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

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

While I probably don't agree with claims of art or literary criticism being as objective as science (the former is far more mutable and less quantifiable), there still exist valid standards.

I figure I should at least clarify something, since I've been making points that may be taken that way. No, art is definitely not as objective as science...I'm more comparing them to the "Well, the majority believes this, but some don't..." that's popped up over and over, as that definitely applies to science, too.

More me pointing out that majority decision on things is pretty much normal in all fields of...well, anything.

 

[Merlion]

A clarification before I begin slowly making individual replies. When I talk about objective science, I mean things that are physically observable and quantifiable, and that are the same for EVERYONE. Not a majority opinion, but a universal physical fact, such as the fact that if you touch a red-hot heating element, you will be burned, and if you try to breathe water you'll drown.

These things have no element of subjectivity or opinion, and they dont vary from person to person or over the course of history.

Art, on the other hand, is the picture of subjectivity, because everyone experiences a given work of art different, and everything about it aside from its physical aspects (a book is a book and has a certain weight, texture etc as does a painting or what have you) are subject to opinion. People can have different opinions about it, and all those opinions are equally valid, because none of them can be conclusively, physically proved or disproved. The only thing that can come close is the "majority opinion" you all speak of, but it is still an opinion, just a commonly held, and sure, often useful, one.

 

[Merlion]

Merlion, I thing the major problem you have is that you experienced a significant emotional response to what you considered to be an ignorant opinion guised as fact.

Not quite...I do not feel anyone's opinion is ignorant. On the contrary, I feel everyones opinions are very valid, and that in expressing our opinions we must remember that. I take exception to people claiming their opinions of a specific work of art are absolute facts, and that anyone who feels that a work they label "bad" is simply incapable of distinguishing "good" from "bad", because in actuallity the "good" and "bad" of a work of art is a matter of individual experience.

The idea that the process of art influences the product is not a new idea and there are a lot of followers dedicated to that method of thought. The real problem with that--even in the art community--is that it (paradoxically) doesn't share any empirical evidence.

Probably because art is not empirical in nature. its emotional, mental, intuitive and subjective.

I just want to state there is no judicial hierarchy that sits watch over the entire body of art giving it a pass/fail. There are arts/artists not appreciated in their own time. What there is is a dynamic interaction of artist/critic/audience/historian living the experience of their own time debating the merits of one work over another...but the truth is...only time will tell. But, just as in any other discipline, the further along the timeline you travel, the more you have to work with, the more informed your opinion becomes, the more relevant your position becomes, and the more accurate the results of your endeavors become.

I agree. However, this also means that it is not an objective proccess. If their is an absolute, objective factual standard by which artisitic works are measured, it wouldnt change with time. If it does, then it is, as I believe, simply a group of commonly held subjective opinions.

Which doesnt mean it isnt useful, or that it doesnt have weight, but it does mean it isnt the same thing as, for instance, the fact that an action creates and oposite and equal reaction.

I may be coming at this situation from a much more practiced level; but, I asure you there is nothing to be concerned about: in terms of public dismissal of an artists work. Most sensible people recognize these dismissals as uninformed and/or inflammatory

Well, professional "critics" do it all the time, and people take them seriously. But wether its taken seriously or not doesnt make it any less distasteful to me.

 

[Mark CMG]

When I talk about (. . .)

(Emphasis mine.)


I think this is the crux of the problem. You're having this discussion with others who are using established definitions and conventions.

 

[Merlion]

(Emphasis mine.)


I think this is the crux of the problem. You're having this discussion with others who are using established definitions and conventions.

So your saying being burned by a red hot element or drowning from trying to breathe water goes against established definitions and conventions?


I'm saying I dont mean theortical science, or debated areas, or areas that cant be proved or disproved. I'm talking the fundemental facts of physical reality, and using those as examples of "objective" to contrast with the subjectivity of art.

 

[takyris]

So your saying being burned by a red hot element or drowning from trying to breathe water goes against established definitions and conventions?

Quite the opposite. I believe he's saying that the average person doesn't limit "objective standard" to red hot heating elements and breathing water. When you put that level of limitation on what's discussable, it supports your argument really well, but it also makes it unlikely that anyone else is going to see anything of value in the post. It's just too narrow a focus.

You're also picking and choosing your objectivity carefully. I could, for example, nitpick and say that not everyone who touches a red-hot heating element gets burned, because often they're wearing protective gear, and it's part of their job. I could suggest that you're being confusing if you don't say "Anyone who touches a red-hot heating element with their bare hands". I could also ask you to specify what temperature the element is, because different things become red-hot at different temperatures. If your heating element is made out of the hypercolor shirt material, red-hot means slightly over room temperature.

