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

[Merlion]

Some rocks are soft.

Sometimes water does run uphill (that's what tides are, essentially).



Wrong.



You limit yourself to definition 7, but really, definition 5 (among others) applies to this sort of analyisis just as easily.



No, it isn't. Until you figure that out, you won't understand what people talk about when they evaluate works of art.

As you say, I understand it, but I reject it.

Also, although I value and apreciate all the opinions given to me, I know that you and have a variety of differences, some not related directly to this topic, that cause me to view it as a bad idea to enter into direct discussion with you. For that reason, I will not be replying to anymore of your posts for the sake of my peace of mind and maintaining a relatively genial tone to this thread. I dont mean any of this as an insult or a put down, just a statement of my feelings.

 

[Merlion]

Mark Hope, I am getting to you, just taking my time and trying to decide how to put things forth.

Plus I'm laying groundwork for a new story ;-)

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

As you say, I understand it, but I reject it.

Then what's the point of any of this?

Umbran put it better than I could have a few posts up, and you just told him to 'see above'. Many of us are doing our best to explain to you exactly what you've asked us to, and you're simply rejecting it. Well...then why even ask the question?

And, once again, it has to be said that we live by majority rule in everything. If you want another example of it, see colours. Red is only red because we agree its red...but not everyone sees red exactly the same. Or any colour. So who's right, then?

It should also be emphasized that the key here is seperating WORTH from good or bad. Because both good AND bad have worth, just different kinds.

 

[Redrobes]

Interesting topic...

I have been following this thread from the start with some interest. I thought that the original question is very similar to the general question posed in the book "Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance" where they take a very winding road that kinda, sorta, ends up at asking what is quality ?

In that book they discuss that everything comes down to how you look at it and one particular cut out of many from the existential scalple and you can divide everything into romantic and classical which they state is also subjective - objective. So thats what the motorcycle bit is all about in the book. Is the bike a romantic shiny toy or a collection of carefully machined objective bits of metal all fulfilling their purpose.

So by three pages of discussion we appear to be at a similar point. I think that where we are is thus. Most things - but lets focus on works of artistic merit - have some degree of objectivity and some degree of subjectivity about them. All of the objective - subjective bits are pretty easily separated with, well lets say a reasonably universally agreed basis. This can be spelling & grammar in a book, consistency and lack of opposing statements of fact in the plot vs the subjective elements that are the story, use of language, shapes and color in a picture etc.

So I believe that for all of the objective bits its easy to hold a true opinion and guage its quality easily by whether it performs the job that its designed to do. For all of the subjective bits nobody can make an opinionated statement of fact about it - its all up for grabs depending on how you individually feel about it.

So back to a certain book that I have not read. If the spelling and grammar is incorrect or the plot contradicts itself where its not desirable for it to, or purports to model reality with absurd statements then it can be considered crap no matter what story it told. As for the story, characters etc and other purely subjective parts, well its just not possible to state whether it is factually a good or bad book based upon any basis other than your own personal opinion.

Although there are examples which are almost purely objective like a CAD diagram for a mechanical part or a purly subjective piece like modern art, most things like books, movies and these posts have a bit of each.

 

[Mark CMG]

Then what's the point of any of this?

At this point, the discussion of art is long gone. We're (at least those still posting, it seems are) only trying to help Merlion understand that his own position is unreasonable and that it flies in the face of accepted conventions.

 

[Merlion]

Then what's the point of any of this?

Umbran put it better than I could have a few posts up, and you just told him to 'see above'. Many of us are doing our best to explain to you exactly what you've asked us to, and you're simply rejecting it. Well...then why even ask the question?

And, once again, it has to be said that we live by majority rule in everything. If you want another example of it, see colours. Red is only red because we agree its red...but not everyone sees red exactly the same. Or any colour. So who's right, then?

It should also be emphasized that the key here is seperating WORTH from good or bad. Because both good AND bad have worth, just different kinds.

