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

[grimslade]

Enjoyment vs Quality

I am reminded of an old Dennis Leary bit about happiness. Happiness is a 10 second orgasm, a cigarette or a chocolate chip cookie. You eat the cookie, you smoke the butt and that's it.

WARNING OPINION: A creative endeavour that only provides enjoyment does not make it good.
It merely makes it time not wasted. Speaking of Jerry Bruckheimer, I enjoyed The Rock, but I remember nothing of any substance from it. I don't even remember any of the characters names. I smiled. My adrenaline got pumped. And then... it was done.

A work that resonates after it is experienced has greater value. I don't care if it is a piece of dialogue you quote or a character that changes your perception of what a sterotype is. The creative piece that changes the reader/viewer is always better. There is a reason why the Odyssey, Chaucer and Jane Austen are still read today. They produce a lasting effect on their readers. They illuminate pieces of the human experience and alter perceptions. END OPINION WARNING

I haven't read Eragon, so I will just say The DaVinci Code sucks. ;-)

 

[Marlowe]

One, how exactly does this seperation of enjoyment from quality work?

Have you ever eaten ice cream, or candy? Did you think yummy? Did it have greater nutritional value than broccoli?

Yummy = objectively good
Nutrion = subjectively good

Not everyone agrees on the best flavour of ice cream, or even if they like ice cream. Everyone should agree on its relative nutritional value.

I can enjoy Commando because it's yummy but I recognize it is a substandard work (lacks nutrtion) based on plot, dialogue, characterization and even some of the action set pieces. There are, whether you want to acknowledge them or not, principles and best practices in regards to all of these, just as there are with construction of a physical object.

I can watch 13 Monkeys and it is both yummy and nutritionally substantial.

I cannot watch Remains of the Day because, while it is nutritionally substantial, it isn't very yummy. If it had gravy, I might eat it, but only if I could mix it with my "Black Hawk Down."

 

[Merlion]

WARNING OPINION: A creative endeavour that only provides enjoyment does not make it good.
It merely makes it time not wasted. Speaking of Jerry Bruckheimer, I enjoyed The Rock, but I remember nothing of any substance from it. I don't even remember any of the characters names. I smiled. My adrenaline got pumped. And then... it was done.

A work that resonates after it is experienced has greater value. I don't care if it is a piece of dialogue you quote or a character that changes your perception of what a sterotype is. The creative piece that changes the reader/viewer is always better. There is a reason why the Odyssey, Chaucer and Jane Austen are still read today. They produce a lasting effect on their readers. They illuminate pieces of the human experience and alter perceptions. END OPINION WARNING

See I like this. First because you state its your personal opinion, not a universal fact.

However, aside from that, I do agree. To me, there is a difference between good, which I believe all works are simply because there are those they are good for, and great which is what you describe...works that profoundly effect society, are remembered for centuries (or longer) etc.


I have no problem with the idea that some works are better than others, because that fact works on both levels...which works are better is a matter of opinion for the most part, but some can be seen as factually better than others on the level of craft.


The big thing I disagree with...indeed, that is not possible as far as I'm concerned, is for a creative work to be totally without worth (as some claim or seem to claim).

 

[Umbran]

I dont see how, when speaking of a subjective issue, they can be anything other than the same.

Are we really talking about an entirely personal, subjective issue here?

Certainly, there's the level of the entirely subjective ("I like it" or "I dislike it"). And there is no completely objective measure to which all pieces must adhere. But you speak as if these are the only options. There are several psuedo-objective measures which we can (and frequently do) refer. There's group consensus (like Neilsen ratings and the Tomatometer), there's technical standards (as seen in your common grammar book, or definitions of poetic forms), and so on.

I'd suggest that if a piece generally fails to communicate to the desired audience, it is a "bad" piece of artwork. If enough of the desired audience says it is bad, it really is bad.

 

[Merlion]

Have you ever eaten ice cream, or candy? Did you think yummy? Did it have greater nutritional value than broccoli?

This is a pretty good analogy, but it does have a flaw. The nutrional value of food is a totally objective, physical fact that can be empirically proven and studied. Art is not like that.

There are, whether you want to acknowledge them or not, principles and best practices in regards to all of these

I aknowledge them, but I also aknowledge that they are subjective. They are basically a group of codified, often commonly held opinions. Opinions by definition are subjective. I dont personally subscribe to the belief that an opinion held by the majority becomes an objective fact. As long as it can be reasonbly disagreed with, its an opinion.

 

[Merlion]

Certainly, there's the level of the entirely subjective ("I like it" or "I dislike it"). And there is no completely objective measure to which all pieces must adhere. But you speak as if these are the only options

Thats not my intent or meaning. My only meaning in that area is that if someone enjoys it, it has worth and value and is not "bad", even if it fails to meet certain peoples pseudo-objective (thanks for that term Umbran) standards of craft.

There are several psuedo-objective measures which we can (and frequently do) refer. There's group consensus (like Neilsen ratings and the Tomatometer), there's technical standards (as seen in your common grammar book, or definitions of poetic forms), and so on.

