On Savviness

Edited from On the Virtue of Savviness 01/20/23

I want to discuss an aspect of art which brings me joy, one of the most fulfilling aspects of a work that I seem to find no peer in sharing. This quality is savviness, or, the demonstration within a work that the artist is well-versed in the genre in which they are participating, and upon which they add in a piece of themselves. That is to say: art which has been created by a fan of that sort art.

This quality alone can even be held above technical skill (to a degree); consider a young boy who is a fan of high fantasy such as Lord of the Rings, who plays pretend with his friends and together they create new, genuine examples of stories that belong to the genre. Enough so that a nearby adult might be able to polish off the bits that don’t make sense and turn it into something completely original. This quality in their play comes from the joy of the genre.

For a more direct example, my inspiration for writing is a poster I keep on my office wall: Steven Kostanski and Jeremy Gillespie’s The Void (2016).

The Void experienced mediocre ratings and lukewarm reception by my peers; nonetheless, it is a piece that I find inseparable from my heart, because it contains that same quality of genre-savviness. Like the creators, I am also fan of the genre (cosmic horror), and when I perceive its performance as a love letter to that genre, I am being told “You are not alone.”

I believe that the communication of this feeling is one of the purposes of art, insofar as a creator may seek to say something profound, but will first need to identify themselves to another as ‘the same as you’. The most effective artist, I believe, will perform to their audiences that which is in their heart- but not before first demonstrating who their audience is.

I do not mean to say that an artist should begin by making their work palatable to everyone. Instead, what an adept artist does is to make their work palatable to themselves, i.e., to the kind of person who will be able to hear what it is they have to say.

If the work belongs to a genre which you as an audience are not familiar with, you will be at a disadvantage toward understanding. You are not ‘in the club’, and so consider that the next time you “didn’t really get it” that perhaps it’s nothing personal. There is a chance that you weren’t intended to get it yet. But you might, if you cared enough to acquire the taste of the genre.

But, if you didn’t get it that doesn’t necessarily mean something was said. And this qualifies what it means to be savvy.

Using the broad genre of horror for example, I’d like to demonstrate how savviness is a notable quality of a work. As a metric, it can also be used as a razor to distinguish works of passion from products, and works of poor technical quality from works of poor spirit.

The clearest example is a genre that is rarely associated with other artistic qualities except for savviness: the slasher genre. What is the slasher movie? Or, what does a person enjoy if they consider themselves to be a fan of (or, savvy in) slashers?

(Note that subversion of the genre is an artistic tool applied after defining the genre. Subversion without savviness is one indicator of a product).

The slasher genre is:
– spectacle of gore (archetypally by practical effects)
– a singular, menacing antagonist
– mechanically creative portrayal of death
– one-dimensional characters
– karmic punishment
– one-by-one structure
– a pyrrhic victory
– (and others!)

The slasher archetype above applies to many works which come to mind: Halloween, Friday the Thirteenth, Nightmare on Elm Street, etc..

But now, what makes a “bad” slasher film? Is it cheap effects, wooden acting, or irrational character decisions? Is it a killer panda, a deus-ex-machina, or that it was all a dream? No.

It is the slasher which does not first establish that it knows what it is and what it is doing. Any technical failure, forfeiture of disbelief, discontinuity and mindless contrivance can exist within any work, and that work can still be said to be of a certain quality if it is made with savviness. As one can love their child through all manner of err and disfigurement, we too can see when a thing before us contains beneath all of it a human heart.

This feeling of not getting it can also occur when someone who is a fan of a work’s genre experiences something made without savviness. If you find yourself excited about a new movie coming out that seems just up your alley, but then afterward feel as though something was wrong, that it wasn’t quite the spectacle you’d felt in the anticipation, consider if maybe the work was a product, made without savviness.

The merit of what a work intends to convey is not always the metric of savviness. In certain genres, savviness is demonstrated through means other than the content. For example, a genre of aesthetics would reward technical skill and intuition the mark of ‘savvy’. Likewise, many genres of pop music aren’t concerned with lyrical content, but instead ‘catchiness’. (Catchiness does not necessarily indicate a motive of profit). So what constitutes savviness is dependent on the genre, and the creator’s passion for that genre.

Lastly, it is important not to mistake savviness as conformity. As stated earlier, subversion of a chosen genre is a tool most adeptly wielded by the savvy; as fans of their peers they understand when best to apply it in order to convey their personal vision. An artist need only conform insofar as to pay the genre its dues. Sometimes this can be done in mere moments.

How does an artist pay the genre its dues? If you’re savvy, you’ll know it when you see it.