JL: "Whatever "good art" is, it is not achieved by being or teaching thatwhich is politically correct.Someone might argue that being Politically Correct
in belief (?) trumps "good art.”I don’t understand what belief’s got to do with it. Is it that avegetarian might say that a graphic painting of a slaughterhouse was not ‘good art,' that it didn’t move him; and that indeed it repelled him, so that he couldn’t, short of being subjected to the psychological techniques used in /A Clockwork Orange/, ever come to see through the veil
of his convictions and find it ‘good?’Maybe the reason he cannot find it good is that it tries to make artby depicting the suffering of animals, and he can find no ‘good’ in that. Yet, suppose he finds himself attracted to a woman who wouldeat Kobe beef morning, noon, and night and who’s sickened by the merethought of nasty carrots under the filthy earth. And seductress that
she is, she brings him to give up his vegetarianism. Will he thensee the merits of the
‘slaughterhouse painting,’ or will they continueto be invisible to him?But is vegetarianism a fair analogy to Marxism, when it comes to evaluating art? I don’t see why not. They both exemplify the critical maxim that ideology trumps all…
…which is a silly view; that critics and intellectuals thought it worth discussing is strange. It leads to such idiocies as ‘That would be a great novel, if only it weren’t so politically incorrect,’ or, ‘It’s ideological correctness is what makes it so powerful.’ There’s nothing, though, about a painting of a Stakhanovite that makes its colors or its contours or its balance or its striking form undergo a change depending on whether its viewer is a True Trotskyite or a Stalinist. Niagara Falls will be Niagara Falls, even if Santorum wins the election. JL says some things about ‘morals’ and about Philippa Foot’s thought as it might pertain to them. I’ll try to comment on them someday. Robert Paul EndFragment