Pseudo-objective is just what I've been getting at. Thats exactly what the standards you mention...and that many in the discusion go by, are. They seem objective, and have almost that weight, but they are still basically opinions. You cant go into a lab and physically, empirically prove or disprove them.

You can say you believe water runs uphil all you want, but it doesnt make it true however much you believe it.

However, if you say a book or a movie is good because it appealed to you and you enjoyed it and liked its qualities, theres no way for anyone to objectively prove that that its bad. They can only offer their opinion that it is, and the reasons behind the opinion, but its still just an opinion.

If enough of the desired audience says it is bad, it really is bad.

But what about the remaining portion of the audience that it was good for?

 

[Merlion]

That's what the objective standard is, widely-held common opinion

This I think is the one place where we actually disagree.All the others stem from it as well, such as the enjoyment/quality seperation. to me, "objective opinion" is an oxymoron, no matter how widely the opinion is held. Because theres always going to be to many people who disagree with the widely held opinion for it to be held up as fact.

The only real basis for individual judgement of a work, is the experiencers own opinion. But in the broader sense (and you've never disagreed with this I know) I feel that whatever else anyone may say about it, wether its objective, subjective or not, any artistic work that has thought and feeling put into it, has *value* that is indepenent of any standard of "quality"

 

[Marlowe]

This is a pretty good analogy, but it does have a flaw. The nutrional value of food is a totally objective, physical fact that can be empirically proven and studied. Art is not like that.

I would argue that Art is, in fact, studied and accepted structures and guidelines are the result. Very similar, in a way, to science, in which a theory becomes the orthodoxy because it is widely accepted by peers.

I aknowledge them, but I also aknowledge that they are subjective. They are basically a group of codified, often commonly held opinions. Opinions by definition are subjective. I dont personally subscribe to the belief that an opinion held by the majority becomes an objective fact. As long as it can be reasonbly disagreed with, its an opinion.

Science--including nutrition--is also subjective based on this criteria. In fact, all reality becomes subjective based on this criteria. If I don't believe that such a thing as calories, or molecules, or atoms exist, that doesn't thereby negate them. It might for my perception, but the "objective" sciences will go on.

Science is about peer acceptance and a theory/opinion becomes an "objective fact" because it is "held by the majority." Is evolution fact? Is global warming? How about quantum physics? How about the Roman Empire? Is the existence of a playwright named William Shakespeare fact? Is it a fact that men have walked on the moon? If by fact you mean a truth that no individual rejects, then the answer to all those questions is no. If by fact you mean a generally agreed upon principle or idea, then the answer is yes.

 

[Enforcer]

I would argue that Art is, in fact, studied and accepted structures and guidelines are the result. Very similar, in a way, to science, in which a theory becomes the orthodoxy because it is widely accepted by peers.



Science--including nutrition--is also subjective based on this criteria. In fact, all reality becomes subjective based on this criteria. If I don't believe that such a thing as calories, or molecules, or atoms exist, that doesn't thereby negate them. It might for my perception, but the "objective" sciences will go on.

Science is about peer acceptance and a theory/opinion becomes an "objective fact" because it is "held by the majority." Is evolution fact? Is global warming? How about quantum physics? How about the Roman Empire? Is the existence of a playwright named William Shakespeare fact? Is it a fact that men have walked on the moon? If by fact you mean a truth that no individual rejects, then the answer to all those questions is no. If by fact you mean a generally agreed upon principle or idea, then the answer is yes.

Marlowe, thank you for stating this. Merlion, consider me to wholeheartedly endorse this counter-argument as to why there are, in fact, objective standards to art.

 

[Merlion]

Science is about peer acceptance and a theory/opinion becomes an "objective fact" because it is "held by the majority

Or because they can be objectively, empirically proven, such as the water doesnt flow uphill example. What you describe is only the case in the situation of phenomena that are impossible to study directly or conclusively, like quantum physics and the like. But thats why those areas of science are not factual, or the facts of them are not known, because they have no yet been proven or disproven.

But you cannot empirically prove or disprove the quality of a work of art. If someone says I think this book is good, you can't factually disprove it, because all you can offer to counter it is your own opinion. You can say "its bad because there isnt enough characterization" but then the person can say that they think there is plenty. Who is right?

As I discussed with Umbran, the "objective" criteria you speak of are actually pseudo-objective. Just because a lot of people hold an opinion, doesnt make it an objective fact, just a commonly held (and often useful) opinion.

Is evolution fact? Is global warming? How about quantum physics?

Those are all scientific theories, because their reality, nature and veracity have yet to be empirically proven.

How about the Roman Empire? Is the existence of a playwright named William Shakespeare fact?

Again, these things are known to be facts because there is empirical evidence, not because of anyones opinion.

I would argue that Art is, in fact, studied and accepted structures and guidelines are the result. Very similar, in a way, to science, in which a theory becomes the orthodoxy because it is widely accepted by peers

its apples and oranges. One deals entirely with empirical, physical objective reality. the other deals with thoughts, ideas and emotions that cannot really be put up to empirical analysis.