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

[PaulKemp]

I suppose I don't have any particular qualms with the contention that all art has some value. I would simply answer that in many cases that value is only slightly above zero. My young son can draw me a finger painting of green and blue blotches. He loves it; I love it; no one else thinks much of it, but up it goes up on the refrigerator. It has value as art (in the broadest sense of the term "art"), but that value is nearly zero. If it makes you more comfortable as an aspiring writer to conceptualize art's value in this way, I think that's fine and even reasonable.

I'd further agree that there is little in the way of objectivity to be found in the evaluation of art (there may be objective components, but their value with respect to the whole, and the impact of the whole, is ultimately a subjective evaluation). The prevailing standards at any given time tend (as I think Mark Hope put quite well) to be little more than a collective judgment, an agreed-upon conceptual convention of the time and place in which the art and the evaluator co-exist. There is no objective standard to which one can point to argue that Pollack's work is great, rather than paint thrown randomly against a canvas by a depressed man.

But I'd argue that there's value in the collective wisdom, in that the sum of the subjective judgments do the work of an objective standard against which we evaluate art in our time and place. Now, you can reject the collective wisdom. Lots of people do, and some of what I regard as the world's best art has been produced by those who've refused to accede to a conventional sense of what makes "good" art. But expect heated discussion over it, and that's a good thing. After all, it's that discussion over standards that reinforces or challenges (and perhaps changes) the collective wisdom about the art under discussion.

Incidentally, I think you are mistaken when you claim that people mistake their opinion for fact. I think instead they simply think their opinions are better than the person with whom they have the difference of opinion. Are they objectively right in that regard? Of course not. There is no objectively right in this context. But the opinion of one might be better informed or more fully thought through than the opinion of another.

 

[Merlion]

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.

This is basically what I am getting at. Some parts of a work of art *might* be considered objective, maybe, but many aspects of it simply cant be.

You also bring up the issue of purpose, which is an important one as well. It might not be a bad idea to back up a bit and do a little discussing of the purpose of art. Because theres been a lot of talk about the quality of the craft, but generally a craft has a purpose, and its quality is largely measured according to wether it fulfils its purpose.


What you say also reminds me of what I've been thinking about movies in particular. People will often say a movie wasnt very good, but certain actors performances were excellent, that kind of thing. The same can be applied to other mediums, and I have no problem with that...its the dismissing of an entire work as worthless that I have issues with.


That, and the idea that any person, or any group of people have the right or ability to say "this piece of art has no worth or value." and then even more so that they have the right or ability to say that someone that *does* find value in it is some how deficient in one or more faculties.

 

[Merlion]

I suppose I don't have any particular qualms with the contention that all art has some value. I would simply answer that in many cases that value is only slightly above zero. My young son can draw me a finger painting of green and blue blotches. He loves it; I love it; no one else thinks much of it, but up it goes up on the refrigerator. It has value as art (in the broadest sense of the term "art"), but that value is nearly zero. If it makes you more comfortable as an aspiring writer to conceptualize art's value in this way, I think that's fine and even reasonable.

I'd further agree that there is little in the way of objectivity to be found in the evaluation of art (there may be objective components, but their value with respect to the whole, and the impact of the whole, is ultimately a subjective evaluation). The prevailing standards at any given time tend (as I think Mark Hope put quite well) to be little more than a collective judgment, an agreed-upon conceptual convention of the time and place in which the art and the evaluator co-exist. There is no objective standard to which one can point to argue that Pollack's work is great, rather than paint thrown randomly against a canvas by a depressed man.

But I'd argue that there's value in the collective wisdom, in that the sum of the subjective judgments do the work of an objective standard against which we evaluate art in our time and place. Now, you can reject the collective wisdom. Lots of people do, and some of what I regard as the world's best art has been produced by those who've refused to accede to a conventional sense of what makes "good" art. But expect heated discussion over it, and that's a good thing. After all, it's that discussion over standards that reinforces or challenges (and perhaps changes) the collective wisdom about the art under discussion.

Incidentally, I think you are mistaken when you claim that people mistake their opinion for fact. I think instead they simply think their opinions are better than the person with whom they have the difference of opinion. Are they objectively right in that regard? Of course not. There is no objectively right in this context. But the opinion of one might be better informed or more fully thought through than the opinion of another.

This is even better. I agree with what you have said wholeheartdly, and you've put it better than I could. I'm deccent at telling stories and describing things, but I've always had trouble trying to articulate my feelings about issues, and the reasons for things I believe. You've managed it nicely though and you have my thanks for that.

One thing I will mention for the record tho (even though I realize many may not believe it); my views on this issue have little, if anything, to do with my status as an aspiring writer. I've always felt that everyones expressions artistic and otherwise, have value.

