Art is not media

[Finchbearer]

So I recently came across this quote by the brilliant Ottessa Moshfegh;

“I wish that future novelists would reject the pressure to write for the betterment of society. Art is not media. A novel is not an ‘afternoon special’ or fodder for the Twittersphere or material for journalists to make neat generalizations about culture. A novel is not Buzzfeed or NPR or Instagram or even Hollywood. Let’s get clear about that. A novel is a literary work of art meant to expand consciousness. We need novels that live in an amoral universe, past the political agenda described on social media. We have imaginations for a reason. Novels like American Psycho and Lolita did not poison culture. Murderous corporations and exploitative industries did. We need characters in novels to be free to range into the dark and wrong. How else will we understand ourselves?”

Now, to me that is a monumental quote that could be taken a thousand various ways, but not only do I agree with it, but her words seem to have ignited a fire within me to go ahead and create my art rather than be preoccupied with the perceived need to pander to a set of specific societal expectations that are constantly perpetuated across various media channels. While I’m not going to create anything stupendously controversial, there is something so freeing by realising that we are creating art - not media fodder.

I’m sure many of you have created your work without a second thought to this issue, but nevertheless, I think it’s an interesting conversation to be had.

What do you think of this statement?

How much do you implement this ideal into your work?

 

[Ban]

I agree with the sentiment and understand why Ottessa speaks in such grand absolutes (comes across as more poignant), but for actual, practical implementation there are caveats to be had. For one, literature is not in itself synonymous with a pursuit to "expand consciousness." For example, literature can just as well consist of content reminiscing about the past, thus reiterating the known and established to keep it alive in the cultural geist, without intending or causing it to "expand." This does not diminish the role Ottessa lays out for literature, but when we are talking about the reality of the matter it should be considered as equal to it. In other words, preservation is equal to innovation. Another caveat to be had pertains to audience. Literature (and I do call it that) meant for young folks such as Watership Down can be made challenging and frightening, but there are still limits we as authors place on what that young audience is exposed to. If someone were to cross that nebulous line, I do think it is fair to lambast them for it.

That all being said, I agree that ultimately literature ought to be free to push boundaries and bypass moral strictures. It is far better to explore such ideas via the written word than to see them enacted in reality. So all in all I agree with the quote, with some reservations regarding audience and purpose.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

So, I started a storyline where a disease is (maybe) intentionally spread, and that storyline moves into quarantines and entire cities locked off to live or die, and one of the cities is named Bdein, which can be shifted around to "Biden." All of this will result in a revolution to either take power or reinstate the old king.

All of this was plotted before Covid.

I haven't had any blowback yet, but I've only scraped the surface of that storyline. It makes me a touch nervous at times, but what the hell, the story is too set up to stop now, LMAO.

 

[pmmg]

So, I started a storyline where a disease is (maybe) intentionally spread, and that storyline moves into quarantines and entire cities locked off to live or die, and one of the cities is named Bdein, which can be shifted around to "Biden." All of this will result in a revolution to either take power or reinstate the old king.

All of this was plotted before Covid.

I haven't had any blowback yet, but I've only scraped the surface of that storyline. It makes me a touch nervous at times, but what the hell, the story is too set up to stop now, LMAO.

Who needs fiction when we have real world politics?

For a book. I would not hold back, but here on a forum, you know....that's got no direction to go that doesn't blow up, so... I will refrain from public comment.

 

[Finchbearer]

I’ll tentatively say here that we are all adults, and can have a semi-intelligent conversation about the posts subject matter.

 

[pmmg]

So I recently came across this quote by the brilliant Ottessa Moshfegh;

“I wish that future novelists would reject the pressure to write for the betterment of society. Art is not media. A novel is not an ‘afternoon special’ or fodder for the Twittersphere or material for journalists to make neat generalizations about culture. A novel is not Buzzfeed or NPR or Instagram or even Hollywood. Let’s get clear about that. A novel is a literary work of art meant to expand consciousness. We need novels that live in an amoral universe, past the political agenda described on social media. We have imaginations for a reason. Novels like American Psycho and Lolita did not poison culture. Murderous corporations and exploitative industries did. We need characters in novels to be free to range into the dark and wrong. How else will we understand ourselves?”

Now, to me that is a monumental quote that could be taken a thousand various ways, but not only do I agree with it, but her words seem to have ignited a fire within me to go ahead and create my art rather than be preoccupied with the perceived need to pander to a set of specific societal expectations that are constantly perpetuated across various media channels. While I’m not going to create anything stupendously controversial, there is something so freeing by realising that we are creating art - not media fodder.

