The Value of Art, or, "Bad" is in the Eye of the Beholder

[Merlion]

Recent discussion about the book "Eragon" and its quality, or lack thereof have gotten me thinking about some things, and I'd like to start a general conversation about those things.

Basically what sparked me off is this. On this site, and in critics reviews and various other places I frequently see people doing what I think of as "slamming", degrading, or belittling books, movies, music, whatever. Not just expressing their opinion, or offering specific criticisms, but statements like "it sucks", "its crap", "its really bad" etc.

I have two problems with these statements. One, to me they sound like turning opinion into fact. Two, especially the more major ones sound to me as though the person saying them is claiming that the work in question is completely worthless and without value, which brings me to my major point.

I dont believe any creative work is without some basic value. Writting a book, painting a painting, making a movie or composing a piece of music all require thought and effort, and general the person puts a good deal of emotion into its creation as well. To me, this imbues the work with a basic value that is independant of anyone's opinion of it, or any set of criteria applied to it.

I tend to feel that art and creativity are subjective, and so aside from this intrinsic value due to the thought and effort put into them, its not really possible to call a work "bad" in any objective way, or try to come up with hard and fast criteria of "quality" for creative works, because the nature, and primary purposes of creative works are ephemeral and subjective in nature, and hard to prove or disprove.

Now many disagree with me, on one or both of these points, believing that their are objective standards of "quality" even in subjective works and/or that some works despite the effort put into them, still have no value.

I find this very hard to understand, so I am looking for a general discussion of these ideas, and in particular to try and understand how and why some hold these particular views.


Another thing I have noticed is people often leveling heavy criticisms at books, stories and movies for being derivative or unoriginal, even some times using this as a basis to claim the work is objectively "bad".

Now again, everyone's opinion is valid and they should express it...however I'm not sure I understand why people become so negative toward a work about this issue. Mainly because as near as I can tell, most art forms that involving storytelling directly...mainly literature and movies, are generally at least somewhat derivative especially in the area of plot. I mean the farmboy who turns out to have hidden powers or a special ancestry and is then taken on adventrues by a wise mentor type has been used many times for ages in many forms and genres.

I'm not sure there is really such a thing as an original plot. I find that just about the only way to find stories that bear little resemblence to anything that has gone before, is to go into more avante garde forms...stories that often have little or no plot, or that tend to throw many of the usual storytelling aproaches out the window.


For these reasons, I dont really see "lack of originality" as being a particularly good criteria to determine that a work is "bad"

 

[ThirdWizard]

Someone needs to read more emo poetry.

The whole subjectivity and everything has value thing, to me, seems very grade school-ish. It seems built on keeping people's confidence up over actually saying anything meaningful about their work. And, that's great for kids, but once you're trying to get published or get your movie made, you're beyond that. If you suck, you need to know that you suck. Sugar coating it isn't doing anyone any favors.

When I took classes on writing, you can bet that there was criticism. And, that's not a bad thing. If your writing is bad then its bad.

The revelation that his marriage of 30 years had disintegrated because of his wife's infidelity came as a rude shock, like a surcharge at a formerly surcharge-free ATM machine.

See, that's bad writing. Imagine if a book was filled with that stuff. That's an extreme example, but there are just books out there that are written poorly. There are books out there with bad plots, that are completely derivative, or that just suck. If a book can be great, an instant classic, then surely there is some kind of scale to measure quality on.

Sure, there are subjetive elements. Not everyone loves Tolkien. Not everyone loves Hemmingway. That doesn't mean that everything has some kind of inner value to it, though. Some things just suck.

 

[Merlion]

The whole subjectivity and everything has value thing, to me, seems very grade school-ish. It seems built on keeping people's confidence up over actually saying anything meaningful about their work. When I took classes on writing, you can bet that there was criticism

Criticism is one thing. I believe some works are better or at least better-crafted than others (although even that is somewhat subjective as many different people may have different ideas about what is better), and criticism helps one to improve their abilities to the utmost. However, degrading and belittling a work is not useful criticism. Claiming that a work is totally without value despite the effort put into it is not criticism.

Pointing out the flaws is criticism. Pointing out the flaws, and suggesting ways to improve is constructive criticism.

Sugar coating it isn't doing anyone any favors.

Neither is bile-coating it though.

If your writing is bad then its bad.

Two things to think about. One, who decides what is bad, and how do they make that decision?

Two, does this mean that you feel that if someones writing is bad, then thats it for them?

