WARNING: The following is a little boring.
Dadaism could be viewed as a rebellion against the establishment or an antipodes to accepted standards in art. The main claim of Dadaist supporters being that society was a bad judge when in came to major decisions in areas like politics and questions with global implications and so by inference could not be relied upon to decide what was art. To emphasise this Dadaism sought to counter all recognised standards, to become anti-art, similarities could be drawn with the emergence of Punk rock which railed against popular music and commercialism.
Dadaism however suffered from the same inbuilt self destructive fault that afflicted Punk, the most popular proponents became the thing they were railing against, commercialism and popularity made them the target of their own ideology.
Dadaism could be viewed as a very good example of fiction turned fact in it’s own right in that it’s followers sought to replace the existing predominant truth regarding the question “What is art?” with their own construction. As I mentioned though when the popular answer to the question “what is art?” became “Dadaism” the movement was condemned to become a snake eating its own tail.
There are several discussions bubbling along in various threads at the moment that I believe are all interconnected. They all seem to be attempts to quantify poetic worth; to structure forms and styles into a hierarchical list promoting one above the other , to my mind they all boil down to the same question asked by the followers of Dadaism, “What is art”.
My own belief is that to find the answer you need, as Stephen suggested, to examine specifics, however it isn’t specific examples of art that need to be examined but individual and personal beliefs regarding art. My thought process regarding this is convoluted and may be flawed but here it is just the same, those people who abhor tongue twisters should look away at this point.
Art, like quality, is a label bestowed by group acceptance, it is defined democratically and as such is a manufactured fact subject to change. Belief that non-art is in fact art is a fictional notion until that belief becomes factual in the eyes of a significant minority, at that point the fiction becomes fact and a relative truth based on popular belief.
That would seem to suggest that the label “art” cannot be attributed by an individual however this raises the paradox that the individual is the source from which the label is democratically decided. So it must be the individual that decides fact from fiction based on personal belief which becomes a relative truth.
Which leads back to my original question:
Can a book riddled with obvious fiction ever be accepted as fact?
My opinion is similar to Ron’s, unless I’m misreading his post.
It can only be good\fact\true\art if you believe it.
[This message has been edited by Grinch (02-03-2008 08:10 AM).]