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

[Mallus]

If you put your heart and soul into something, but it turns out its worthless just because someone says so, whats the point?

Only you can answer that.

The creation of art becomes a crap shoot

My boy, he's finally got it!

 

[Mallus]

How do you judge an abstract painting?

By judging the merit of the concepts behind it.

Might I recommned the books of Arthur C. Danto? He's a very good writer and critic who's spent a lot of time thinking about contemporary art.

 

[Merlion]

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?
.

Grammar isnt a matter of opinion though. Nor is spelling...each *langauge* has rules about how the language works. Likewise in music a C note is a C note etc etc, and in visual art a straight line is a straight line and red is red.


I'm talking about value judgements being made about what people do with the artforms. Who decides when a straight line is better than a curved one and why is it so? Who decides when "Hello," he said, is better than "Hello!" He said cheerfully?

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.

But how can those judgements be anything other than opinions?

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).

Not if your trying to say its objective, because "good" and "bad" are subjective.

What you (and many others) are getting at is that there is a widely accepted set of criteria that many...perhaps even most...accept as a definition of "good" and "bad" art.

My point is, that set of criteria is simply an opinion. There is somewhat of a case to be made for wide acceptance giving credence to an opinion, but it doesnt make it cease to be an opinion. Other people may have different opinions.

To me, works of art are in a way sort of above good/bad and objective/subjective, because if you take a given piece of art, many people both trained and untrained will love it, and many will hate it. So who is right? Its both good and bad, objective and subjective at the same time.

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.

But what if someone else loves it?



Seperate from that: Is that your true opinion in your own heart, or is it you judging the work by the crtieria you have been taught are absolute?

 

[Merlion]

Only you can answer that.


My boy, he's finally got it!

So you really believe its a crap shoot? You create something, and hope the "experts" decide it has worth?

 

[Mallus]

So you really believe its a crap shoot?

Yup.

You create something, and hope the "experts" decide it has worth?

Nope.

You create something and hopefully you found value and meaning in both the process of creating it and in the end result. You assign meaning to the object and the act.

You might decide to show the work to others. If you do, well, its out of your hands. Others might decide to assign value and meaning to your work. They might find things you never intended to convey. They decide its a masterpiece, or utter crap. At that point, its out of your hands. Your audience is free to put your work to whatever uses they will...

What you choose to do with other peoples assessments of your work is another story. You may rail against them, sulk, or plot revenege. At the very least, you should spend a little time deciding exactly what other people's value judgements mean to you.

 

[Merlion]

Ok so heres the deal. Basically many of you believe in what is essentially a majority rule; that there are certain criteria for each art form that many people accept, and that makes them true, factual, and objective for everyone. A work that does not fit those standards is a "bad" work. It can still be enjoyed, but some of you believe that someone who enjoys a "bad" work has a defective or undeveloped sense of taste. Such a work may also be considered totally devoid of worth or merit.


Now this first part of that, I can understand and see some worth in. Especially for artists themselves...having an idea of what usualy results in an enjoyable book/painting/whatever for many people is a useful thing.

However, I disagree that an opinion held by many automatically becomes a fact.

How do you explain those who disagree? Are they simply deficient in taste? Doesnt that seem a bit elitist?

And isnt it possible that the simple fact that some people disagree, in the case of something like this, may mean that those criteria are not absolute?


Also, what about the fact that those criteria have shifted over time? Since its basically a popularity thing, that tends to shift. Again I bring up Poe...the literary elite of his time felt his work was "bad" and yet now he is considered a "Great Writer". How do you reconcile things like that?

 

[Merlion]

Yup. Nope.

You realize your contradicting yourself here?

You might decide to show the work to others. If you do, well, its out of your hands. Others might decide to assign value and meaning to your work. They might find things you never intended to convey. They decide its a masterpiece, or utter crap. At that point, its out of your hands. Your audience is free to put your work to whatever uses they will...

But do their opinions make it a fact? If the "experts" decide its crap, does that mean it is, and anyone who likes it anyway is just devoid of taste?

At the very least, you should spend a little time deciding exactly what other people's value judgements mean to you.

My point is that many people seem to feel that the value judgements of certain people...usualy either the "elite" in a given field, or simply the majority...decide the reality of it for everyone.

 

[grimslade]

Bad art exists

Ok. We keep going round and round with the same points.
Art is a product. It is both crafted and created.

Merlion, you are all about the created part. There is no objective way to argue over the created part of an artistic exression. The creative may not be to your taste but it is not 'valued'. It is primordial and sublime.

