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

[Merlion]

Why don't you try engaing with other people's arguments instead of taking it personally and getting upset over their tone?


That's awfully generous of you to say... *maybe* all those people who've studied art criticism/history haven't *completely* wasted their time.


So this is all about self-validation?


This is a lovely sentiment that you'll probably grow out of.

Again, I dont want to turn this thread into a fight. I'm sorry if anything I said offended you.I apologize for that. I dont think people who take courses or whatever in this things wasted there time (in general) but I also dont believe it gives them the ability to dismiss other peoples opinions as invalid.


I also find your post, especially the last lines, to be extremely condescending and rather rude, especially given that I have periodically posted specifically to say that I apreciate everyones input, that I am trying not to offend anyone, and that I am just attempting to understand things better.

For this reason its unlikely that i will reply to any further of your posts. You seem to be indicating that you've come to the conclusion that I am merely seeking self validation (which is incorrect) and that my beliefs are the result of not having "grown up" (a concept I dont especially believe in). So here I thank you again for your contributions, and bring discussion between you and I to a close.

 

[Wild Gazebo]

Rrose Selavy could kick Andy's ass even with his whole Factory posse!!!





Thank-you, this message has no merit.

 

[Wild Gazebo]

Don't take it too hard, Merlion, we aren't trying to be condesending. It is just that, I think, many of us have held your exact opinions before. When I first read your post I had a major flashback to my first year undergrad design course...white hot indignant passion lashing out at the evil aesthetic overlords. What we mean is...quite likely, as many ideas do, it will pass.

 

[Mallus]

Rrose Selavy could kick Andy's ass even with his whole Factory posse!!!

Now that demonstrates the proper timbre for discussions about Art! Now if only this were a bar and WG was waving the lit end of a ciagrette in a threatening manner...

 

[bodhi]

Just a thought or two

Art (like just about any activity performed by more than a single person) has rules. Following the rules doesn't guarantee the product will be great. Breaking the rules doesn't guarantee the product will be poor. If you break the rules, people will call you on it, whether negative (He can't color in the lines!) or positive (He breaks the shackles of confinement!). The rules are separate-but-related to subjective enjoyment or appreciation.

As to value, well, define "value". If you're discussing how well a particular piece follows the applicable rules, then there's objective value (which can be zero, or perhaps even negative). There may be debate on how a piece "scores", but a consensus generally forms. If you're discussing how a particular piece affected you, and how you feel about it, that's completely subjective, even if it's influenced by the objective rules. And if that piece has zero (or negative) value for you, that in no way precludes it from having a positive value for someone else. The reverse is also true. Not everyone has to appreciate something you absolutely love.

"Crap" has low objective value and low subjective value.
"Guilty pleasures" have low objective value and high subjective value.
"Highbrow" or "intellectual" or "artsy-fartsy" works have high objective value and low subjective value.
"Classics" have high objective value and high subjective value.

Now, the rules are subjective in that they are the creation of humanity, rather than something independently verifiable under lab conditions. But they're objective in that they are definitions. There are rules for spelling and grammar. They do change over time, but a misspelled word is still misspelled.

The rules also vary by form, and are determined by the practitioners and audience of that form. A painting that succeeds by the standards of abstract impressionism will fail by those of Renaissance realism. A book that succeeds as a novel may fail as a history.

If you produce a work, you're under no obligation to know or care about the rules, let alone follow them. But once you share that work, you're implicitly allowing it to be judged by those rules, regardless of your intentions in the creation.

 

[bodhi]

Now that demonstrates the proper timbre for discussions about Art! Now if only this were a bar and WG was waving the lit end of a ciagrette in a threatening manner...

Wait, let me go get a double-quad espresso and a pack of cloves.

 

[Mark CMG]

Whiskey. Leave the bottle. It's going to be a long night.

What we mean is...quite likely, as many ideas do, it will pass.

It usually does, or you'll get a day job and turn your back on art so it won't matter if you wish to stick to your guns, alone.

 

[Berandor]

If you produce a work, you're under no obligation to know or care about the rules, let alone follow them. But once you share that work, you're implicitly allowing it to be judged by those rules, regardless of your intentions in the creation.

As someone who regards this as the artist's equivalent to relationship threads*:

Quoted for frakking truth.

*and believe me, I've been in Merlion's place, too, before I educated myself about writing and before I chose to submit myself to reader criticism instead of tolerating the readers' stupid opinions.

 

[shilsen]

Mostly what scares me about it is it follows that if someones opinion is inferior, they may be as well.

I get the sense that this is the primary reason behind your position.

Personally, I think it's quite possible to judge someone's opinion about a particular subject inferior without regarding the person as an inferior human being.

And I also think certain human beings are inferior to others. Heck, I think the average human being is a bit of an idiot (especially when in large groups), falls substantially short of full human capability, and confounds both the theories of intelligent design and the survival of the fittest simply by existing.

Not that I'm cynical, of course

 

[Hypersmurf]

Merlion - setting aside notions of 'good' and 'bad' art for the moment...

Do you really contend that it is impossible to take two related works and declare that one is objectively better than the other?

Let's say two people paint a picture of a dog. When asked, both artists state that their intention was to paint a picture of a dog. One painting looks like a dog. The other shows something vaguely quadrupedal, but guesses range from pig to tiger to donkey. (You've all seen a four year old paint a dog, right?)

Isn't the painting that looks like a dog objectively a better work of art? Doesn't the painter's ability to depict what he wishes make him objectively a better artist than the painter who cannot?

-Hyp.