In the May 8 issue of The New York Times Magazine, Lauren Oyler asks an important question: What do we mean when we call art “necessary”? It’s “a discursive crutch,” she writes, “for describing a work’s right-minded views, and praise that is so distinct from aesthetics it can be affixed to just about anything….”
The prospect of “necessary” art allows members of the audience to free themselves from having to make choices while offering the critic a nifty shorthand to convey the significance of her task, which may itself be one day condemned as dispensable. The effect is something like an absurd and endless syllabus, constantly updating to remind you of ways you might flunk as a moral being.
It’s a bracing read, and—dare I say it—a necessary corrective.
