Prompt: ART

In order for any work of art—for example, a film, a novel, a poem, or a song—to have merit, it must be understandable to most people.

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.

If it is true that some art depends for its success and its appeal on the inability of most people to understand its message, then not all works of art must be understandable to most people in order to have merit.  The work of famous, successful artists such as Jackson Pollock depend partially on communicating an inaccessible inner truth.  Therefore, not all works of art must be understandable to most people in order to have merit. 

If understandability is not the sole criterion for measuring the success of works of art, then what is?  According to philosophical hermeneutics, breakdowns in meaning, and understandability are key components of the enrichment of human experience, feeling, and thought.  When such breakdowns occur, they challenge the individual human meaning maker to create their own perspective, and develop their own truth.  It is, therefore, core to these theories of human experience and interpretation that art, rather than communicate an understandable truth, function as an inconceivable boundary, placing limits on the preconceived understandings of most people, and forcing them to grow as human beings. 

One objection to this line of reasoning might be that “merit” is here being misconstrued, and that the function of novels, films, poetry, and songs are being romanticized.  The line of reasoning continues, for a work of art to have “merit”, most people must be able to relate to the work.  But, just because someone can relate to a work of art, doesn’t mean it has “merit”.  “Merit” is here left undefined, and dependent on further analysis.  It is, therefore, on the onus of the objectors to repeal the original argument that the function of art is to bring people, regardless of its understandability, to a closer understanding of themselves as meaning makers.