Response to Marek's "Should we take art seriously?"

Marek asked in a blog whether we should take art seriously.

Marek's main complaint with the analysis of art, the critical viewing of it, is that sometimes we take it too far. I gleaned from his description of the stereotypical art connoisseur that he thinks that overanalysis leads to boredom, to something other than what the art was intended to be for.

Earlier this semester I spoke of the extensive analysis that some former classmates and I suffered in a BritLit class. The object of analysis was Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. We viewed the book through a feminist lens, a psychoanalytical lens, a Marxist lens, an existential lens, and about four others besides that I've surgically removed from my brain. Before taking the class, I enjoyed the book immensely. After such thorough and extensive analyses, I found that all of the joy had been leeched from my experience of reading the book.

I took Frankenstein seriously the first time I read it. I enjoyed it the first time I read it. Possibly some works are meant to be meticulously poured over, and possibly some people are better equipped for that type of attentive analysis. I think, in summary, that art should be taken seriously, but not so seriously that you lose the expressive side of it and turn it into some type of cooking recipe or assembly manual.