I think the rest of us are talking about the crafted portion of art, the knowledge of contrast and color, plot and pacing. There are rules and scales based on collective experience over time.
This is where the value judgements come into play. Art is bad when it is badly crafted. Challenging the rules can be done by someone who takes into account the price for breaking a rule. A calculated risk that can pay off. But to blatantly ignore the rules, is to buck the collective unconscious. Not some huge orthdoxy of sages and syndics, but accepted observations of the decades or centuries of reader/viewer/listeners.

Experience and exposure are the keys to learning the 'rules' of art. The larger the pool of data the better the interpreted results. There are commonalities in art. The ones most people like are considered good. The things most do not like are bad. Random POV shifts a big no-no in the contemporary novel. It confuses the reader and leads to a detachment. Random POV shifts=bad. Internal consistancy=good. The more you read; the more these commonalities start to jump out at you.

 

[Merlion]

Merlion, you are all about the created part. There is no objective way to argue over the created part of an artistic exression. The creative may not be to your taste but it is not 'valued'. It is primordial and sublime.

Well I'm glad you think so. That is, sort of what I'm getting at. However, many seem to disagree and feel that if the "crafted" part as you put it doesnt fit a set of criteria, the whole spiel is worthless.

This is where the value judgements come into play. Art is bad when it is badly crafted. Challenging the rules can be done by someone who takes into account the price for breaking a rule. A calculated risk that can pay off. But to blatantly ignore the rules, is to buck the collective unconscious. Not some huge orthdoxy of sages and syndics, but accepted observations of the decades or centuries of reader/viewer/listeners.

But the trouble is, everyone doesnt actually agree on them. Not all the readers/viewers/listeners, or all the sages and syndics. Maybe most, but not all. And what do we do with the dissenters? Label them deficient in taste because they have a different set of criteria?



Seperate from your post, another thing I am curious about.

Why is it so important to so many to be able to declare the work of another's mind "bad", factualy and universally?

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

But how can those judgements be anything other than opinions?

Honestly, that can be applied to anything. Even the supposed hard facts can, if looked at deep enough, quite literaly just be opinions of one person that got accepted in a "Hey, that must be right" way by everyone.

To me, works of art are in a way sort of above good/bad and objective/subjective, because if you take a given piece of art, many people both trained and untrained will love it, and many will hate it. So who is right? Its both good and bad, objective and subjective at the same time.

I think I may see the root of the problem here. This has nothing to do with liking something or not liking it. That is the subjective end and not something that can ever be put down definitively.

'Good' and 'bad' art is defined from the basic components of whatever the art form is, be it fine art, music, or writing. Perhaps 'successful' and 'unsuccessful' are better words, but for now we can just go with 'good' and 'bad' as long you can put aside this having anything to do with liking a piece or not. Because GOOD art can be loved and hated, as can BAD art.

But the point is, there IS good and bad art, from a purely technical view. And, again, while you may not agree with that, it is there. One doesn't have to agree that the sky is blue for it to actually be blue.

But what if someone else loves it?

Seperate from that: Is that your true opinion in your own heart, or is it you judging the work by the crtieria you have been taught are absolute?

Good for that someone, but its junk. And its me judging it from both ends, actually. I have in front of me something I spent a good three weeks on, putting all my heart into it and really wanting it to work.

But it didn't.

It failed. Both from the technical side and from what I wanted it to be.

So, again, there's the creator of art putting his all into something and trash being the result.

Ok so heres the deal. Basically many of you believe in what is essentially a majority rule; that there are certain criteria for each art form that many people accept, and that makes them true, factual, and objective for everyone.

Why is this a problem? In the end, everything we accept as facts are just majority rule.

A work that does not fit those standards is a "bad" work. It can still be enjoyed, but some of you believe that someone who enjoys a "bad" work has a defective or undeveloped sense of taste. Such a work may also be considered totally devoid of worth or merit.

The first sentence there is correct, but the last is something that no one has said at all. YES, bad art can be enjoyed, but at the same time that does NOT mean the person who enjoys it has a defective sense of taste.

It DOES mean that, most likely, the person simply does not know how to judge the work objectively. That has nothing to do with taste, and its extremely important when you DO judge work to separate your personal taste from the objective values of the work itself.

And, also, bad art DOES have worth and merit. If anything, identifying bad art is a way for an artist(of any form) to grow and learn.

I've always found it is very hard for some people to understand that art of any kind is far, far more than just talent. In fact, the opposite is true from what I've found. There are so many more LEARNED skills to it all that the talent, while good, is definitely not the only aspect and, in fact, is one of the smaller ones. Art is LEARNED as is anything else, and so there are objective criteria that are taught.

Again, whether you agree with this criteria is irrelevant, because its already out there. And it has nothing at all to do with 'experts' or 'elite' or anything else anymore than Algebra, Biology, or other 'hard' subjects do.