If this seems like a silly nitpick, I agree, it is. But that's what your "But it isn't really objective" arguments sound like to me (possibly to us, but I don't want to assume that for everyone).

 

[Merlion]

If this seems like a silly nitpick, I agree, it is. But that's what your "But it isn't really objective" arguments sound like to me (possibly to us, but I don't want to assume that for everyone).

My point is, objective things cannot be meaningfully disagreed with. You can claim that rocks are soft, or that water runs uphil, but EVERYONE is going to assume your kidding.


You say that my definition of objective is too narrow...well the thing is, objectivity is a narrow area, because few things are truly objective. For something to be totally 100% objective and true it must be able to be proven physically and empirically.

Thats why I find applying the concept to art to be a little odd, because art by nature is outside the realm of objectivity.


Now you say there has to be objectivity in art in order to actually discuss it, and thats a valid point in a way. But to me the objectvity comes in the form of the works physical factual aspects. A book says the words it says, and a painting is what it is. Thats the basis for people to then discuss their *opinions* of that work, and how they percieve its nature and aspects.

Now yea, if someone says that a painting of a red rose actually depicts a white bunny, then thats a bit out there. But if they say that they think the rose's shading and lines are great, and you disagree and think they are poorly executed, those are both valid opinions, but neither of them is objectively true...each however is true for the individual.

Its when people start trying to turn those types of *opinions* into facts just because a lot of people hold the opinion, and start saying anyone who disagrees with the opinion of the majority just has "bad taste" that I have a problem. That and anyone trying to claim a work is worthless for anyone but themselves.

 

[Umbran]

My point is, objective things cannot be meaningfully disagreed with. You can claim that rocks are soft, or that water runs uphil, but EVERYONE is going to assume your kidding.

But, similarly, completely subjective things cannot be meaningfully discussed, as every single discussion boils down to "whatever you want, dude". What would be the point?

It is only in the case where there is a mixture that we can get interesting discussion - where we can consider when the author is adhereing to a standard for effect or not, that we get meaning. If there are no standards at all, there is no art, because we only manage to communicate by using mutually accepted standards.

 

[Merlion]

But, similarly, completely subjective things cannot be meaningfully discussed, as every single discussion boils down to "whatever you want, dude". What would be the point?

It is only in the case where there is a mixture that we can get interesting discussion - where we can consider when the author is adhereing to a standard for effect or not, that we get meaning. If there are no standards at all, there is no art, because we only manage to communicate by using mutually accepted standards.

see above

 

[Storm Raven]

My point is, objective things cannot be meaningfully disagreed with. You can claim that rocks are soft, or that water runs uphil, but EVERYONE is going to assume your kidding.

Some rocks are soft.

Sometimes water does run uphill (that's what tides are, essentially).

You say that my definition of objective is too narrow...well the thing is, objectivity is a narrow area, because few things are truly objective. For something to be totally 100% objective and true it must be able to be proven physically and empirically.

Wrong.

–noun 1. something that one's efforts or actions are intended to attain or ccomplish; purpose; goal; target: the objective of a military attack; the objective of a fund-raising drive.
2. Grammar. a. Also called objective case. (in English and some other languages) a case specialized for the use of a form as the object of a transitive verb or of a preposition, as him in The boy hit him, or me in He comes to me with his troubles. b. a word in that case.
3. Also called object glass, object lens, objective lens. Optics. (in a telescope, microscope, camera, or other optical system) the lens or combination of lenses that first receives the rays from the object and forms the image in the focal plane of the eyepiece, as in a microscope, or on a plate or screen, as in a camera.
–adjective 4. being the object or goal of one's efforts or actions.
5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
6. intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
7. being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective).
8. of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.
9. Grammar. a. pertaining to the use of a form as the object of a transitive verb or of a preposition.
b. (in English and some other languages) noting the objective case.
c. similar to such a case in meaning.
d. (in case grammar) pertaining to the semantic role of a noun phrase that denotes something undergoing a change of state or bearing a neutral relation to the verb, as the rock in The rock moved or in The child threw the rock.
10. being part of or pertaining to an object to be drawn: an objective plane.
11. Medicine/Medical. (of a symptom) discernible to others as well as the patient.

You limit yourself to definition 7, but really, definition 5 (among others) applies to this sort of analyisis just as easily.

Thats why I find applying the concept to art to be a little odd, because art by nature is outside the realm of objectivity.

No, it isn't. Until you figure that out, you won't understand what people talk about when they evaluate works of art.