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

[Mark CMG]

And how exactly can it be problematic

Because sometimes people we oppose are correct.

 

[bodhi]

None of my ideas have ever "passed" despite people frequently insisting that they would.

Are you saying you've never changed your mind about anything?

And facts are even less likely to "pass", and the fact that in the end, artistic efforts are a matter of subjective opinion that are all possessed of a certain intrinsic worth or value (for what they taught the artist if nothing else) is a fact.

It is not a fact. It is a definition. It is your definition, one which I'm sure is shared by many people all over the world. So for you, it is true.

As I see it, you're starting with the axiom that all humans possess a certain intrinsic value. Therefore, it follows that any art they create is also imbued with some inherent value, simply due to being an act of human creativity. Others here, myself included, disagree with that initial axiom. Therefore, we cannot come to the same conclusion.

 

[Merlion]

Are you saying you've never changed your mind about anything?

I'm saying that my fundemental beliefs about things have remained mostly the same throughout my life, and havent simply evaporated at certain ephemeral cutoff points, despite peoples constant assertions that they would.

It is not a fact. It is a definition

Artistic expression being subjective is a fact, because of its nature and purpose. Even any criteria you can apply to art are by nature subjective. Everyone is going to have their own opinion about a piece of art, and as you say each of those opinions is true for that person. Therefore, it is subjective.

Therefore, it follows that any art they create is also imbued with some inherent value, simply due to being an act of human creativity. Others here, myself included, disagree with that initial axiom.

You can disagree that a given work has value for you. But if I say it has value for me, how can you disagree with that?

And if it has value for me, then it has value, just not for you.

 

[Merlion]

What I take exception to is what has been put forth by some that there is an absolute, final, universal standard of "good" art and "bad" art. And anyone who holds the opinion that a piece of art that this universal standard labels "bad" to be "good" anyway, that person is simply wrong, and must be deficient in either taste, education, or intelligence.


I fully understand and accept that there is often a general concensus about the quality of a given work, and the criteria used in judging such works. However, this concensus isnt everyone, and may not even always be the worldwide majority, and the opinions of those who differ from this concensus are just as valid as everyone elses.

Further, I dont feel that anyone has the right or ability to pronounce a creative work worthless, for anyone but themselves. If you say its worthless to you, I believe you 100%. But if you say it must also be worthless to me, even though it does have worth to me, thats when theres a problem.

 

[grimslade]

You can disagree that a given work has value for you. But if I say it has value for me, how can you disagree with that?

And if it has value for me, then it has value, just not for you.

Okay now I see your argument for value. It is dualistic; all or nothing. There is no gradation for you. Black or white; no shades of gray. You apply a subjective value on art and a priori decide that the only qualifications are subjective.

There are objective standards for art. If none other than placing the piece in a creative form. If I judged a painting and a concerto on the same criteria, I would be asinine.

You have previously admitted that spelling and grammar are suitable objective standards. It is only a matter of complexity and degree to expand that to include pacing, theme, PoV and structure.

I admire your fervor for defending your opinion but I do not see logic behind it. It seems to be a belief statement rather than an argument.

 

[Merlion]

Okay now I see your argument for value. It is dualistic; all or nothing. There is no gradation for you. Black or white; no shades of gray

I dont see where black, white or grey comes into it. All I'm saying is, nobody has the right to dictate someone elses opinion to them about art. If a work of art has value to me, if it makes me happy, if I find it pleasing, then it has value to me. And no one has the right to step in and say "No, it has no value; its only pleasing to you because your not sophisticated enough to realize its worthless."

If a work is worthless to you, I have no problem with that. Just dont try to say its worthless to everyone.

There are objective standards for art

Ok. What are they? Lets look at writing for an example. Now yes we have spelling and grammar, which are objective, but to me those are not really part of the art of writing as storytelling. We all learn how to spell and how to use grammar properly, so I am setting that aside for this purpose.

You mention pacing, point of view, and structure. Plot, characterization, voice, and setting have also been mentioned as important factors.

Ok, fine. No problem.

