I need to do that.

Could you direct me to that? I mean, are we saying there are works that are too creepy to comment on? Cause I've seen some pretty... interesting work pages out there and I'm wondering if they qualify.

i think that above all, we shouldn't restrain from describing a work, regardless of how "creepy" or "immoral" it is. It's when we praise or condemn a work when it becomes problematic.