Why Bad Art Is Unhealthy

What is "bad" art? In order to answer this question, we must first define what is good art.

Taking this article as a jumping off point,  we can understand the values that can be expressed in established western art forms. This is not to infer that eastern art has no value — it most certainly can — but to emphasize how meaningful art in general has the ability to enrich our lives if it is intelligible and communicates life-serving values.

It follows, then, that "bad" art communicates life-harming values. How does it do this? Let us count the ways:

In order to communicate anything the themes or subjects of art forms must be intelligible, so objects rendered in painting and sculpture must be discernable, sounds in music must have tonal development, words in literature must have meaning, and so on.

Splashes of paint on canvas (or worse) and piles of bricks (or worse) communicate nothing intelligible. The same can be said of sounds emitted by the strumming of piano strings which is not music, or the tossing together of useless salad-words which is not literature, so why should these be labeled "bad" art, and why are they "harmful"?

Firstly, non-objective art is not "art" at all. It is not even a valid "craft" like decorative art— tile and rug design, for example — which requires a defined skill set.

But since non-art is presented as art in exhibits, galleries and museums, we need to label it "bad" art because it does not meet the primary criteria of communicative intelligibility.

And lastly, these sorts of "art" presentations are harmful in that — if taken seriously and find acceptance on the part of viewers, listeners, and readers — they can cause sloppy cognitive and psychological habits that, in turn, can inhibit the rational thought processes necessary to live a successful and happily fulfilled life.

If these propositions sound too severe, consider this:

As swiftness is the primary survival mechanism of certain animals and a keen sense of smell is the primary survival mechanism of others, so reason — noncontradictory thinking — is the primary survival mechanism of humans.

Accepting non-bad-art as art disrupts the process of judgement, and judgement requires the activation of reason in order to decide good from bad; thus, abdicating reason is a recipe for failure to live as a properly functioning human being consonant with its inherent nature.

True story to illustrate point:

When this writer was doing research for a novel, visits to non-bad art galleries were essential in order to understand the nonsensical. One prominent gallery in New York’s SOHO district was full of empty cardboard boxes left around here and there, some leaning against each other and others dumped in piles, so obviously (to me) there was some sort of moving project going on. I sought out the gallery director and queried her: "I see you must be getting ready to install a new exhibit. What will it be?"

Her haughty answer: "This is the exhibit!"

"Oh! Well, then, what is the meaning of all these empty boxes?"

Another snappy retort: "Obviously, the display of empty boxes is a metaphor for the enigma of existence!"

Yes . . . true story.

Now, what would have happened to my mind if I had believed her or even tried to?

What twisting of the observable facts before my eyes would have to take place cognitively in order to consider such nonsense as worthy of my consideration?

Exiting the building quicky and laughing uncontrollably once outside was my reaction, but, actually, upon reflection the encounter wasn’t funny. It was mentally brain-bending and culturally sad or maddening. Philosophically the “art” was nihilistic.

Yet, every day in the 20th-21st century art world, such non (hence "bad") art exhibits are presented by dealers and institutions. And noise is presented as music. And drivel is presented as storytelling. And gullible or insecure or shock-perversity-junkie viewers, listeners, and readers sabotage their own minds by accepting or trying to comprehend such absurd falsities.

These kinds of "art" presentations confess the absence of aesthetic standards and human-centered values or outright chicanery on the part of artists and promoters. But — Alas! —the brain damage self-imposed on those viewing, listening, reading individuals who play along with the jokes, or try to understand the non-understandable, or actually desire to live with or frequent such shams can be immeasurable.

Good art is a perceptually beautiful physical manifestation of life-enriching values, and life-enriching values are selected via reason, and reason entails judgment to determine the validity of values in order to select those that are most beneficial as life-serving principles. Bad art repudiates the very mental processes required to live a fruitful and joyful human life.

Ergo: As we avoid poisoned food to maintain the life and health of our bodies, so we should avoid "art" poisoned by deleterious ideas or lack thereof to enter our minds and pollute our souls.

Good art dramatizes the beauties and complexities of nature and human nature.

It empathizes with our sorrows and celebrates our joys.

It is food for the soul and can nurture our mental wellbeing while, at the same time, confirming our rationally achieved value system and inspiring us onward and upward to the best within us.

Not only is bad art bad for us in the cognitive and psychological ways heretofore delineated, but legitimatizing any so-called "art" that degrades the splendors and the possibilities of humankind becomes an act of spiritual suicide.

Alexandra York is an author and founding president of the American Renaissance for the Twenty-first Century (ART) a New-York-City-based nonprofit educational arts and culture foundation. She has written for many publications, including "Reader's Digest" and The New York Times. She is the author of "Crosspoints A Novel of Choice." Her most recent book is "Soul Celebrations and Spiritual Snacks." For more on Alexandra York, Go Here Now.