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

[Mark Hope]

Mark Hope, I am getting to you, just taking my time and trying to decide how to put things forth.

Cool beans, man. No rush

Plus I'm laying groundwork for a new story ;-)

I read some of your stuff on your site back during the Eragon thread. Stick at it.

I have been following this thread from the start with some interest. I thought that the original question is very similar to the general question posed in the book "Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance" where they take a very winding road that kinda, sorta, ends up at asking what is quality ?

I love that book to bits. Wonderful piece of work. The definition of quality as being the nature of the interaction between subject and object is at the heart of what we are talking about here - an element of experience that is neither subjective or objective. Sheer brilliance.

Although there are examples which are almost purely objective like a CAD diagram for a mechanical part or a purly subjective piece like modern art, most things like books, movies and these posts have a bit of each.

Damn straight.

 

[Storm Raven]

sigh. I suppose I should have said "no ones opinions about art are ignorant"


Any better?

No, not really.

You see, the argument concerning racial stereotyping was intended to illustrate that an opinion based upon faulty, or baseless information is an ignorant one. Thus, despite the fact that racial stereotyping is something not discernable using your "objective analysis" standard, one can have an ignorant opinion on such matters.

Similarly, one can have an ignorant opinion concerning art. This all boils down to one thing: your definition of "objective" is unworkable, for anything. If, to support your argument, you have to resort to defining a word in a manner that runs counter to the way that others define the word, then there is something seriously wrong with your argument.

 

[Merlion]

This thread has been going over pretty much the same ground as the Eragon thread, so I've kept out of it for now (although I waffled on at great length in the other thread). A couple of points seemed interesting enough to warrant further comment, though.

I thought the yummy/nutritious analogy above was illuminating. It echoes my own thoughts on the subjective/objective divide regarding writing (or other artistic endeavours). Technical aspects of art are certainly objective (musical harmony, grammar, spelling etc). This is pretty cut and dried.

Aspects of dialogue, plot, characterisation and structure are also basically subjective, but acquire a strong degree of objectivity through collective appraisal. In other words, although some people might like aimless plots or bland characterisation, the collective view on these things takes precedence, allowing for literary analysis and criticism. I called this an "objectivity by the masses" in the other thread, although it wasn't applied directly to art in that example.

On a personal level, though, appreciation of art is ultimately a subjective experience. This is borne out by the fact that people can enjoy bad movies, take pleasure in cheesy pop songs and lovingly collect penny-dreadful comic books, just as they can find supposed masterpieces utterly unfulfilling. For the individual, this renders arguments about good and bad art somewhat irrelevant. Any objectivity can be trumped by the tastes of the observer (and vice versa, for the sake of argument). That doesn't mean that objective analysis is itself meaningless, just that it can stop being meaningful to an individual when the whimsy of taste takes over.

This is why it is possible, acceptable and right to be able to be curt, dismissive, adoring, ecstatic or disinterested about anything that you feel deserving of that treatment. You can rubbish any piece of work that you like, without needing to feel like you are being rude or deficient, or that you have to say or do "something clever or insightful instead". You can praise the trashiest romance or most hackneyed Tolkien rip-off. You can go "meh" at the latest chart-topping platinum wunderkind or blow your savings following Jessica Simpson around on tour. At the end of the day, objectivity or not, all you have is your opinion and people who try to deny you it are dullards of the worst kind.

To move the discussion on:

Something that I am noting about Merlion's approach has, I think, little to actually do with art itself. I have noticed on several occasions that Merlion insists that art has a merit of its own, simply because someone created it. If I might be so bold, I suggest that what Merlion is saying here is that people have an inherent value, which they impart into their creations. Art is inherently valuable because it was made by a human. Correct me if I am wrong, Merlion, but that is the message that I am getting, and it seems to have been somewhat lost in the back-and-forth about objectivity/subjectivity.

If so, I'd like to add fuel to the fire by saying that I'm not sure that I would agree that art is inherently valuable because it was made by a human. Largely because I am not yet convinced that humans themselves are inherently or equally valuable....

First, I want to thank you for your contributions to this discussion, and my little journey of understanding.