See, that's bad writing. Imagine if a book was filled with that stuff. That's an extreme example

Its also not a very good example, because it has no context. In a serious drama, that snippet would be out of place. In a comedic or absurdist novel however, it would fit right in.

there are just books out there that are written poorly

By whose decision, and what criteria? Thats what I am interested in. You can say you didnt like them, but by what objective criteria do we determine they are "written poorly"? And even if they are, does that strip them of all value and make their creators time and effort worthless?

If a book can be great, an instant classic, then surely there is some kind of scale to measure quality on.

I think the only remotely objective scales that could be used would be popularity and/or financial success. You can measure how much money something makes in objective terms, and you can take a poll and find out how many people say that they enjoyed the work. Anything else is by nature a matter of opinion.

That doesn't mean that everything has some kind of inner value to it, though. Some things just suck.

So the time thought and effort put into something becomes meaningless if it doesnt meet certain criteria?

With some things I can see this. If your a blacksmith, and you forge a knife thats dull and cant cut butter, your efforts failed. But if your a writer or an artist, and you write a book or paint a painting, and the critics and "experts" say its "bad", if people still enjoy it, does it "just suck" and become worthless?

 

[ThirdWizard]

Neither is bile-coating it though.

If you can't point by point why something is bad, then you really have no place giving a critique.

Two things to think about. One, who decides what is bad, and how do they make that decision?

I think the basic answer to that is "The literary community." We basically live in a postmodernistic existentialist literary world. Certain circles will be different, as I am sure there are still romantics or modernism out there and whatnot. So, it does depend on your audience. There's also genre to keep in mind and whatnot. Part of what a good writer does, though, is read and know what their contemporaries are doing. If a poet starts writing Transcendentalist poetry, then they won't be well recieved, and for good reason, I think.

Two, does this mean that you feel that if someones writing is bad, then thats it for them?

Of course not. Inborn talent is, for the most part, bunk. Good writing doesn't come from some kind of natural ability, but from practice practice practice. Sure, every once in a while you'll find someone who can write instant classics without having to read anything... I guess... maybe... (probably not), but if someone wants to be a good writer, and are willing to give it real effort, then they shouldn't give up because of their current ability.

And even if they are, does that strip them of all value and make their creators time and effort worthless?

You seem to be under the impression that a piece of writing has to have some kind of value itself for the time spend on it to have value, at least that's the impression I get. That is not true. Writing itself is a learning experience, so long as one is open to criticism and one is paying attention to what they are doing while they are writing.

I think the only remotely objective scales that could be used would be popularity and/or financial success. You can measure how much money something makes in objective terms, and you can take a poll and find out how many people say that they enjoyed the work. Anything else is by nature a matter of opinion.

Oh no. No no no. Suck sells.

 

[Wombat]

One of my professors taught me the trick of poetry, back when I thought I hated poetry.

He said, "Read a poem. Do you like it? If so, it is a good poem. Do you not like it? Then it is a bad poem. Of course, your opinion and tastes may change over time."

Thank you, Don Sheehan.

The idea that all creative works have merit is true, to an extent. A given work may have merit for one person, but not another. In other words, I do not need to look for the good in every single painting, poem, book, sculpture, etc., but I do know that someone else will like the stuff. That's the way of it. Heck, my friends & I disliked Firefly/Serenity immensely, yet the show/movie is very popular on this board -- does that mean the show had merit? Of course. It just doesn't for me.

I enjoy a wide range of reading material; amusingly for a board like this, very little of it is fantasy. Does this mean that I think people should stop reading rpg-inspired novels? Of course not! Just don't expect me to like most of them. Conversely, I don't expect everyone to like or find merit in War & Peace, even though it is one of my favourite books. Tastes necessarily differ. We are different individuals with different background experiences -- such matters will change our desires and tastes.

There was a film critic I knew in one town whose reviews I always looked forward to reading. They were consistent. If he liked a film, I knew that I would probably dislike it, and vice-versa. He only "failed" me on two occassion in about a dozen years. So in a very strange way I admired this critic simply for his consistency.

I don't care of George R.R. Martin's writing to date. I like Robert Holdstock. Does this mean that Holdstock is a good writer and Martin isn't? For me, yes. Universally, no.

It's all a matter of individual taste. And allowing others to have their tastes...

 

[WayneLigon]

I find this very hard to understand, so I am looking for a general discussion of these ideas, and in particular to try and understand how and why some hold these particular views.

What you have here is basically an unanswerable question, much like 'what is love' or 'why do people do evil'.

