Who's to Say?

I find myself, again, at odds with a seemingly minuscule, and easily overlooked part of this chapter. First of all, I feel as though we've been over nearly all of this before today. The drugs have been a part of this course since the very beginning. That is why I am writing about a line that was missed even by myself the first time that I read it.

The second sentence in the second paragraph reads: “Puritanism apart, it is generally agreed that art made while on drugs is often less good than art done ‘cold.’” It goes on to explain that the experience may be worthwhile to draw upon in the creative process, but that is not what I’m concerned with. To make a statement like that, even leaving it open ended, as Hughes does, I can’t help but get rubbed the wrong way by this statement. It’s saying that the art itself is not enough to stand alone; we must know how it’s been created in order to rank it. Which is what I really don’t like about that statement, it suggests that some art is better than other art. That statement goes against the very nature of art. I’ve always thought of art as subjective, not objective. Art is good for the personal reasons of the artist and the personal reasons of those viewing it. Who’s to say one piece of art is better than another because of the state of the creator? Hughes probably didn’t realize the implications of this statement when he added it and was simply looking for a segway into his next point, but it really rubbed me the wrong way.