I’m sure many of you have created your work without a second thought to this issue, but nevertheless, I think it’s an interesting conversation to be had.

What do you think of this statement?

How much do you implement this ideal into your work?

I have to turn my brain on for this....

I think I can both agree and disagree with every line.

I agree with the larger sentiment, the novelists need to be free to express and present. If there are restrictions on that, it only stunts the growth and journey of us all. I think I reflect that in the statements I often make on this site, such as asking for what it true, giving the story what it needs, telling the sensitive types to go jump in a lake, and the fighting for the spirit that inside us all over AI, and the crowd. (You may disagree).

One of the greater aspects of writing, is that it forces us to be more thought out, and twitter posts often are the opposite of that. Emoting in a written form is not the best way to approach a novel, and its not reaching very far past ones own naval. But...with a novel, the length almost requires and forces upon us the more thought out approach, and somewhere along the way, even the author ought to discover stuff that is reflective of things that are true, or more true, than what they had acquired before. I frequently say, keep asking what is true. For a writer, writing is (or ought to be) a path to that.

I'll go further and say, if your writing is just a way to regurgitate current cultural trends towards me, I am not interested.


I think I will parse this, cause its hard to give a complete answer otherwise:

I wish that future novelists would reject the pressure to write for the betterment of society. Art is not media.

I wish this to, but I will not go so far as to say media is not art. Art can have a very broad definition. They seem symbiotic to me, one is the other through any broad definition. But...I like the sentiment. Reach higher, stand above the choir, and ask bigger questions.

Id also question the 'write for the betterment of society' part, cause before one can do that, they have to have some way to know that they are. If the writing is to be on that level, get ready for a lot of scrutiny.

A novel is a literary work of art meant to expand consciousness.

Ideally, this is true, but is it always that? I think not. Maybe it all is, and some just does not reach it like others do. My inclination is to believe some novels are written and not meant to expand consciousness, and succeed at not doing it. But...then if I use loose definitions....


We need novels that live in an amoral universe, past the political agenda described on social media.

To the degree that we do live in a moral universe, can this be entirely escaped? I will defend the freedom of any to write stuff that would seem amoral or unacceptable by any type of outside standard. Without that freedom. there is no way to expand. One must be able to ask if kicking puppies is wrong before we can come to decide if it is. Political agenda and social media....they have their place, but mostly, they are rot. (That is not the same as I will be eagerly consuming or rooting for the success of just any work, though )

We have imaginations for a reason. Novels like American Psycho and Lolita did not poison culture.

Well, I am one of those who will defend Lolita and American Psycho as great works. I've not regretted reading either. And I don't share the disdainful attitudes about them. I just add them to the long line of things that make me question.

Murderous corporations and exploitative industries did.

This is a little too simplistic and too far for me, but he/she is trying to conclude.

We need characters in novels to be free to range into the dark and wrong. How else will we understand ourselves?”

Totally agree. But we need also to be reaching ourselves to understand what does that really tell us, and what does it mean when it does.

How much do you implement this ideal into your work?

All the time.

My story may not reach those I would like, or deliver in the way that I like. But....I think it will stand up to scrutiny as having something to say, and even something beyond the noise of social media and the stuff that passes as the background for our lives. So many are just a product of the culture and not very investigated. I often look to challenge that.

I’ll tentatively say here that we are all adults, and can have a semi-intelligent conversation about the posts subject matter.

I was just commenting that I cannot take the bait and pile on Mr. Biden. It would derail the thread. I am hoping we can steer away from more comments on him.

 

[pmmg]

Now, to me that is a monumental quote that could be taken a thousand various ways, but not only do I agree with it, but her words seem to have ignited a fire within me to go ahead and create my art rather than be preoccupied with the perceived need to pander to a set of specific societal expectations that are constantly perpetuated across various media channels.

Go you

 

[Chevalière de Saint-Just]

I've no problem with most of her sentiments,but I absolutely cannot understand how anyone could think they're even capable of creating a narrative that exists outside of morality.

Morality is as universal a tool as reason,and they always find themselves rather inextricably entwined. As such,even if the laws of one's fictional world are entirely unvirtuous,they must still be conducted by reason,wherein the ghost of your moral scruples still lies. What any given author even thinks is within the realm of possibility is dependent on moralistic reasoning,but for some reason it's only the latter that "realists" like Moshfegh ever acknowledge.

Also,as an aside,it's not like morality is some kind of universal ideal that some people happen to find virtuous and some simply don't...there exist as many species of morality as there do people. Even if you contradict popular morals in your novel,it's likely that you're still playing in the key of your own moral scruples,which makes the effect essentially the same,albeit that it shall only really make sense to oneself. Additionally,it's not like having a non-standard moral character makes an author or any of their works even remotely worthwhile.

