I have an ongoing debate with a friend of mine. I contend that there is an objective, reliable, and universal ‘good’ when it comes to art. I of course am not using the word morally, but rather aesthetically. For the sake of clarity and structure, I’m restricting my assessment to film and literature. So. Good. Is there a ‘Good,’ a universal standard that we all have to affirm and accept when it comes to art? I’m talking quality here. Are there ‘good’ books, are there ‘good’ films? Everyone will say, Yes, there are, why I saw one just the other night. But the question is, was it good, or was it good-to you?

   Ask anyone whether Casablanca, The Godfather, or Raiders of the Lost Ark was ‘good.’ I can’t imagine anyone saying, No way; a guy traipsing across exotic lands searching for the Ark of the Covenant, being chased by Nazi’s? How boring! If you meet anyone that says that, shoot them. It’s for their own good, really.

   According to my friend, one cannot say that there is a universal standard of quality when it comes to art. Art, to him, is subjective. You can only say, Well, it was good to me. I disagree. I think there is a standard, although it is often nebulous. Can anyone honestly say that Celine Dion is a lousy singer? Now, I don’t happen to care for her very much–I’m a blues kinda’ guy–but I can’t deny that she is an excellent singer. According to Quincy Jones, she’s “The best.” There’s where the tower of the objective good starts to wobble. Mr. Jones might say “Best” I might say excellent, someone else might say just good, but we all three recognize that Celine Dion has a voice that ranks at least superior to the average singer.

   Let’s look at another famous singer. One who probably surpasses Ms. Dion in total CD sales as well as ticket draw in live performances. I’m talking about that microphone magician, that golden voiced, that technically pristine crooner, the inimitable, Mick Jagger. A great Rock ‘n’ Roller, yes. A great singer, Uh…no. Is there someone, anyone,  out there that would say, with a straight face and a serious inflexion, that Mick Jagger is a better singer than Celine Dion? If my friend is right, and art is not objective, then we have to embrace this concept and take it as axiomatic. We have to say that yes, Mr. Jagger might be better than that amazing, phenomenal vocalist, Celine Dion. Then, as soon as we do, someone shoots us. And deservedly so.

   Let me get just a bit more caustic. Let’s say there is a writer who writes a book. It’s a thriller. It’s forty-two pages long. It has a multitude of misspelled words, the grammar consistently bears no resemblance to any language, much less English, and the ending has that emetic cliché, the butler as the murderer, when in chapter three, the writer has him as one of the dead victims of the killer. Now, if we are hog-tied to that politically obsequious and pusillanimous idea of, Who’s to say what ‘good,’ then we must, and I mean MUST, accept our incompetent imaginary writer as possibly, just possibly, being of the stature, artistically, as Ernest Hemmingway, Booth Tarkington, Flanery O’Conner, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Sophocles, Euripides, Aeschyles, and yes, even him, the one, the only–William Shakespeare. The moment we do, we will feel all of our long lived, heart felt and cherished artistic vision, Thaw, resolve itself, and melt into a dew. Not only that, we would know that we didn’t really mean it. And for the artist, the urge to scream out in a fit of uncontrollable, self aggrandizing and explosive objective judgment, “YES! HE’S AN IDIOT!!!” might just be more than we can handle.

   So, at the risk of crystal clear and divinely pure arrogance, I say, yes. There is a standard. And, within a certain set of, albeit mobile, parameters, I know what it is.

   I’m sure those of you out there with any sense of artistic integrity will agree with me. And for those poor souls who still want to hold on to their ‘Emperors new clothes’ way of looking at things…be my guest. But watch what you say–I’m packin.’  

 

   Keck