Brave New World 5: Is suffering needed for good art?
"You can't make tragedies without social instability." "Stability isn't nearly so spectacular as instability. And being contented has none of the glamour of a good fight against misfortune, none of the picturesqueness of a struggle with temptation, or a fatal overthrow by passion or doubt. Happiness is never grand."
Do artists need to have personally suffered in order to produce good art? Does the audience of art need to have suffered to appreciate good art? Is it enough for suffering to take place (and be known) somewhere in society for good art? And if suffering is required, how much suffering should we tolerate as the price to pay for the art? (And does the answer change when we consider the value of art from an perspective of individual aesthetic appreciation, or for what it does to enrich and guide a culture?)