[crosspost]

A while back, I posted on what I think is a neglected book from my 19th century American literature shelf: Harold Frederic's The Damnation of Theron Ware. Today, a follow up. It turns out that, in addition to writing novels, Frederic was something of an art critic. In an article called "A Painter of Beautiful Dreams" (click here to read), Frederic argues that paintings need not necessarily tell a story. Written around 1890, this essay makes the point that the "shoulds" and "musts" of academic art criticism are often at odds with true creativity. It's a point we take for granted today; when, after all, was the last time you heard anyone abide by Aristotle's demand that a narrative should only span a single day?

Frederic takes Albert Moore (b. 1841) as his example of non-narrative artistic excellence. Here's an example (Acacias c. 1880):

Here's how Harold Frederic describes Albert Moore's approach to art:

He is frankly an idealist. He holds that the ideal form of things is the ascertained best form of Nature, the tradition of which has been handed down by little groups of devoted men from the time when the artist came into closest touch with what was finest and most beautiful in form (Scribner's Magazine, Vol. 10, Iss. 6. Pg. 718).

And Frederic goes on to say that the renaissance of this kind of idealist art

has been vastly hampered and retarded--in England more than elsewhere--by the perpetuation of the old popular theory that art must of necessity deal with stories (720). 

All of that is interesting. And I certainly don't want to uphold silly old popular theories for the sake of tradition. The picture above may of course be called "beautiful," but Frederic is right--it doesn't tell a story. But imagine: can there be a literary equivalent?

There must be some Seinfeldesque literature that is apparently about nothing and in which nothing happens. But would it be good/artistic? And if you agree with me, and think that stories (if not paintings) have some obligation to... well, to tell stories, can we put that down as a "rule" without crossing the line into stodgy old popular theory? It seems to me that plot is something that is essential in the creation of good literature--more than a stodgy old rule, the presence of a compelling plot is a necessary cause in fiction.

Interestingly, poetry seems to lurk in the gray area... there are certain poets who can pull of the beautiful description without involving plot. Ezra Pound's "In a Station of the Metro" comes to mind. Conclusions? Observations? Counter-arguments?