Next, you are partially right. My views in this are influenced by my belief that all people have value and worth and potential. Also my belief that the creative pursuits...storytelling in all its forms, visual art such as painting or sculpting, and music, to be excellent and respected ways of expressing that worth and potential.

Now, I do not believe that people who dismiss artistic works are neccesarily dismissing the person (although I do have to engage the intellectual part of me, some times, to do that, as the emotional part may some times tend to see it that way).
However, I do think that degrading a work and declaring it worthless for all and sundry is, first of all automatically incorect since some will find worth in it, and secondly does seem to show a lack of respect for the effort put into it.


I also feel that the notion that some peoples opinions (and when I say opinions, I mean opinions about artistic works, or other subjective opinions...yes a car mechanics "opinion" on whats wrong with you car is probably going to be better than say a butchers, but that isnt really an opinion, its simply knowledge) are better than others, or that the opinion of a larger group of people outweighs the opinion of a smaller group of people or an individual, again especially in artistic, aethestic matters, is one that CAN lead down a rather dangerous road.

I'm not neccesarily saying that anyone here is a horrible elitist or thinks some people are better than others or whatever. But the issues mentioned above do certainly inform my take on this discussion. And there is a certain amount of elitism that has gotten built into our culture that must be dealt with.


Also while I fully support everyones right to express their opinion on a work of art, I don't believe they have the right to state that a work is bad and worthless for everyone and anyone who doesnt agree is just ignorant. Nor do I think they have the right to be nasty, rude or unpleasant when expressing that opinion.

Or even if they have the "right" do to so, it is distasteful, and is likely to bring about a negative reaction.

 

[Merlion]

Cool beans, man. No rush


I read some of your stuff on your site back during the Eragon thread. Stick at it.
.

The stuff on that site is old, I've done a lot since. If you'd like, I can send you some newer stuff. I'd enjoy your input tremendously.

 

[Hypersmurf]

If touch a red-hot heating element made of a material that gets red-hot at 100 degrees, you will not be burned.

Well, I will. But my hundred degrees is a lot hotter than yours!

I suppose I don't have any particular qualms with the contention that all art has some value. I would simply answer that in many cases that value is only slightly above zero. My young son can draw me a finger painting of green and blue blotches. He loves it; I love it; no one else thinks much of it, but up it goes up on the refrigerator. It has value as art (in the broadest sense of the term "art"), but that value is nearly zero.

Isn't there a difference between sentimental value and artistic merit, though?

If I take a lump of clay, squish pebbles into it, and say "There - it's art", it's essentially worthless.

If I take a lump of clay, squish quarters into it, and say "There - it's art", it has value... but it has the same lack of artistic merit that the first 'sculpture' had. It's only valuable because it can be mined for the raw materials... there's a difference between the monetary value and the artistic value.

Your son's finger painting has value to you, but no artistic merit. As something that makes you happy, it's good. As a painting, it's bad.

-Hyp.

 

[Merlion]

No, not really.

You see, the argument concerning racial stereotyping was intended to illustrate that an opinion based upon faulty, .

If you have read a book, seen a movie, or viewed a painting, you have non-faulty information about it, and can certainly form an opinion of it.


So, let me refine it further: no one's opinion of a work of art with which they are familiar is ignorant.

I realize your going to disagree, but thats because you (and I say this in a non-pejorative way) are an elitist. And thats fine, for you I suppose, but not everyone is, and just because you feel that some peoples opinions about non-critical, subjective issues are better than others, doesnt mean its true.


And thats why I wont be replying to anymore of your posts. Again, not being pejorative but your views, beside the fact I disagree with them, are distasteful to me (though still valid) and your way of presenting them I often find abrasive and offensive, wether you intend it that way or not.

So I will say thank you for contributing, and enjoy any further discussion, but I wont be continuing to discuss this issue with you.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

I realize your going to disagree, but thats because you (and I say this in a non-pejorative way) are an elitist.

Huh...because I disagree with you wholeheartedly and I find it insulting that the only way you can accept a disagreement is if I'm an elitist.

And even though this was directed at Storm Raven, that comment right there is a very dangerous one to start making. When you reach the point of "If you disagree with me, you are -insert label here-" then you've reached a place where discussion is simply pointless.