The unfortunate fact is that such maxims will merely lead people into writing senseless,vain,and hypocritical nonsense that won't do much of anything. Either that,or I'm being overly judgemental.

 

[Mad Swede]

Wow. Want some cheese with that whine Ottessa Moshfegh?

So where exactly does that statement leave novels like Black Beauty or Uncle Tom's Cabin? Or novels like The Handmaid's Tale or To Kill a Mockingbird or The Color Purple?

I'm sorry, but a statement like that comes across as jealousy rather than a constructive comment. As The Handmaid's Tale shows, you can write a great novel which ranges into the dark and wrong whilst at the same time being a fairly sharp piece of social commentary on modern society. Great literature - and especially great novels - can, do and should entertain, provoke thought and comment on issues in our world and our society. That doesn't mean authors can't write light novels, but when we write light novels we shouldn't expect to see our names up there with the great authors.

Do I write novels like that? No. Or rather, I don't set out to do that. I'm told that I write from the heart, and that there is a message in my novels. But a social commentary? I have no idea. Others can judge whether what I write is a great novel or something rather lighter. I suspect my stories are the latter.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Well, if you take Lolita as the example given, I suspect that's what they're talking about. If one sticks to characters that behave by accepted norms (and in the current climate, which has hit the point of dogma often in both directions, at least online) a book like Lolita wouldn't or at least would be unlikely to be written. Nabokov took a risk in writing that book and won, and Irons taking on the role, assumed a certain risk as well and won, but would they win in the current climate? I'm not sure.

Novels should be open to everything, from pandering to the masses for pure entertainment to questioning everything and making the reader uncomfortable. I am more on the "art" side of writing and consider my work literary fantasy, and if I live long enough to write the entire series, people will see more of an exploration of dogma rather than the preachy stuff that is en vogue with the TwitteX crowd these days. At the same time, certain characters will be preachy, but whether they're right or wrong is a judgment call.

 

[pmmg]

I didn't really get from the quote that they would have wanted something like To Kill a Mockingbird to not have been written, or left out. I am quite sure they meant something close to the opposite. Seems to me to be a statement arguing for the freedom to explore and write about it all, popular or not. I had a very different reaction than Mr Swede, Apparently.

 

[Fyri]

I dislike the use of absolutes and think that art is useful for many things. It's good to be conscious of potential effects you may have if they are important to you. Art is simply creative expression, to be used however one likes, whether or not they wish to *say something* or simply entertain—or both!

 

[skip.knox]

I side with the Swede. It's ironic that the author cautions against authors being told what to do, and then proceeds to tell authors what to do. She wants more of a certain kind of writing and less of other kinds. That's fine. She could have just said that.

She also worries about the infleunce of outsiders on authors, which is a worry many of us share. She could have just said that, too, rather than ordering us all to write "a literary work of art". Without, btw, tackling the thorny question of what constitutes art.

I used ti be irked by this sort of snobbish, prescriptive article, but I'm trying to let go of that, for one practical reason. No matter how much the rhetoric nettles me, it appears to inspire others.

And I'm all for that. These works make you shout "yes!", then I'm all for it. Every one of us welcomes inspiration.

Also, I recognize the tone. I'm pretty sure that was me, somewhere along the line.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

I'm very glad that so many can find purpose and inspiration in literary fiction. Even after years and years of lit crit, I've never taken to it. Or perhaps it's why. I was raised to write, and I find writers who strain for that elusive Great American Novel to be a bit like a cousin at a holiday dinner. Awesome, but I'm not coming over to talk politics with you. So, after all the study and all the information packed into my brain, I read a lot more slowly and absolutely write to change the world, but I do it with trashy genre fiction, and I do it with bells on my shoes and a song in my heart. There's no sense in trying to reach hearts and minds with work that no one will read.

 

[Finchbearer]

it would seem that my prediction of the quote being taken many different ways rings true.

On the subject of differentiating art from media: art is creativity, media is social commentary.

That is not to say that art cannot also be social commentary, but the key difference is in the medium. The medium is the message.

I also like to refer back to something I remember from design school: art is honest, advertising is lying.

I’d go as far to say that media is advertising, and therefore is a lie.

Many years ago (where did time go?) I explored the subject of post-modernism for my dissertation, and whilst I would approach it very differently now, I still find the area very interesting. On mind expansion, to me it’s about proliferation. With each small new word written down and put out into the world, it is in itself a continued expansion of consciousness. With each new work of fiction being read and consumed and discussed, we are furthering our understanding of ourselves.