But how do we judge the criteria? Whats a good pace for a story? How do you best define a setting? What point of view suits what type of story best?

To me, any answer to these questions is simply going to be an opinion, a preference. Everyone is going to have their own views on how best to craft these aspects of a story and all of those views are equally valid . Now yes, critics and other professionals work with a set of criteria, and a set of criteria for those criteria, based on commonly held opinion. And thats fine, and it makes them nearly objective (subjective-objective, or pseudo-objective as Umbran said). However, even though they are commonly held, they are not universal. Someone may still dearly love a book that most critics and even most regular people consider awful, and which doesnt meet any of the commonly accept criteria.

My point is, that persons opinion is just as valid as that of the majority.


Now I will even grant that there are a few things that people are more or less going to universally dislike. The big one that springs to mind involves the "plot" aspect of a story...if a writer contradicts themselves, that tends to upset the vast majority of readers. But to me, having a plot or characterization contradiction, or a blip in continuity or some such thing, constitutes a mistake or flaw. It doesnt make a book a bad book, or a writer a bad writer. I guess a book or story that consisted of nothing but plot contradictions, it would be a "bad" book, but I at least have never seen such a thing.

 

[bodhi]

Artistic expression being subjective is a fact, because of its nature and purpose. Even any criteria you can apply to art are by nature subjective. Everyone is going to have their own opinion about a piece of art, and as you say each of those opinions is true for that person. Therefore, it is subjective.

I wasn't disagreeing with the subjective part.

the fact that in the end, artistic efforts are a matter of subjective opinion that are all possessed of a certain intrinsic worth or value (for what they taught the artist if nothing else) is a fact.

(Emphasis mine.) That's the part I was disagreeing with. Intrinsic value being a fact.

And if it has value for me, then it has value, just not for you.

It has value that you have assigned to it. That value is not intrinsic or inherent. You've said that all art has value. My standpoint is that while most (and maybe even all) artwork has some personal value to someone, by the rules of the form, not all artwork is valuable.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Ok. What are they? Lets look at writing for an example. Now yes we have spelling and grammar, which are objective, but to me those are not really part of the art of writing as storytelling. We all learn how to spell and how to use grammar properly, so I am setting that aside for this purpose.

You mention pacing, point of view, and structure. Plot, characterization, voice, and setting have also been mentioned as important factors.

Ok, fine. No problem.

But how do we judge the criteria? Whats a good pace for a story? How do you best define a setting? What point of view suits what type of story best?

I think there's the major difference right there in the last sentence.

Thos criteria aren't judged like you're stating for them to be judged at all. To put it more specifically, especially with point of view, there are ways that it WORKS and ways that it DOESN'T. i.e. Mixing two points of view causes a huge amount of confusion for the reader in most cases and is a sign of 'bad' writing.

And, as others have pointed out, this is not a black and white thing. There are many, many shades of grey.

 

[Merlion]

I wasn't disagreeing with the subjective part.

Thats a good sign

My standpoint is that while most (and maybe even all) artwork has some personal value to someone, by the rules of the form, not all artwork is valuable.

Which is just another way of saying what I said...that it has value for me, but not for you. Instead in your specific example it would be "its valuable to me, but not not to the majority"


We basically have different terms for the same thing. What you call the "rules of the form", I call a widely held, commonly excepted opinion, which philosophically has no greater validity than the opinion of an individual.

Also, and I re-iterate, I understand that often they are the "rules" of the form or at least of the trade of whatever art your working in. I understand that publishers, editors and the like often use a relatively uniform set of criteria to make decisions about a work.
I also realize that even with a given form, there may be more than one set of "rules" depending upon who you talk to, and where you are, and similiar factors.

But even if a work is deemed "worthless" by those commonly held criteria, it doesnt mean it is. It just means it is for people who follow those criteria.

 

[Mark CMG]

My point is, that persons opinion is just as valid as that of the majority.

Not necessarily, objectively true.

What you call the "rules of the form", I call a widely held, commonly excepted opinion, which philosophically has no greater validity than the opinion of an individual.

You'll discover this belief is also problematic.