 

[Mark Hope]

First, I want to thank you for your contributions to this discussion, and my little journey of understanding.

You're welcome. I always enjoy a decent thrashing out of ideas.

Next, you are partially right. My views in this are influenced by my belief that all people have value and worth and potential. Also my belief that the creative pursuits...storytelling in all its forms, visual art such as painting or sculpting, and music, to be excellent and respected ways of expressing that worth and potential.

Yeah, I'd have to agree with you there. These are the things that make us human.

Now, I do not believe that people who dismiss artistic works are neccesarily dismissing the person (although I do have to engage the intellectual part of me, some times, to do that, as the emotional part may some times tend to see it that way).
However, I do think that degrading a work and declaring it worthless for all and sundry is, first of all automatically incorect since some will find worth in it, and secondly does seem to show a lack of respect for the effort put into it.

Well, I think that you have a tendency to mistake opinions for assertions of fact, unless the person speaking expressly qualifies his words as only opinion. My take on it is that a person's words are only ever opinions, unless they expressly qualify them as facts.

I also feel that the notion that some peoples opinions (and when I say opinions, I mean opinions about artistic works, or other subjective opinions...yes a car mechanics "opinion" on whats wrong with you car is probably going to be better than say a butchers, but that isnt really an opinion, its simply knowledge) are better than others, or that the opinion of a larger group of people outweighs the opinion of a smaller group of people or an individual, again especially in artistic, aethestic matters, is one that CAN lead down a rather dangerous road.

Yes it can. But that just means that we should be vigilant, not that we should reject the idea of superior opinions out of hand. A discerning approach is always more productive, imho.

I'm not neccesarily saying that anyone here is a horrible elitist or thinks some people are better than others or whatever. But the issues mentioned above do certainly inform my take on this discussion. And there is a certain amount of elitism that has gotten built into our culture that must be dealt with.

Heh. Well, it might not surprise you when I say that I believe that some people are more valuable than others. Elitism is just a fact of life. I think that it is a failing of our culture that we cannot accept this without feeling (or being made to feel) like bad people. Life isn't fair and we do ourselves a disservice by sticking our heads in the sand and being all kumbaya about it.

Also while I fully support everyones right to express their opinion on a work of art, I don't believe they have the right to state that a work is bad and worthless for everyone and anyone who doesnt agree is just ignorant. Nor do I think they have the right to be nasty, rude or unpleasant when expressing that opinion.

Or even if they have the "right" do to so, it is distasteful, and is likely to bring about a negative reaction.

You hit the nail on the head there in your last sentence. People do have the right to express their opinions as "distastefully" as they like - they had just better be prepared to accept the consequences of doing so.

 

[Merlion]

Huh...because I disagree with you wholeheartedly and I find it insulting that the only way you can accept a disagreement is if I'm an elitist.

And even though this was directed at Storm Raven, that comment right there is a very dangerous one to start making. When you reach the point of "If you disagree with me, you are -insert label here-" then you've reached a place where discussion is simply pointless.

Storm Raven has made it extremely clear that he considers not just some art, but the majority of art produced to be "crap." That, among other similiar statements, both here in this thread and in the past is why I said that, not because he disagrees with me. That opinion is, at least to me, an inherently elitist one...that certain things of a certain type are good, and the rest are "crap." Also note I specifically stated I was not using the term in a pejorative way.

You dont wholeheartedly disagree with me. You've stated you believe even what you call "bad" art has value, which means you agree with my primary point, just for a different reason. You just disagree with the way I put things (at least thats what I feel from your posts)

 

[Hypersmurf]

Huh...because I disagree with you wholeheartedly and I find it insulting that the only way you can accept a disagreement is if I'm an elitist.

Hmm... I read that comment differently.

Position A: Anyone can form an opinion of a piece of art, and that opinion has merit.
Position B: Only those with certain training/knowledge/skills/experience can form an opinion that has objective merit of a piece of art.

Position B requires a distinction between those who have Factor X and those who do not; a distinction between elite and non-elite. In order to hold position B, one must accept the existence of an elite.

To say "Those who hold Position B are elitist" doesn't strike me as an attack, merely a clarification of stance.

-Hyp.