I think what Moshfegh is reacting to here is the pressure on novelists or aspiring novelists to conform to easily marketable and socially acceptable narratives. It is about the discouragement of pushing boundaries or exploring complex and sometimes uncomfortable themes due to the pressure of catering to specific agendas that are pushed around in mass media. I don’t think this issue is helped by the publishing industry where many agents and publishers seem to be working to the sanitised and predictable demands of mass consumption.

I don’t think Moshfegh is saying here that all literary works need be dark and amoral, or that one cannot work within the restrictions of social commentary or to cater for the masses, but rather that the pressure is there and should not be. Creativity should be free expression, not a predictable outcome.

 

[Finchbearer]

And I agree with demesnedenoir, where I think Moshfegh is kind of saying without actually saying, novels like Lolita and American Psycho would unlikely get past the gatekeepers in the publishing houses today. People would be outraged and disgusted. I honestly think that would be the case, and that just shows you where we’re at in terms of our imagined moral baselines today. I bet the publisher would not know how on earth they would market such books and panic would ensue.

 

[Rexenm]

There is a big wild world out there that loves to pick at anything that isn’t current, middle road, exotic - but there are plenty of genres that are niche, that can cater to any audience. It is alive in the world that wrongs and past wrongs will affect people, and even wound them - but that is why evil was created, to be defeated by good. One might say that evil can be over come by good.

However, there are plenty of reasons to stay on the straight and narrow. There are modes and modicums that would irk one of the secular world as much as a layman. There are things that go bump in the night that you know in yourself would affect you that someone whom has studied specific subjects to become a producer or publisher would know better about. Take a look at children. They are sure they know something fresh but they are not wise enough to circumvent their own instinct.

 

[Ban]

it would seem that my prediction of the quote being taken many different ways rings true.

On the subject of differentiating art from media: art is creativity, media is social commentary.

That is not to say that art cannot also be social commentary, but the key difference is in the medium. The medium is the message.

I also like to refer back to something I remember from design school: art is honest, advertising is lying.

I’d go as far to say that media is advertising, and therefore is a lie.

Many years ago (where did time go?) I explored the subject of post-modernism for my dissertation, and whilst I would approach it very differently now, I still find the area very interesting. On mind expansion, to me it’s about proliferation. With each small new word written down and put out into the world, it is in itself a continued expansion of consciousness. With each new work of fiction being read and consumed and discussed, we are furthering our understanding of ourselves.

I think what Moshfegh is reacting to here is the pressure on novelists or aspiring novelists to conform to easily marketable and socially acceptable narratives. It is about the discouragement of pushing boundaries or exploring complex and sometimes uncomfortable themes due to the pressure of catering to specific agendas that are pushed around in mass media. I don’t think this issue is helped by the publishing industry where many agents and publishers seem to be working to the sanitised and predictable demands of mass consumption.

I don’t think Moshfegh is saying here that all literary works need be dark and amoral, or that one cannot work within the restrictions of social commentary or to cater for the masses, but rather that the pressure is there and should not be. Creativity should be free expression, not a predictable outcome.

One problem I have with this is that there was never a time mass media or more specifically society at large didn't expect adherence to social norms in writing. Those controversial few who are remembered, are the ones who saw those boundaries and pushed against them. There hasn't been a time where some form of sanitizing wasn't the norm. Social media didn't invent this. So then what's the overarching point? A world without such literary standards is a world where nothing can be rebelled against, and that's not a good thing either. An artist banging his head against an open gate, demanding to be let out, is just a sad display all in all. I'd argue those rebelious few require those norms, for otherwise there is no dialogue between the orderly and the profane.

 

[Finchbearer]

I cited social media but it’s not only that, Moshfegh talks about many types of media - mass media, particularly since the days when Lolita and American Psycho were published, it has become so pervasive in all our lives to the point that it has a major influence. Moshfegh isn’t against literature as social commentary either. I would venture to say that Lolita and American Psycho are also to some extent social commentary.

 

[Ban]

Bulgakov had the weight of the Soviet Union to deal with. That's just one extreme example (though there are many), but comparatively the modern world is as easy as it comes for publishing. You want to publish something wild and abstract? Private presses like Punctum Books have got you covered, and they are easier to reach than ever before in human history. You want to publish something that would be too controversial for your country's publishers? Take a saturday to search for amenable markets overseas and try publishing there. All you need is an internet search. That still doesn't suit your needs? You can self-publish with nary a constraint on a dozen major websites. Still no luck? Put it online for free.

I have changed my mind on the quoted author come to think of it. The luxury of complaining about the modern publishing industry when so many options are available with ease is rather silly.