It has recently come to my attention that James Franco writes poetry, and a lot of people don’t like it. This may not be news to some of you, and some of you might not even care, but it sure was to me, and I sure do. I was excited when I came across this information, and promptly got on the internet to look up reviews of his books. Like a lot of other avid readers, I rely on Goodreads for everything from finding a sweet new book to keeping a digital inventory of what I’ve read. For those unfamiliar with the app, Goodreads is basically a digital library, where you can “shelve” books according to all sorts of categories: Genre, read, to-be-read, hated it, loved it, favorite authors. You can also explore what the literary world is offering, and read reviews written by other account holders, which is what I want to talk about here; specifically, reviews of James Franco’s assorted works.

Here are just a sample of some of the reviews that exist about Franco’s work:

I will preface my commentary by saying that I think some of the negativity surrounding the reviews of Franco’s work are attached to a certain sense of celebrity, and wanting to knock down the culturally deified to the common person’s level. I completely understand that. This article isn’t about that, it’s in defense of every artist, famous or not, well-known or not. Status shouldn’t affect how we see someone’s art. It’s certainly an aspect of it, but personally I don’t see the merit of hating something just because someone I don’t like or understand created it.

Across this topic of conversation, so many people are saying “this isn’t art” or “what a great example of true art.” I have questions in response to this: Why are we so hung up on defining art? Why does it matter so much that we categorize something as being worthwhile or a piece of garbage? Don’t get me wrong, it’s incredibly important to discuss art and the process of making art, but the trouble comes when we try to gate-keep art. When we try to say that something isn’t art. I’m reminded of a quote by William Wordsworth: “We murder to dissect.” Wordsworth is talking about nature here, but we can very easily apply this quote to art. When we over-analyze and criticize a piece to the point where we no longer have any sense of what the piece is trying to say, we are, in essence, killing that art. I think trying to pin a concrete definition on art is also a form of creative murder.

Art is such a broad topic that encompasses so many things, that it’s sometimes hard to find a point of origin to begin this conversation. It’s a bit of a tricky thing to take on, understanding and then discussing art, because all at once, art is personal and public, inflammatory and calming, subjective and objective. It exists, like people, on different planes of being.

I think, as consumers and creators of art, we need to realize that it’s okay to not like something and to have different tastes, because that aids art and the pursuit of a better understanding our own existences, but it’s not okay to shred art, to tear down someone’s art for the sake of tearing down someone’s art. Reviews are important. Criticism and praise are both equally important. We need to be aware with our art, of ourselves and of other people, and reviews help us to do that. It’s okay to point out the flaws in something, but is it necessary to be a jerk about it? Why can’t we say “The plot seems to be lacking here, a clearer character arc would aid in this aspect,” why do we have to say “your work is total crap because it has no plot and you should stop making art”? I don’t understand the desire to tear someone down for creating something we don’t see as valuable. At the end of the day, why can’t two people who have different artistic tastes just shake hands and say “Your art is your art and my art is my art and that’s okay”?

Actually, a lot of the conversation centered around definition of art right now very much brings to my mind the HOWL trial of 1957, which centered on Allen Ginsberg’s book of poetry entitled “Howl,” and the specific poem that shares the title name. Upon release of Ginsberg’s paperback, publisher Lawrence Ferlinghetti and clerk Shigeyosi Murao were arrested on obscenity charges; Ferlinghetti for publishing the work, and Murao for selling the work to an undercover cop. It was an incredibly publicized trial in which countless literary critics, poets, and professors were brought in to discuss the merit (or supposed lack thereof) of Ginsberg’s work. Eventually, Judge Clayton Horn ruled that the poem was not obscene, thankfully. They actually took a poem to court because it “wasn’t literature”, because it was too “obscene.” I guess being a product of free thought and a biased subscriber to the Beat philosophy myself, I just don’t understand that. Again I think of Wordsworth’s quote mentioned previously. I mean, honestly, what kind of desiccated version of hubris have we adopted that we deem ourselves enough of anything to decide what art is? What’s worthy of consumption, whose creation is worthy of validation?

Since when did people become so preoccupied with deciding what is and isn’t art, and ultimately, does it matter? If an artist creates then their creation seems to me to inherently be art. So let's talk James Franco, for example, because those reviews of his work are what prompted me to write this. To some his work may be just one big conglomeration of confusion and disconnect, but it’s true to him and to his vision of art. It’s the truth he needed to create, so why have we elected ourselves Grand Inquisitor of Tearing Artists Down, of telling him he should “stick to his day job”? At its core, art is about truth. It’s about the culmination of emotion and experience car crashing into life through creativity. Art is born out of freedom, out of the recognition of passion and emotion within oneself; it’s coaxed from the spirit and expelled into physical, tangible reality, and man, that’s beautiful. If we’re gate-keeping art, then we’re encroaching on that sense of freedom. We’re essentially violating the pure act of creation. In fact, the creation of art is art itself, and it lends itself to learning and cultivating the deep need to mean something many people experience in their lives.

Art connects humanity. It defies cultural and linguistic barriers to bridge the gap that separates people. Make no mistake: Anyone can create art. Some may be better at it than others, but anyone who experiences the need to create should feel free to do so, without fear of backlash or negativity from small-minded people who don’t understand their creation and make no effort to. Being an artist requires having a thick skin, and I wish that we lived in an idealistic world where that wasn’t the case, but we don’t and it does. I just don’t think it’s that much of a stretch to ask people to be mindful of the complexity of others, to realize that when they give feedback on someone’s art, that there is another human attached to the title page, to the signature on a canvas, to a credits roll. I leave you with a quote from Henri Matisse: “Creativity takes courage.” My hope is that anyone who feels the need to create does so, and allows the negativity they may encounter to drive them to become a better artist, not to push them to give up on their art. May we be mindful of others, and understand at the end of the day that we’re all trying to do the same thing: live. Be courageous not only in your creativity, but in your response to the creations of others. It will make you a better person.