I'm sure you can find other places that discuss the notions that 'everything and everyone is of equal value', but that strays too far into politics for here

I think there is a degree of quality that can be held up to most works, but I also think that not every work can use the same scale. Comparing a TV show with a deep and moving personal account novel is just not done; you're comparing apples and oranges.

For these reasons, I dont really see "lack of originality" as being a particularly good criteria to determine that a work is "bad"

It isn't. There are only twists and turns on anywhere from 10 to about 35 plots (depending on the source you read). The nature and quality of those twists and turns are the important parts. Offering new insights into human nature. Showing emotion, command of language, ability to create imagery and dialog, unique characters.. those are the things that get hung on the bare tree of plot.

Dismissing a work simply because it's 'youth comes from nothing and grows into great power', simply on the strength of it being that very plot, is foolish. It demonstrates a deep and abiding foolishness - a lack of good judgement. It's very much akin to people who say 'I could tell how things were going to turn out in the first five minutes, so I turned it off' or 'I figured out the plot on the first page'.

In the general sense of things, this simply is not possible. When a person says this to me I hear "My desire for instant gratification did not allow me to put in the time needed to understand and appreciate all the other elements of the work". There could be amazing images, witty and insightful dialog, and this person will never, ever know that because he read the back jacket cover (like as not written in about fifteen minutes by some intern based on what his boss told him the book was about) and made a snap decision.

It's much like the people who feel the need to list out plot points and then disparagingly say 'check' after every one, as if they were saying or doing something clever or insightful instead.

Unfortunately, sometimes you can do just that: TV has created endless utterly predictable scripts for very specific reasons - only a few exceptional shows deviate from formula. It's trained a lot of people that if they see X then they can logically expect Y because they've seen it over and over again. It's dulled them to nuance and instilled an expectation that other forms of media are exactly the same (and some have become like that, for the same specific reason: they want people to be comfortable and so purposefully do nothing to 'rock the boat'.)

 

[Merlion]

If you can't point by point why something is bad, then you really have no place giving a critique

You misunderstand. Again, I'm not talking about not pointing out the flaws. I'm talking about not doing it in an acidic, dismissive way. Avoiding words like "crap", "suck", "worthless" etc. Simply point out the flaws for what they are.

I think the basic answer to that is "The literary community." We basically live in a postmodernistic existentialist literary world. Certain circles will be different, as I am sure there are still romantics or modernism out there and whatnot. So, it does depend on your audience. There's also genre to keep in mind and whatnot. Part of what a good writer does, though, is read and know what their contemporaries are doing. If a poet starts writing Transcendentalist poetry, then they won't be well recieved, and for good reason, I think.

Hmm. I dont claim to know your mind or intentions, but here is what I take from this statement, please correct me where I'm wrong.

The first thing that strikes me is it seems to be at odds with the value of originality...you seem to be saying that in order to write objectively "good" works a writer needs to stay within the style or subject that is currently "in favor" with the "literary community."

Next, by "literary community" I assume you mean the "experts?" People with "education" etc? If so, although I dont discount it, I dont neccesarily see such individuals views as anything more than opinions, much like anyone else's opinions.

Nextly, and maybe most importantly, it seems that you are saying that the "objective" standard of "good" writting depends mainly on the times. Whatever the "literary community" decides is "good" at a given period in time is the criteria.

Then what about Poe? He was not well liked by critics during his life, but is now considered a "Great Writer". How did this come to be? And if the criteria for "good" and "bad" writting depends on the times, how can it be objective?

You seem to be under the impression that a piece of writing has to have some kind of value itself for the time spend on it to have value, at least that's the impression I get

No not exactly. I feel the time and effort spent on it, and the thought and feeling put into it, gives it value regardless of anyone's opinion about it (including the opinions of people who are considered "experts")

Oh no. No no no.

But these things are objective. And they are, as nearly as I can tell, the only objective standards that can be applied to creative works. Because any other standards are simply opinions. They may be opinions of people who have studied the subject in question, but they are still opinions. How else can you define the "quality" of something as ephemeral as a story? (and the same really applies to all art forms, to anything that doesnt have a specific, physical purpose to fulfil, like a tool).

Suck sells

Here we go with he "suck" again. I mean this in a purely literall, non-agressive way, but who are you, and who is *anyone* to state that the creation of someone else mind "sucks" in any sense other than your not liking or enjoying it?

And if people do enjoy these "sucky" works that have great popularity and fianancial success...how can they be said to suck, if the bring enjoyment?



Which leads me to a question. What do you think the general purpose or purposes of creative, artistic works is/are?

