For Its Time

Cave painting, Lascaux, France, 15,000 to 10,000 B.C.

When criticizing a work of art that is important or influential, there is a temptation to forgive its shortcomings in light of its historical significance. Here is an instance: some drawings by early cave dwellers may not be impressive by today's standards, but they may be impressive by the standards of the time in which they were made; for this reason, any comparison between these drawings and the Sistine Chapel that declared Michelangelo's art as artistically superior might be disregarded on the basis of contextual or historical ignorance. This temptation should be resisted.

The truth is that there are two variables at work here: 1) the importance or effect of a piece of art and 2) the excellence of that piece's craftsmanship. These variables are independent. One artwork can be simultaneously influential and poorly made; another can be simultaneously unimportant and brilliant. Therefore, the argument that a work is good "for its time" is not an argument at all--it is a non sequitur, a conversational path towards a possibly interesting but completely separate source of study.

These two subjects require very different areas of knowledge. Talking about the importance of an object of art requires knowledge of the history and culture surrounding its creation. Talking about its craftsmanship requires knowledge of the craft. It is possible for someone to be completely at ease in one of these fields and completely lost in the other.

In my experience there is confusion about this distinction, and this confusion causes problems. There are people who hold back from criticizing the craftsmanship of important works because they are afraid of looking ignorant or erratic. And there are great works that get panned or ignored on the basis of their unpopularity.

We should treat these variables as separate. We should feel free to criticize the classics, and we should feel free to praise artistic accomplishments we suspect will be forgotten.