The Value of Art

Does art need to be "great" to have value? Is it worth our attention if it's just a "minor" work, the work of a minor writer, or a pedestrian piece?

I've enjoyed scores of articles and books, television shows and movies, musicals and plays, photos and portraits, most considered less than great. But I found meaning in the messages and stories of many of these, so I'm thankful their creators pursued their visions, despite failing to reach some arbitrary pinnacle of artistic success.

EB White, in his essay "A Slight Sound at Evening," made the following comment aimed at critics of Walden, Thoreau's masterpiece: "To reject the book because of the immaturity of the author and the bugs in the logic is to throw away a bottle of good wine because it contains bits of the cork."

The works I'm thinking of contained more than a few bits of cork. And most dissolved into obscurity. But if works such as these communicate something of significance to their audience - a distraction from life's difficulties, a humorous way of looking at things, an important moral or ethical view, an experience that lifted a spirit or that someone found to be of comfort - the achievement can be enduring, and valuable. Art doesn't need to be great to be worthwhile.