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

[Merlion]

Except even things proven as facts are regarded as mere opinion by others, regardless of empirical evidence

I've never seen anyone seriously disagree that water doesnt flow uphil, or that rocks are hard, or that water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen.


But I've seen a lot of people disagree over wether an artistic work was "good" or "bad"

 

[Mark CMG]

I apreciate, enjoy, and respect all the opinions presented here

Thank you.

I also apreciate everyone keeping things so civil, and (for the most part) refraining from stating their opinions, especially about specific works, as facts.

I think that some just don't feel they need to preface their opinion by stating it is an opinion and I think the discussion gets sidetracked when you make that assertion.

 

[Merlion]

I think that some just don't feel they need to preface their opinion by stating it is an opinion and I think the discussion gets sidetracked when you make that assertion

Your probably right, but there are two situations where I think its somewhat important.

One, in a discussion like this where wether something is opinion or fact is part of the crux of the discussion.


Two, this being part of what started this for me, when giving your opinion of a piece of work, I think it is important especially if you are saying you dont like it, to make it clear that "I dont like it" or "In my opinion it was bad", rather than "It's horrible" or "it sucks". I can even deal with "I think it sucks" on a good day tho

 

[Mallus]

It seems like your own opinion would be the most relevent.

Critics have another function, aside from making value judgements about art. They serve to point out things you might have missed. They to help illuminate the work, to show you the art through another person's eyes, to see more than you would have seen through your own.

Which is kinda like what art itself does, when you think about it. Show you something more than what you could have conceived of on your own. Seen that way, art and criticism go hand in hand. Or fist in jaw, as the case may be...

I dont have a framework, beyond that fact that anything about something that is accessible and can be studied that cannot be proven to be a fact is an opinion...

Are you willing to admit there are such things as informed opinions? That while the value of art can't be empirically proven, there exists a wide body of knowledge about art in its varied disciplines; its histories, its movements, schools, and traditions, which people can and do study, which in turn informs their discussions about art.

That knowing something about a work of art beyond simply "Do I like it or not?", has some bearing not only on your ability to talk about it, but your actual appreciation of it as well.

...and that any creative work into which someone puts thought feeling and effort has value, aside from any opinion of its quality.

People can seperate their respect for the creative process and their own personal appreciation of art.

Frankly, I'm interested in what a work of art means to me. What I get out of it. What its creator got out of it isn't relevant to that end.

 

[Merlion]

Are you willing to admit there are such things as informed opinions? That while the value of art can't be empirically proven, there exists a wide body of knowledge about art in its varied disciplines; its histories, its movements, schools, and traditions, which people can and do study, which in turn informs their discussions about art.

I agree entirely...indeed to me this is just another facet of the enjoyment and interest that art brings.


I just dont think that knowledge and information gives anyone the right to decide a work is "bad" if by bad they mean worthless.

Frankly, I'm interested in what a work of art means to me. What I get out of it. What its creator got out of it isn't relevant to that end.

Well I wasnt talking about what the creator gets out of it, I was talking about what they put into it endowing it with unalienable value.

But my main reaction to this statement is, are you willing to admit that even if you dont get anything out of a work of art, and wether it lives up to certain standards or not, other people do get something out of it, and by virtue of that it has value?

 

[Mark CMG]

Well I wasnt talking about what the creator gets out of it, I was talking about what they put into it endowing it with unalienable value.

Well, now, we've been through this and this is an opinion of yours which you state as fact that has been widely held as false. Why do you badger people not to state opinion as fact and then use words like "unalienable value" in regard to your own, heavily disputed opinion?

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

I am a Fine Art major at the moment.

Art MAY BE subjective to a point...but there is one thing you learn very quickly.

There are OBJECTIVE qualities to ALL art. For my stuff, it comes down to line, form, shape, etc. But writing and other forms of art have them, too. They are things that can actually be judged objectively. Honsetly, you either learn to accept that there is such a thing as bad art based on these things or you end up having a very, very difficult time.

 

[Merlion]

. They are things that can actually be judged objectively. Honsetly, you either learn to accept that there is such a thing as bad art based on these things or you end up having a very, very difficult time.

But who does the judging, and by what criteria? And what makes their judgement(opinion) better than anyone elses?



How do you judge an abstract painting?


And how does not fitting those judgements make a piece of art "bad" anymore than a random person disliking it?

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

But who does the judging, and by what criteria? And what makes their judgement(opinion) better than anyone elses?



How do you judge an abstract painting?


And how does not fitting those judgements make a piece of art "bad" anymore than a random person disliking it?

Honestly, I cannot say 'who' because they are things that have been around for a very long time. These are the same in writing when it comes to grammar, though those rules depend on the language, they've been around for a long time. Can you say who came up with grammar? Is their opinion better?

As for an abstract painting...line, form, shape, colour, etc..they all apply. You can judge it on its use and how they work together. Whether you agree with this or not, it is how things are done. Again, this applies to writing as well, as there are simply qualities that make things 'good' and 'bad'(which are probably not even the best words to be using).

There IS such a thing as worthless art, in any form. If you want to see some, I can scan some of my crap that I know is worthless and there you go...the CREATOR of art who put their heart into it telling you, right here, that it was worthless and bad.

 

[Merlion]

Well, now, we've been through this and this is an opinion of yours which you state as fact that has been widely held as false. Why do you badger people not to state opinion as fact and then use words like "unalienable value" in regard to your own, heavily disputed opinion?

Because it also cannot be disproved. Much like another thing I cant mention here due to the rules. I should have added that as a criteria as well...

And my "badgering" applies mostly to that "good/bad" thing about specific works.

You cant disprove that all art has value anymore than you can prove it.


Also theres the issue of the final results of such an idea. If you put your heart and soul into something, but it turns out its worthless just because someone says so, whats the point? The creation of art becomes a crap shoot