 

[Merlion]

One of my professors taught me the trick of poetry, back when I thought I hated poetry.

He said, "Read a poem. Do you like it? If so, it is a good poem. Do you not like it? Then it is a bad poem. Of course, your opinion and tastes may change over time."

Thank you, Don Sheehan.

The idea that all creative works have merit is true, to an extent. A given work may have merit for one person, but not another. In other words, I do not need to look for the good in every single painting, poem, book, sculpture, etc., but I do know that someone else will like the stuff. That's the way of it. Heck, my friends & I disliked Firefly/Serenity immensely, yet the show/movie is very popular on this board -- does that mean the show had merit? Of course. It just doesn't for me.

I enjoy a wide range of reading material; amusingly for a board like this, very little of it is fantasy. Does this mean that I think people should stop reading rpg-inspired novels? Of course not! Just don't expect me to like most of them. Conversely, I don't expect everyone to like or find merit in War & Peace, even though it is one of my favourite books. Tastes necessarily differ. We are different individuals with different background experiences -- such matters will change our desires and tastes.

There was a film critic I knew in one town whose reviews I always looked forward to reading. They were consistent. If he liked a film, I knew that I would probably dislike it, and vice-versa. He only "failed" me on two occassion in about a dozen years. So in a very strange way I admired this critic simply for his consistency.

I don't care of George R.R. Martin's writing to date. I like Robert Holdstock. Does this mean that Holdstock is a good writer and Martin isn't? For me, yes. Universally, no.

It's all a matter of individual taste. And allowing others to have their tastes...

Thank you Wombat! Actually thank you twice, once for inspiring me to re-read the October Country, and now for this post.

You've basically hit my exact point. A work can be good or bad for each individual person that experiences it, but because it is good for some, it does have merit.

 

[Merlion]

I think there is a degree of quality that can be held up to most works, but I also think that not every work can use the same scale. Comparing a TV show with a deep and moving personal account novel is just not done; you're comparing apples and oranges.
.

This is also a very important point. I do feel that some works have a greater degree of quality, in terms of craft, than others, but its important to weigh that in context, both the context of genre/style as you mention, and also in the context of purpose. What was this work meant to accomplish, and did it succeed, by and large, or not?

It isn't. There are only twists and turns on anywhere from 10 to about 35 plots (depending on the source you read). The nature and quality of those twists and turns are the important parts. Offering new insights into human nature. Showing emotion, command of language, ability to create imagery and dialog, unique characters.. those are the things that get hung on the bare tree of plot. Dismissing a work simply because it's 'youth comes from nothing and grows into great power', simply on the strength of it being that very plot, is foolish. It demonstrates a deep and abiding foolishness - a lack of good judgement. It's very much akin to people who say 'I could tell how things were going to turn out in the first five minutes, so I turned it off' or 'I figured out the plot on the first page'.

I agree. Its sort of like the idea that its not the destination that really matters, its the journey.

This came up a lot in the "Eragon" thread that got me started on all this. The main criticism people were making of it was that its derivative. I'm reading the book now...about 130 pages in...and yea, the plot is a whole lot like the plot of Star Wars (but of course, that plot had already been used many times before Star Wars).

But the command of langauge and structuring in particular is, at least to me, very good. The dialogue also has some very nice spots.


I've *always* found it odd for someone to criticise an artist or storyteller for being "derivative", because its nearly impossible not to be.

 

[Merlion]

Unfortunately, sometimes you can do just that: TV has created endless utterly predictable scripts for very specific reasons - only a few exceptional shows deviate from formula. It's trained a lot of people that if they see X then they can logically expect Y because they've seen it over and over again. It's dulled them to nuance and instilled an expectation that other forms of media are exactly the same (and some have become like that, for the same specific reason: they want people to be comfortable and so purposefully do nothing to 'rock the boat'.)

Comfort isnt neccesarily a bad thing though. I like plots I can predict; I like ones that I cant as well.

Now I admit that one could perceive some bias from me...I'm not really a plot person, as a writer or as a reader/watcher. Concept, message, mood and atomosphere are generally more important to me, although I do have a respect for writers who can create complex finely tuned plots (like J.K. Rowling) wether "derivative" or not.

But even though J.K. Rowling is better at plot and dialogue, at the end of the day I probably like Lovecraft better


Which to me just goes to show how subjective it all is. Pretty much anything creative has value, but that value isnt going to be for everyone. That doesnt mean it isnt there, and it doesnt mean that those who dont enjoy the work are somehow deficient in taste or discernment, it just means that some things touch some people and not others.