Thats essentially what I am saying...that it all has worth (although I wouldnt apply the term "bad" to something with worth but thats not really an important issue). As for the majority rule thing, I said "see above" as in a previous post where I explained why I disagree with the idea that we live by majority *opinion* in everything. There are many things that are by majority *fact* and experience.

like this:

When I talk about objective science, I mean things that are physically observable and quantifiable, and that are the same for EVERYONE. Not a majority opinion, but a universal physical fact, such as the fact that if you touch a red-hot heating element, you will be burned, and if you try to breathe water you'll drown.

The criteria of artistic judgement that you and others speak of are not objective in the same way those things are objective. Those criteria are simply a group of opinions that many accept...but many also do not. Which makes them useful, but not the absolute final say on everything. But the non-accepting people's opinions are just as valid.



But the worth issue is the biggest one for me, and you and I at least agree that theres no worthless art, although perhaps for slightly different reasons.

 

[Merlion]

At this point, the discussion of art is long gone. We're (at least those still posting, it seems are) only trying to help Merlion understand that his own position is unreasonable and that it flies in the face of accepted conventions.

It flies in the face of conventions accepted by some...maybe even most. But most isnt all.


Honestly until very recently everyone I knew was of the opinion that art was entirely subjective. All my life I've seen art used as THE example of something subjective, to contrast objective things.


And your post is exactly the sort of thing I am on about. My point of view is unreasonble, because it isnt the same as the majority (or percieved majority).

Doesnt that seem a little...odd to you? when speaking of a subject that cant really be proven or disproven, as its about things of the mind

 

[Mallus]

Now you say there has to be objectivity in art in order to actually discuss it...

Actually... you keep saying that. For the record, I said some thing like; "In the absence of a set of absolute objective criteria to compare individual artworks against, one has to establish a set of subjective criteria, a common ground for debate, which usually entails discussing work in relation to others of its kind, placing it its historical context, and examining the various technical aspects that relate to its medium."

Or I should have said that, at any rate.

Look, if all you want to say about a work is whether or not you liked it, that's fine. In that case, your opinion is just a valid as anyone else's. But if you want to move beyond that to a more substantive discussion, then you'd better be prepared to explain, clarify and defend your opinion against competing ideas.

A book says the words it says, and a painting is what it is. Thats the basis for people to then discuss their *opinions* of that work, and how they percieve its nature and aspects.

I doubt many people would consider discussing a book's page count and weight meaningful.

 

[Umbran]

see above

Thank you. You have just fully demonstrated my point. By taking a position so extreme, you have eliminated discussion. In such a situation, there is no further information transfer, and no new ideas being communicated.

To use Monty Python as a reference:
"No it isn't!"
"Yes it is!"
"Look, this isn't an argument!"

So I ask again, what is the point of the exercise? Why bring it up?

 

[takyris]

(Note: Referring to the Zen & Motorcycle Maintenance post

Except that the ability or inability to see certain qualities in a book (character, setting, plot, and voice, to use the four upon which I always harp) is not based on subjective personal taste. It is based on training and study.

Whether you enjoy the symphony is up to you, and subjective.

Whether you can say, "The brass section was too loud for the woodwinds to come across properly, and the violin solo had a bunch of sloppy flat notes" is a matter of training and study. A note being flat note is objective. The brass section being loud enough to make the woodwinds difficult to hear is objective. And yes, you can have interesting discussions over whether the conductor was deliberately emphasizing the brass section or just sloppily failing to have the horns rein it in, and you can make impassioned arguments that the violin was deliberately flat because that was the violinist's attempt to deharmonize the work and create a clever juxtaposition. There's still room for argument within the realm of objective standards. (Although flat notes are, generally speaking, flat notes, unless the conductor tells the audience beforehand that his violinist is going to subvert the dominant paradigm by playing some stuff wrong on purpose. )

Merlion can enjoy any book, any work of art, that he likes. If he wants to say that those works are good because he enjoyed them, that's his right. If other people want to discuss the merits of a book based on critical standards, and say that a book is good or bad based upon their standards, that's also their right.

EDIT: Updated which post I'm responding to.