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

[Merlion]

IThos 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.

Unless it does work for someone. Wether it works or not depends on what its trying to do. This is true of all such criteria. Now again, I realize that much of the time what your saying is going to be true, but there will be exceptions.

Mixing two points of view causes a huge amount of confusion for the reader in most cases and is a sign of 'bad' writing

Or at least, it constitutes a mistake. I realize some would call that semantics, but I think theres a difference.

I do agree that especially in writing there are certainly some practices that are a good idea to avoid. I just dont know how tied they are to value judgements.

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

Indeed. Because what we are discussing is a subjective topic. Everyone has their own ideas about art. There are sets of commonly accepted criteria, some of them mutually exclusive. And there are individual opinions.

And all of them are valid.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Unless it does work for someone. Wether it works or not depends on what its trying to do. This is true of all such criteria. Now again, I realize that much of the time what your saying is going to be true, but there will be exceptions.

But there are exceptions to EVERYTHING.

Hell, pretty much everything there is that is a fact, especially in Science or Math, has at least one exception. So of course there are exceptions, but that's not the point here.

You can't focus on an exception when it comes to things like this, if you ask me. And when it comes to something with writing, if you confuse the reader, even when you mean to, you have a very good chance of simply losing them.

 

[Hypersmurf]

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.

So if we had two books that were essentially identical, save that book A contained a plot contradiction, would you agree that book B is objectively better than book A?

-Hyp.

 

[Merlion]

You can't focus on an exception when it comes to things like this, if you ask me. And when it comes to something with writing, if you confuse the reader, even when you mean to, you have a very good chance of simply losing them.

Well, when I spoke of exceptions what I was really getting at is while the criteria you all speak of for judging art (or some version of it) is excepted and used by many, including most of the people who matter in the "art industry", there are still a great many who don't. Only a minority perhaps, but more than a mere exception.

And there opinions and feelings are just as valid as the majorities (even if they arent as relevent, neccesarily, in the industry or profession of art; I'm speaking philosophically)

You can't focus on an exception when it comes to things like this, if you ask me. And when it comes to something with writing, if you confuse the reader, even when you mean to, you have a very good chance of simply losing them.

I agree. In writing, and in most artforms, there are certainly some practices one usualy wishes to avoid. Confusing your audience, and contradicting yourself being among them. However, making mistakes in this area doesnt make one a "bad" artist, or a work a "bad" work. Nothing is perfect.

 

[Merlion]

So if we had two books that were essentially identical, save that book A contained a plot contradiction, would you agree that book B is objectively better than book A?

-Hyp.

Yes I would. But note that it is "better than". Not that the one with the contradiction is bad or worthless.


I want to apologize to you Smurfy because I havent gotten to your rather important post about the painting of a dog. I will, because it brings up something that should be addressed, but it may be a while as I have to leave for work soon.

 

[bodhi]

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.

It means it's worthless by those criteria.

I think this is a frame of reference problem. We're saying a person standing still is "at rest", and you're saying the Earth revolves around the sun, which in turn revolves around the galactic core, which in turn is moving away from other galaxies, so everyone's constantly "in motion".

We're using different metrics for "value", so naturally we disagree on whether something has intrinsic value.

 

[Merlion]

Merlion - setting aside notions of 'good' and 'bad' art for the moment...

Do you really contend that it is impossible to take two related works and declare that one is objectively better than the other?

Let's say two people paint a picture of a dog. When asked, both artists state that their intention was to paint a picture of a dog. One painting looks like a dog. The other shows something vaguely quadrupedal, but guesses range from pig to tiger to donkey. (You've all seen a four year old paint a dog, right?)

Isn't the painting that looks like a dog objectively a better work of art? Doesn't the painter's ability to depict what he wishes make him objectively a better artist than the painter who cannot?

-Hyp.

My answer to this is, it depends on purpose and intention.

Now when you say they intend to paint a picture of a dog, your probably saying they intend to depict a dog as realistically and accurately as they can. In this case yes, the one that looks more like a dog is objectively better, because it fullfilled the purpose more fully than the other one. However as an aside, someone could still find the other one to be subjectively better, and their opinion would not be wrong, it would just be their opinion.


