Writing Quote for Thursday

Posted on by
Here’s a biggie. A controversial quote from a well respected writer/teacher. What does it say to you?
“I think that the difference right now between good art and bad art is that the good artists are the people who are, in one way or another, creating, out of deep and honest concern, a vision of life . . . that is worth living. And the bad artists, of whom there are many, are whining or moaning or staring, because it’s fashionable, into the dark abyss.” – John Gardner
Source: The Writer’s Chapbook (1989, Penguin, ed. George Plimpton)

8 thoughts on “Writing Quote for Thursday”

  2. It says the guy was an arrogant snob.

    “… the good artists are the people who are, in one way or another, creating, out of deep and honest concern, a vision of life . . . that is worth living.”

    And he would know this because he was the self-anointed authority on life & art??? To me, that’s how it sounds.

  3. I’m not sure of his intent, but you could take this quote a couple of ways. I agree if his intent is to say that people who write stories where some thread of hope for humanity exists vs. those who just want to write bleak and dark stories that seem hopeless. To me it’s not an issue of good artist/bad artist, but simply of preference. It’s why all the recent western movies have sucked—they are bleak dark affairs with no hope in them. Thanks, but life is trial enough, I don’t need hopeless fiction.

    On the other hand, if he is merely stating his distaste for artists who bemoan the difficulties of the craft, I’d say that that describes anybody in any occupation. You think administrative assistants don’t whine about their job sometimes? Or police officers, or whomever? It’s part of human condition. Of course if you spend all that time whining and never PRODUCE, then you’ve got a problem.

  4. I think the day Gardner wrote those words, he had just come down with a debilitating case of snob-itosis, for which there is no known cure.

  5. Gardner seems to be saying that good art will somehow focus the reader toward a vision of life that is worth living– an active, purposeful direction. In contrast, bad art simply sits there, passively gazing at the dark side, failing to provide vision, purpose, hope, or even movement.

    Good art isn’t passive or static, as demonstrated by much of the literature that’s endured for ages. Consider Odysseus, Beowulf, Dante, Jean Valjean, and Huckleberry Finn– all moved with purpose. Even the darkest tragedies– Antigone, Hamlet, Macbeth– had purpose, choice, action, and consequences.

    Bad art, on the other hand, often simply indulges the writer’s taste for navel-gazing, offering nothing to the reader but words, words, words– occasionally beautifully crafted, but empty and forgettable in the final analysis.

    Good art endures, and it’s not Gardner’s judgment that makes it good or bad, or even makes it endure. This quote is simply an observation that there is a difference, and it’s observable.

  6. Writing and all ‘art’, I believe, is inherently subjective. The work and the person who appreciates it, or does not, is in each circumstance like a chemical reaction with composite reagents that are unique and can not be reproduced. The reaction for each unique individual is different than that of anyone else. Further the reaction for the same individual can vary dependent on when and how the exposure to the ‘art’ occurs (consider how your musical taste may have changed from pre-teen to older).

    The presumption that another individual (e.g. JG) can decide whether the art is fundamentally good or bad is mistaken or arrogant. An individual can decide whether he or she likes the work (thinks is good or bad) but identifying that as the definitive is presumptious in the extreme.

    I think JG had his head up somewhere when he made the statement. I’ve made plenty of statements that in retrospect I wish I could revise. I suspect JG would feel that way about this quote.

  7. This quote is from 1989, a period in time when there was, and let’s be honest here, a lot of gaudy and very poor pieces of art. I agree with Gardner because at the time there was a lot of tacky pieces of art being produced. Not too much later was when Vanilla Ice hit it big. Gardner even says that he is talking about that particular time.

    He is also talking about the need to express yourself as opposed to just doing it to become famous, as so many did during this time. Remember, this is the heyday of MTV.

Comments are closed.