The best hope and approach, imo, is that of the radical middle which, for now, means embracing the concepts of punk, diy, indie, underground and creating as much of a community as you can so that those who are looking to break from that culture (and I’m only talking about culture here — the whole issue of activity in the LDS Church is something else entirely, but a big part of the impetus behind the radical middle is to help perfect the saints who are turned off by or are weary off the kitsch but who don’t want to wholeheartedly embrace the world) find a place that delights and instructs and speaks to them and to their Mormon-ness.

[Edited to correct a very embarrassing mistake]

Good Q.

Kitsch or vulgar, I think we can agree we’re not keen on either. But if they’re both actually bad, then how can we ween ourselves off them? Substituting kitsch for the vulgar doesn’t strike me as a very good solution.

That which is kitsch is intended to inspire, to reify words or images in such a way as to nod at purity and eternity, to capture timelessness. Of course, it fails to do so and that’s why it’s kitsch.

vulgar as the dark side of common (which, you must admit, does have a lot of dark side to it…)

Yes, I agree with that.

@MoJo: I agree with you as well. Definitely “vulgar” has bad connotations, where “common” can be used more positively. I see vulgar as the dark side of common (which, you must admit, does have a lot of dark side to it…)

It’s simpler to find good work if you limit yourself to in-print 100years-plus works. Anything that’s lasted that long is almost definitely Great!

In, say, 1703, there was plenty of crap on the market. Most of it has been long forgotten. Most of it deservedly so. Today it’s easier than ever to get something before the public which means more crap — maybe even a higher percentage of crap — but this should not be taken to imply there is nothing virtuous, lovely, of good report or praiseworthy being published. You just have to look harder and be willing to make errors sometimes. (Example: Bible Salesman: no good.)

Some will no doubt see this as a waste of time and soul. Stick with Dickens — we already know he’s good. But I disagree. For several reasons, but here’s one:

If we want to weasel our way into the zeitgeist, if we want to create art that makes a difference, we have to be aware of the trends. Now, “trends” is a much-pilloried word, but there is value to knowing trends. Just because “Hamlet” was trendy didn’t make it unworthy. Generally, the best examples of yesterday’s trends are today’s masterpieces.

I am not not NOT suggesting artists should try to be trendy, only that they should be of their time. In the world, but not of it, as it were.

I’m surprised that every seems to have fixated on this classics-first issue which I thought was ultimately less interesting and if possible, I would like to post a question on the positive pro-art facets of the article — the calls for recognizing and consuming greatness, for instance. Ignoring the old/new problem, what about it? How about this concept that the pursuit of Great Art is an inherently Mormon thing to do?

Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

But. (And I am not talking about unfortunate “rights talk” not related to the arts. BCC and T&S have already covered that waterfront.) But, I am not sure about the article’s apparent definition of art as: (1) something old, safe, and generally upbeat, and/or (2) a luxury product one consumes for image purposes.

I mean, the world is full of truly wonderful art that fits one or both definitions. But what about the great art these definitions exclude?

Regarding the latter definition, the emphasis on the term “refinement” struck me as interesting. One thing I know from ads for luxury products: all of the best yachts, cigars, and German sedans are exceedingly refined. Yet such “fine” things are not necessarily praiseworthy. Is “refinement” a Christian virtue? That is a sincere question.

And as for the former definition, the apparent rejection of the new and non-classic seems a little cranky (Back in my day, we didn’t have new media. That’s the way it was, and we liked it!). The article implies that there is an obvious distinction between the quality of work produced for one medium (books!) over others (movies and tv). But good art is good art, right? Even if it happened to be produced by people who didn’t wear funny hats and codpieces?

I read the news and despair that no one is chaste or honest these days – but the idea that vulgar means common helps me put this back in perspective. Things haven’t changed, the vulgar has always been prevalent because we live in a fallen world. To escape vulgarity, then, implies refusing to give myself the excuse that other people are doing something, so it’s ok for me to do it too.

The definition of “common” here has apparently been implied/inferred as The Sin That People Commit, and has been accepted for the purpose of the discussion.

Common DOES have other connotations, you know, and the most common connotation of common is, well, common.

Meaning, in great abundance and appealing to a wide audience.