The issue of purpose is an important one that no one has brought up much directly. I believe that the first or primary, though not neccesarily only, purposes of most art and creative works is to 1) act as a realse of the creative impulse for the creator and 2) bring enjoyment to the creator, and others. Now when I say enjoyment, it can take many different forms depending on intention, from joy to anger to fear, and so I guess you could add a seperate 3) to invoke a specific emotion or feeling in the creator and others.

Now of course much art, and especially much of literature, may also be meant to make a statement, convey a message and the like.


These to me are the most common purposes behind most creative works, and i feel further that any work that succeeds in its purpose is a work with merit and value. Now when i say suceeds in its purpose, I dont neccesarily mean that it succeeds in working its purpose on everyone who sees it, but say its purpose is to bring joy, if even some of the people that see it are given joy by it, it has succeeded.

Now many of you want to seperate enjoyment from quality or value, I'm not going to get into that one too deeply right now.
Some of you also want to make a distinction as to wether a work is an "objectively good example of its craft", and wether it succeeds at its intended purpose. I dont personally see a difference...the craft has no inherent purpose other than what each crafter assigns to his own works. Now, a person could set out to say paint the best crafted painting of a rose that he can possibly paint, certainly. Although he'd have to decide which set of criteria for "best crafted" to use.

But in the end, the purpose of the work, and wether it succeeds or fails in that purpose is I think the big issue as far as that grouping of issues go.

 

[Merlion]

It means it's worthless by those criteria.

I think this is a frame of reference problem. We're saying a person standing still is "at rest", and you're saying the Earth revolves around the sun, which in turn revolves around the galactic core, which in turn is moving away from other galaxies, so everyone's constantly "in motion".

We're using different metrics for "value", so naturally we disagree on whether something has intrinsic value.

Yea in your first line there you repeat the exact intention of what I said, just in different words

I think we are using different ideas of value. When I say value, I dont(neccesarily) mean world changing social value, or value to the community of the artistic elite, or value for making money (although it may have all of these).
I mean any value. I mean that if someone looks at a painting and it makes them happy, it has value (at least to that person, which is enough). I mean if someone reads a story, and it entertains them, it has value. I mean if someone hears a melody, and it brings back a memory, it has value.


Again, I am speaking on a conceptual, philosophical level first and foremost. Not neccesarily on a practical or business level (because to me even though art can be used as a business and in business, art also has indepent existence for whatever purpose it was made). I'm not, again not neccesarily, speaking on the level of changing the world or the "artistic community" although I am not discluding any of those things either. I'm talking on the basic level.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Yes I would. But note that it is "better than". Not that the one with the contradiction is bad or worthless.

Yup. But if we can create a continuum of objective 'better thans', then we can order the books from best to worst, and find an average point... at which point we can declare anything in the lower half of the continuum 'below average'. And somewhere in the lower half, there are things that can be objectively considered 'bad'.

In this case yes, the one that looks more like a dog is objectively better, because it fullfilled the purpose more fully than the other one. However as an aside, someone could still find the other one to be subjectively better, and their opinion would not be wrong, it would just be their opinion.

Certainly. To them, it is better, but objectively, it is worse.

Which makes it a 'guilty pleasure' as described earlier - a bad piece of art that you nevertheless enjoy.

-Hyp.

 

[Merlion]

Yup. But if we can create a continuum of objective 'better thans', then we can order the books from best to worst, and find an average point... at which point we can declare anything in the lower half of the continuum 'below average'. And somewhere in the lower half, there are things that can be objectively considered 'bad'.

-Hyp.

I'm not so sure about that, at least in the way I think of things. In terms of commonly held opinion, I'd say definitely yes to the first part. However, the problem with the first part is, if your going to create a "best" and a "worst", people have to agree on it. Agreeing that something without a certain flaw is better than something otherwise the same but with the flaw is pretty straightforward...everyone is going to pretty much agree. I can say Earthsea is better than Eragon. But is Earthsea better than LOTR? Is Conan better than Fafrd (or however you spell it) and the Grey Mouser? How do they compare to Earthsea and LOTR? and on and on and on...

As for the last part, it depends on how your using "bad". No work of creativity is ever objectively worthless, because its going to have some worth to someone. The only way I can really stomach "bad" is when its used almost like a genre for movies that obviously arent intended as anything more than entertainment (which to mean still makes them good if they entertain people).


However, i get your point, and it has great validity and usefulness, as long as you remember there still basically opinions, and if someone has a different opinion, its still valid.