Art washes away from the soul the dust of everyday life

There lies a fundamental, philosophical tension in art and aesthetics, rooted in where meaning resides and what the central meaning behind a work of art is. 

Ever since social media became a pivotal role in our everyday lives, online communities began to arise and spread as people sought out camaraderie and a safe space on the Internet for their shared interests. These spaces online, whether it be a fandom or a forum, offer users kinship with other people they might not be able to access in the physical world. Fandoms have existed since the early 20th century, first emerging from science fiction and fantasy literature. These early groups were connected through exchanges of letters and mailing lists, which eventually evolved into conventions and the creation of ‘fanzines’ (fan magazines). In the present day, fans congregate online through various mediums, including social media, group chats, and forums. And as these groups of interests become more pervasive, in correlation with algorithms pushing trending videos and content to the front of our feeds, we are exposed to more and more opinions by the day. Now more than ever, we are consuming random strangers’ thoughts and opinions online, whether it’s about politics or the most recent book they’ve read. Herein exists the conversation of art for art’s sake, art existing on its own terms, and the widespread inability of many people to understand their reaction on its own terms as well.

Formalism, also known as aestheticism, posits that an artwork’s intrinsic value lies within itself, independent of external factors. More simply known as art for art’s sake. The meaning of an artistic piece can be an emphasis on form, value found in its physical and formal qualities, such as colors, textures, sounds, and structures. Another facet of formalism is the autonomy of the artwork, where the work of art is considered an autonomous object, and critical analysis falls only on the work itself and not on the viewer’s intent or personal feelings. There is the rejection of didacticism, which means that the work exists simply to be itself, and not for any higher moral, social, or political purpose. 

On the antithesis end of the spectrum, the reception of the art should be entirely on its own. This perspective suggests that the meaning and value found within art are primarily created in the mind of the viewer. There is more of an emphasis on subjective experience, and the work of art is not actually the subject itself, but the individual, psychological, and emotional response it evokes from a witness. A stricter version of this argument is the rejection of the artist’s intention, that the artist’s intended meaning is not the only correct or singular interpretation. We also find that with separating the reaction from the object, the meaning is relational. Finding meaning or value is not a fixed property in art, but rather it is generated and influenced by the interaction between the viewer and the art. 

So, what the hell does any of this have to do with social media and our usage of the Internet? Increasingly, I have seen people eager to share their opinions online, quick to join a conversation or give their two cents without regard to any nuance that is present but promptly ignored in the context of the debates. My most specific example would be in the world of BookTok. The BookTok community has fostered a space online for people to talk about everything books. It has opened the door for new readers, providing a range of book recommendations for every type of reader. It may take time to tap into your preferred niche BookTok circle, but it’s well worth it once you do. However, the one glaring issue I have witnessed time and again with some people who share book reviews on YouTube or TikTok, or whatever platform they utilize, is their inability to separate their reaction from the actual book. Our opinions and taste in literature are heavily defined and manipulated by personal experiences, our sentiments on social and political issues, all in all, a very subjective matter at hand. When it comes to reviewing books, or any form of art for that matter, consuming differing opinions and pushing yourself out of the online echo chamber is not a bad thing. In fact, I would encourage it. You can learn a lot by hearing out people who think differently from you. However, it becomes an issue when their, or your, reactions bleed into the art itself. What I mean by this is that you can dislike a book for many reasons, whether it’s because of the plot, character development, the writing style, the length of the book, or whatever doesn’t tickle your fancy. But when you allow your personal beliefs to dictate the objectivity of art, that’s where the tension arises. I have seen people online dislike a book because the female main character was insufferable, and because of this, they said the book was bad. What? Your subjectivity on the matter doesn’t automatically impose the objectivity of it. Two things can be true at once; you can think that something isn’t up to par with your standards, but that doesn’t automatically make it bad or take value away from it. 

This is just one mere example I have provided from my countless hours online. I’m sure the same instances exist for any sort of channel in which art is created. Most contemporary perspectives on art and its reaction to it acknowledge that both forces are at play. The formal properties of a work of art provide the stimuli to guide a viewer, but it does not determine the viewer’s reaction. Before there are any witnesses, art often has strong internal logic, but it is also open to allow for deep, personal responses. Most art has an ongoing dialogue between the viewer and the subject. Denoting art, whether it’s a painting or literature, or a song, as good or bad is too monotonous. Especially with art, there is almost always nuance. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but not everyone beholds the same definition of beauty.