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

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

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?

It should also be said that without 'bad' work, there is no 'good' work. You can't have one without the other.

And the importance of pointing out 'bad' points in work is so that these things can be identified and the writer/artist/whatever can LEARN from this. Of course, in a setting like this where a book is being talked about without the author here(as far as we know), then its a bit pointless...but still, the reason for pointing out 'bad' is to work towards what is 'good'.

 

[Merlion]

I understand that I'm frustrating some of you, and we seem to be going around in circles.

I'm a bit frustrated with myself as I'm having trouble expressing what it is that i'm getting at in a way that anyone else could understand. I'm going to try and come up with a way to word it and organize it so perhaps the discussion can move out of the rut.

 

[Wild Gazebo]

Merlion, I thing the major problem you have is that you experienced a significant emotional response to what you considered to be an ignorant opinion guised as fact. Most of the posters here did not share your exasperation or even you interpretation of the situation you experienced. I, for one, thought you simply didn't understand how a discipline that seems so inherently subjective could be ruled with any objective standards...but, it seems, that is not really what you wanted to discuss.

I'm not sure anyone here is using the same true/false dichotomy you seem to be working with in regards to good and bad...not that that is very important. The idea that the process of art influences the product is not a new idea and there are a lot of followers dedicated to that method of thought. The real problem with that--even in the art community--is that it (paradoxically) doesn't share any empirical evidence.

Mallus, I believe, suggested reading Danto. If you are interested...this is a very good idea--though I would suggest you first read a smattering of Hegel first (specifically his use of dialectic and the intrinsic 'end'...as pertaining to art). Danto was one of the first to really quantify art with-in history: whereas history gives meaning to the work. As well his ideas of end-of-time concerning the evolution of art become very interesting as art becomes self referential and self actualizing.

I just want to state there is no judicial hierarchy that sits watch over the entire body of art giving it a pass/fail. There are arts/artists not appreciated in their own time. What there is is a dynamic interaction of artist/critic/audience/historian living the experience of their own time debating the merits of one work over another...but the truth is...only time will tell. But, just as in any other discipline, the further along the timeline you travel, the more you have to work with, the more informed your opinion becomes, the more relevant your position becomes, and the more accurate the results of your endeavors become.

I may be coming at this situation from a much more practiced level; but, I asure you there is nothing to be concerned about: in terms of public dismissal of an artists work. Most sensible people recognize these dismissals as uninformed and/or inflammatory. If you have any specific questions about art theory or philosophy you are more than welcome to PM me.

 

[Storm Raven]

I understand that I'm frustrating some of you, and we seem to be going around in circles.

I'm a bit frustrated with myself as I'm having trouble expressing what it is that i'm getting at in a way that anyone else could understand. I'm going to try and come up with a way to word it and organize it so perhaps the discussion can move out of the rut.

No, I am not having trouble understanding your viewpoint. I simply reject it. You believe that all art is entirely subjective, and thus, all art has value, provided that somneone, somewhere, likes it to some extent. But art is not entirely subjective, there are objective elements that form a part of a work of art, especially written art. And those can be done clumsily and poorly, and thus, some art has no value.

There is no lack of understanding. Just a lack of agreement.

 

[grimslade]

Why do we need to label some art as 'bad'

I think the best answer is if I know something is bad beforehand I can save $25 at Barnes and Noble. Plus, the agonizing hours of wading through bad text. <shakes fist at DaVinci Code>

I write. I try and put the best words I can down on a page. I know somethings work in a story and some don't. I prefer to learn from the mistakes of others than retread old misteps. The labeling process isn't onerous to me. Even the best art can never capture what the artist envisions completely. All art is failure. Good art comes close. Bad art misses the mark somewhere. Figuring out the hits from the misses is how you learn the craft. If you don't think something is worse, how do you get better?

 

[Spatula]

For these reasons, I dont really see "lack of originality" as being a particularly good criteria to determine that a work is "bad"

Plots are not new, this is true. What matters (and what people generally mean when they say something isn't original) is the execution. If you take plot "A" and write a story that has the same details as another plot-A story (or worse, many other plot-A stories), that's a lack of originality. Star Wars and Lord of the Rings are both about naive farmers that end up saving the world/universe, but the actual details of the two are rather different.

