Is "art the process of evoking pity and terror," as suggested by Jubal in "Stranger in a Strange Land"?

Book by Robert A. Heinlein. Here is the full quote:


"Jubal shrugged. "Abstract design is all right - for wallpaper or linoleum. But art is the process of evoking pity and terror. What modern artists do is pseudo-intellectual masturbation. Creative art is intercourse, in which the artist renders emotional his audience. These laddies who won't deign to do that- or can't- lost the public. The ordinary bloke will not buy "art" that leaves him unmoved...."


Do you agree or disagree or have another opinion of this quote. Heinlein was discussing several Rodin sculptures prior to this in the book (pp. 325-6 in my edition.)

Is "art the process of evoking pity and terror," as suggested by Jubal in "Stranger in a Strange Land"?
Well, he was a little opinionated but in this case he has a point. I think he's too narrow about it though.





Art is the production of emotion in the viewer, not limited to pity and terror. Art can evoke positive emotions too, and still be art. It doesn't have to be representational either, (in contrast to Heinlein's opinion), I have seen abstract art that is pleasing and some that's terrifying. Old Bob wouldn't agree but that's my opinion.





The point he was trying to make, I think, is that some artists get so involved in the "art for art's sake" that they make art that has no point at all, it just IS. That's what Heinlein disagreed with.





That's an awesome book, I love it, and his interpretations of the three Rodin sculptures are brilliant and very informed, do you think so?





Edit to Kyle: He never lived in Manchester! :) He was a famous and eventually very wealthy writer, one of science fiction's "Big Three", along with Isaac Asimov and Arthur C.Clarke. He was also the first sci-fi author to have a story published in a mainstream ("glossy") publication, in the New Yorker, I think it was. This is all before paperbacks, when such stories were usually published in magazines printed on cheap paper ("pulps"). He was to some extent a product of his generation and his very strong opinions, but he was a master storyteller nonetheless, and that was what he valued in writing.
Reply:In art, as well as in most aspects of expressing ourselves, there are few absolutes. While art can, and sometimes does, invoke pity and terror, it also encourages and induces love, contentment, passion, longing, patriotism, humor, profound insight and thought, etc., etc., etc.





A quote from a book, be it fiction or essay or biography, is not validation, but opinion. Nothing more. Nothing less.





But answer your question: This quote would only apply to a narrow point of view regarding modern art as seen through the eyes of a person who accepted specific standards for what art is or should be. So it really isn't true unless you share this narrow viewpoint.
Reply:I'd largely agree with the quote. For me art must move emotionally. But whether it does can depend on the viewer. Ultimately it's the viewer who completes a work of art, for themselves. That's perhaps why the significance of a work can change over time. That said, no work of art has ever terrified me, though I can burst into tears. But then, only real snakes, and crowds, really terrify me much.
Reply:Sounds like this guy is a close minded zealot with an inflatable ego doll. Art is a means of communicating something thought, felt, imagined, yearned for, and so forth... it isn't limited to irritating people via images or making them cry from pity.





The ordinary "Bloke" doesn't want to be moved. That's why he doesn't eat spicy food and exotic cheeses. The ordinary "Bloke" watches boob toob and fills his tub with filth at the pub. He is moved watching ball games. He isn't interested in the Hypocrisy in the world, the starving people in Africa, or the danger of governmental instability coupled with nuclear weapons. The author of this work either 1)Doesn't sell his art or 2) Lives in Grenwich Village, where the ordinary "bloke" is a starving artist as well. I think that he probably lives in Manchester.





These folks who join the imaginary revolution to champion causes imagined in their own heads are performing a "solo-act" themselves and simply want to project this out onto others who threaten their position. Those people who perform "abstract" art. Those who aren't disciplined enough to dedicate time towards perfecting the art of portrait painting. "Abstract" art can also communicate something that transcends the absolute form, down to a sort of universal lateral sense of commonality between seemingly disconnected subjects.