In English today, we briefly talked about posting a blog that showed an example of something you see as quality and explain the criteria. Well, I'm an editor for our school literary magazine, and this is a point that comes up A LOT (and I mean a hell of a lot). One day after our meeting, I was feeling frustrated. We had been discussing a piece of poetry that confused me. It seemed like a nice enough collection of words and sounds, but when looking for the meaning, it seemed to dissolve into ambiguity. You can read the poemhere from Mr. Schauble's blog. Mr. Schauble was saying that the Ka Wai Ola editors get confused when faced with a piece of prose or poetry where the conclusion is clear, and where there isn't any obvious resolution. Personally, I know that I don't get discouraged when reading resolution less piece; though I may get confused, I don't give up until I understand it. This poem either had no subtext where a resolution hid, or it just completely and utterly went over my head. Even though I've re-read this poem over and over, I still feel like I'm going in circles as far as the meaning is concerned. I know there are references, but where and how do they relate to each other?
Ok sorry I went off on a tangent [we're learning about those in geometry, so I know all about them].
What I'm trying to say is this: some people love that poem, and some people hate it. That's just the way it is, and it's always going to be like that with any--and every--thing. Art, politics, philosophies, religion, fashion, literature- you name it. I've come to realize this in the past year because of a couple of events. The first event happened at the end of summer. It was my annual summer trip to my godfather's house. My godfather is Joe Kennedy, and his dad was Bobby Kennedy. This family has opinions by the tons. Sitting at the dinner table, major discussions occur, and they last the entire dinner, desert, coffee, and sometimes till very late at night. No matter how much debating happens, each side steadfastly holds their own. I know you may be thinking, Why has it taken her so long to figure this out? Politics have always been like this. But I guess you could say I was just a little optimistic flower child filled with naivety. To quote a journal entry that I made while staying there, "I learned three major things from the Kennedy's this summer: 1) Politics, after you take away all the stupid frivolous layers, is just personal philosophies that differ. So, in a way, it's pointless to argue either sides validity..." The other two things that I learned are unrelated to the point, so I won't mention them. The second main event that happened was Ka Wai Ola. I was in KWO in freshman year, but I was so nervous the whole time, I barely spoke, just sort of listened to other people talk. This year, though, I was more active in my participation. Through this, I came to realize that people can argue all they want, but it's still this one single piece of art that's not going to change, and neither will your interpretations, because their your own personal ones.
These two ideas, one about politics, one about art and literature first started to merge after having a extremely long and involved discussion with my parents about art and lit. Here is a passage from one of my earlier posts about this discussion:
"Robert Frost came up in this huge discussion that I had with my parents about what is art (literature style art included), what makes it good, etc. I was taking the ultra-liberal point of view, which is "everything is art, its just the way you look at it" sort of thing, and they were taking the "good art/bad art/not art at all" perspective. We ended up having this discussion all day! It reminded me of politics. Here is my personal conclusion and philosophy as of present: don't even try to label artwork (at least for now). I will just like what makes me feel good, and for the pieces that I dislike, I will attempt to like them, but if I try and can't like them, I'll just let it go. I've decided that judging art is impossible (what's good or bad in art is really, really relative), if you want to be fair, because it's someone's point of view, and no one else will necessarily have that same view. So that's it."
Mr. Watson wanted us to describe a criterion that we can apply to all "quality" things, when judging whether they’re “quality” or not. I believe whole-heartedly that one universal criterion doesn't exist. "Quality", like "good" or "bad", is not something that is definable, to say the least.
I won't say more on this subject, because the most quality answer that I can give you is none.
I will only say this: Robert M. Pirsig, who wrote Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, spent 380 pages on this subject, and did an adequate job (because you could go on for the rest of your life writing about this subject). In this wonderfully insightful piece of literature, he describes the search for what "quality" is, and the subsequent insanity that accompanies it. Read this book. Please.