 

[Redrobes]

to answer the last few posts...

I was careful to say

the plot contradicts itself where its not desirable for it to, or purports to model reality with absurd statements

i.e. only if the intention was resolved and not adhered to is where the objectivity can be called crap. Discordant harmonies and deliberate switching of tact for humour etc are part of the purpose...

 

[Storm Raven]

Not quite...I do not feel anyone's opinion is ignorant.

At this point, you go off the deep end. Some opinions are clearly ignorant.

I can think of a number of racial stereotypes, for example, that although some people may hold those as opinions, remain the purview of the ignorant. The array of opinions that are ignorant in nature is mid-bogglingly huge.

And since your entire argument seems to be predicated on the kumbayaish argument that "all opinions have equal value and merit", all I can say (and remain within the forum guidelines) is that your argument is singularly unpersuasive.

 

[takyris]

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."

But by your standards, that is not an objective statement, as I said above. The standards you use for art, when applied to your statement, would result in it failing the objective test.

If touch a red-hot heating element made of a material that gets red-hot at 100 degrees, you will not be burned. If you touch a red-hot heating element with protective gloves, you will not be burned. If you touch a red-hot heating element extremely rapidly, you will not necessarily be burned (like passing your finger rapidly through a candle's flame). If you try to breathe water, you may simply choke instead of drowning. If you try to breathe water while it is in its gaseous state as steam, you may get seared lungs, but you will not drown. If you try to breate water in the form of mist, you may simply clear out your sinuses instead of drowning.

Your own standards for what qualifies something as an objective standard with which nobody can argue disqualify almost any statement one can make about anything. The agreed-upon standard of "When I say "try to breathe water", I don't mean mist or fog, I mean something like a puddle or a lake or a pool, and what I mean by "breathe" is that you're actually opening up and taking a big inhalation, not just doing a quick sniff that might just make you choke or something" is what most people agree to use so that they don't misunderstand the "Don't Breathe the Water" sign at the pool's lifeguard station and think that the lifeguard doesn't want the poor guy to use his nasal inhaler.

You are welcome to your opinion. You are even welcome to the opinion that the current standards for writing are full of garbage. But if you want to take that opinion, you really need to be able to back it up -- or be willing to walk away from the conversation.

If you want to pretend that writing standards don't actually exist or are invalid without being willing to back it up or walk away from the conversation, then you are going to lose people's respect as a voice in the conversation.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I have ignorant opinions on many subjects.

 

[takyris]

I have ignorant opinions on many subjects.

As do I. Profoundly, and many.

 

[Merlion]

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?

I realize I'm going to get attacked for this, but I'm saying it anyway because your posts in both threads have been insightful and respectful, and so I'm responding to this with my exact, unvarnished thoughts.

You are right that there isnt anything further to discuss as far as wether art is objective or subjective, and wether all art has value. All art does have value, and peoples opinions of works of art, wether a single persons, a small groups, a large groups, or the majorities, are still opinions. They are all valid and true for their holders, even if they contradict, and none has the right to claim their opinion as the truth for everyone else.

End of story. /me prepares to be flamed, shredded and fed to the dragons





Now on the subject of discussion of a particular work of art, or art in general, theres always room for discussion, because people can always discuss each others opinions of a work, and the reasons behind those opinions. They should just remember that the other persons opinion is just as true as their own, even if they contradict.

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.

The ability to see them may be. But their value or lack there of, and what constitutes "good" or "bad" within them is a matter of personal opinion. Yes, there is a "collective wisdom" about them, but as PaulKemp says, you can choose to reject or accept that wisdom about those qualities in any given work, and choosing to reject them doesnt mean you have bad taste, it means you have different taste.

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.

I agree completely. As long as they dont try to tell me that I am "wrong" in thinking its good, or that its still bad, even for me, and I'm just choosing to ignore it or incapable of telling the difference.

Likewise, I wont tell you that your "wrong" for disliking something and considering it "bad" in your opinion because it doesnt live up to those standards. I will however tell you that you cant say its bad for everyone, or worthless for everyone.

 

[Merlion]

At this point, you go off the deep end. Some opinions are clearly ignorant.

I can think of a number of racial stereotypes, for example, that although some people may hold those as opinions, remain the purview of the ignorant. The array of opinions that are ignorant in nature is mid-bogglingly huge.

And since your entire argument seems to be predicated on the kumbayaish argument that "all opinions have equal value and merit", all I can say (and remain within the forum guidelines) is that your argument is singularly unpersuasive.

sigh. I suppose I should have said "no ones opinions about art are ignorant"


Any better?