I don't care of George R.R. Martin's writing to date. I like Robert Holdstock. Does this mean that Holdstock is a good writer and Martin isn't? For me, yes. Universally, no.

There's a difference between bad art and art that you don't like.

 

[Merlion]

There's a difference between bad art and art that you don't like.

Not a meaningful one. Thats sort of the point...each person determines for themselves whats "good" or "bad"


Just because you and a few other people like it, and most other people dont, doesnt make it "objectively" bad. It means its bad for most people, and good for a few others. An opinion doesnt cease to be an opinion because lots of people have the same opinion...and it is just lots of people. Thats why I dont believe in the so called "objective" standard...a majority may agree on it, but not nearly everyone.

If you have 50,000 people, and 45,000 of them dislike a work, and the other 5,000 love it, who is right? Are all 5,000 of those people just deficient because they disagree with the majority?

Nope. They are both right.

 

[Spatula]

Recent discussion about the book "Eragon" and its quality, or lack thereof have gotten me thinking about some things, and I'd like to start a general conversation about those things.

Basically what sparked me off is this. On this site, and in critics reviews and various other places I frequently see people doing what I think of as "slamming", degrading, or belittling books, movies, music, whatever. Not just expressing their opinion, or offering specific criticisms, but statements like "it sucks", "its crap", "its really bad" etc.

I have two problems with these statements. One, to me they sound like turning opinion into fact. Two, especially the more major ones sound to me as though the person saying them is claiming that the work in question is completely worthless and without value, which brings me to my major point.

You are reading WAY too much into what is simply a somewhat rude way to say "I didn't like something."

 

[Spatula]

Not a meaningful one.

I don't think you understood my statement in response to Wombat's.

It's possible to not like a work and still appreciate the craftsman. Just because something's not to your tastes doesn't mean it's objectively bad, although that too is also possible. On the flip side, just because you like something doesn't make it objectively good (as with the NYT review of Eregon).

There are standards, and if you are an aspiring writer as was implied upthread, you'd do well to learn them, because your work is going to be judged on their criteria.

 

[Marlowe]

Well, it's interesting to see the different ways that everyone is attempting to illustrate the same point for Merlion. I'm not back to attempt to illustrate my point, because I did so to my own satisfaction. I am back because I've noted that Merlion is an aspiring author, and I think I need to offer some advice. Take it or leave it as you will.

Whether you agree with the objectivity of literary theory and criticism, if you wish to be published (and you intimate that you do), you will need to accept it's strictures. It is imperative that you accept these rules (or guidelines, if that makes it more palatable for you) because you require the acceptance of an editor/publisher/agent, and those individuals do accept the objectivity of literary theory and criticism. Those individuals use literary theory and criticism when they make their choices.

If you are a spec fic writer, I would strongly, very strongly suggest you visit Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America and hear what those people who have published, and who are making a living writing, have to say about the "subjectivity" of literary criticism and theory. Just a hint, you won't like what they have to say.

If you really want to be a published author, you need to get a thicker skin. You need to brush off those you say your writing sucks while still trying to glean any clues of weakness in your writing from even the most negative of responses. You need to do this because your writing does have weaknesses, and they are objective, not subjective. Your writing has weaknesses because all writing has weaknesses. Literary theory has evolved to try to help to strengthen writing, not tear it down.

I’m not going to say much more. I’m nobody so my opinion on this is easily discarded. Go to the SFWA. These are the professionals, the people you read and enjoy if you are reading spec fic. Read what they have to say about writing. Take it to heart.

If would also strongly recommend two podcasts:

Michael A Stackpoles “the Secrets” at http://www.stormwolf.com/thesecrets/podcasts/

Mur Lafferty’s “I Should Be Writing” at http://shouldwrite.blogspot.com/

That’s it. I’m done for now. Good luck to everyone involved in this thread. It’s tiring just reading it.