Advocacy and Bad Art

As a comment to the previous post, I didn't see the Joe Dante Voting Zombies thing, and not just becuase I don't have cable.

It's because certain types of advocacy/activist art are consistently Bad Art. And I figured this would probably be the case with that. (Not to put down Joe Dante. Gremlins rule.)

But something bad happens when the aesthetics of cultural product take a major back seat to the advocacy of a certain ideology. This is the difference between Christian rock and JS Bach. Art can glorify God, absolutely, but only insofar as it still cares about being art.

In the case of Creed, we have two-bit Eddie Vedder impersonator at vocals, and a bunch of recycled grunge instrumentals beside, all over a bunch of fake spirituality. You can tell it's "Christian" because it sounds like bad advertising.

That's why Michael Moore Hates America, although I've never seen it, is almost certainly bad. Because the motivation, much more than for Moore, is to make a point. I don't too much like Michael Moore, but he is entertaining, and knows how to make an engaging film.

It certainly isn't the case that only the right engages in this kind of bankrupt art practice. The contemporary scene is littered with advocates without vision or perspective, people whose work gains nothing going from the page out into the world.

If I could change one thing about the tendencies of contemporary art practice, I would have more art in it, fewer picnics. Picnic art is only going to get paying customers out of that weird communal sense of guilt that sends art-worlders to shows that are "important" but ghastly.

And if picnic art wants to forego paying customers, it can go right ahead. But art without paying customers is like a sandwich shop without paying customers.