top of page

We Should Stop Romanticising the Arts

Sophie Rose Jenkins

This is a callout post to myself, and it probably explains why I'm struggling in literature class; I'm too focused on the aesthetic of the work to actually get the meaning behind what I'm studying. I don't mean this article in a “there really is no reason why the curtains were red” kind of way. Theatre, art, literature, music, performance, are all so easy to see as this other-worldly aspect, but I'm sick of all the mush that comes from it. People who romanticise the arts are blatantly missing the point of it, and here's why.


To be fair, there is a literal art movement called Romanticism. In the past, you would book a box at the theatre just to be seen at the show. Being able to talk intelligently about what the rest of society deemed a “good” book was a symbol of status. However, we try to act like these people from years ago, and, especially in an environment like St Andrews with so much history, it's easy to get lost in how vast the past actually is.


Theatre, art and literature weren't previously “high art”, they were just art - the language might have been flowery but a lot of it wouldn't have seemed foreign or impressive like it does today. It was special, but didn't hold as much romance as we might attribute to it now - Shakespeare was basically pantomime, complete with obscene jokes. Falling into the easy path of describing these works using pretentious and superficial language only shows that you're not appreciating them for what they are.


Caspar David Friedrich, Wanderer above the Sea of Fog (1818).


People try to comment on the “real” nature of art, but it is almost impossible for one of us plebs to truly discern the meaning behind an artist's intention. Our first readings, viewings, or listenings will inevitably pick up on the most trivial and unimportant things - in the midst of all the senses we miss the feeling. In surrounding ourselves only with what we deem as beautiful we book an opera box where the audience is us - we only do it because we want to be able to tell ourselves we have. Is there any other meaning behind anything else we do in life?


The tragedy of art is not something to minimise, and the performance of analysing someone else's struggles means that we transform the subject into an object. We can only skim the surface of these issues; it is impossible to physically get inside the artist's head and actually know the objective behind their process. In viewing something simply created by another human as completely unattainable, we hold them to too high a standard and actually make ourselves more distanced from them.


The process of art is messy. Creating a work consumes the entirety of a person and every element of them is portrayed in every element of the piece. The reader only sees the polished final draft and it's impossible to get the entire message of a piece without seeing the whole work.


You can't perceive anything as perfect when you don't have the entire picture. Being so distanced from the source, you can't see the individual brushstrokes (literal or metaphorical). If this is true, you cannot possibly appreciate the work of an artist in full.


Maybe there is an irony in the fact that I am arguing these points so decisively. I am definitely guilty of these sins; it is all too easy to revere the artist as a higher being, capable of creation that us mere mortals can only dream of accomplishing. However, romanticisation certainly does have its benefits - whilst the art's purpose may be obscured, it certainly clarifies how and to what extent these experiences allow us to feel.

Comments


bottom of page