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

[PaulKemp]

Your son's finger painting has value to you, but no artistic merit. As something that makes you happy, it's good. As a painting, it's bad.

-Hyp.

Hyp.,

I take your point but I think it may presume the answer to the question under discussion (namely, how does one evaluate art as good or bad and is the standard objective or subjective?). An example: Is Van Gogh's Sunflowers "good" art relative to my son's fingerpainting because it uses superior brushwork, shading, color pallette, and a multitude of other things? Yes, if you think that those factors are relevant to whether a piece is "good." No, otherwise.

In my view, this comes back to the idea of collective subjective wisdom doing the work of an objective standard. I certainly would argue that Van Gogh's Sunflowers is superior to my son's fingerpainting as a work of art (and everyone else on planet earth would too, I suspect), but that's because we all agree that the factors listed above are relevant to evaluating art in this medium. A hypothetical critic (a Hyp? ) could state that my son's work is superior to Van Gogh's, and state further that Van Gogh's mastery of technique is irrelevant to the quality "good." Instead, our critic believes that an infantile fervor and a less focused approach to the medium is the most important factor that contributes to the quality "good."

Most people would think such a critic to be an idiot and call him on his idiocy. But we would not be able to point to any truly objective criteria to dispute his claims. We could simply argue that our standard of evaluating art is superior to his standard of evaluating art. I would find our argument persuasive. as would most people. But I would not find our argument objectively true.

 

[Wild Gazebo]

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.

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

Don't make me break out the Absinthe!!

Once you take a ride with the Green Fairy you'll never think about art the same!!!

 

[Berandor]

The stuff on that site is old, I've done a lot since. If you'd like, I can send you some newer stuff. I'd enjoy your input tremendously.

What's the point in sending newer stuff? Isn't the old one sufficient – or have you become a better writer?

(Yeah, trick question, I know)

 

[Storm Raven]

If you have read a book, seen a movie, or viewed a painting, you have non-faulty information about it, and can certainly form an opinion of it.

No. Compare, for example, the opinion of a four year old concerning a movie with the opinion of a full-grown adult. Certainly the two opinions cannot be viewed as equally informed, even though the two individuals in question watched the exact same movie.

So, let me refine it further: no one's opinion of a work of art with which they are familiar is ignorant.

As so often in this thread, you are simply wrong on this score. All opinions on all subjects are not equally valuable. Some opinions are simply more informed than others, and some are so uninformed as to be best defined as ignorant.

I realize your going to disagree, but thats because you (and I say this in a non-pejorative way) are an elitist. And thats fine, for you I suppose, but not everyone is, and just because you feel that some peoples opinions about non-critical, subjective issues are better than others, doesnt mean its true.

I see that your choice of labeling informed opinions leads to your conclusion that those who are informed are "elitist", which is a silly statement to make. In point of fact, that sort of logic would force you to label virtually everyone other than yourself participating in this thread as "elitist" (and for that matter, virtually every adult who opines on artistic endeavors). At that point, the term loses meaning, since it no longer has any meaningful value. Once again, to support your argument, you choose to define words in a manner inconsistent with the accepted definition, which is a singularly unconvincing method of argument.

(I note that later in the thread you refer to my citation of Sturgeon's Law as evidence for elitism. Perhaps you should look up the genesis of Sturgeon's Law. Then you might realize how woefully uninformed and, might I say, ignorant, your opinion concerning this issue truly is.)

 

[Marlowe]

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.

Yep, tried to say that way back in post 90 but I don't think it sunk in.

If one is unable to withstand withering, unsubstantiated, ignorant criticism, one should not share one's writing. Such criticism has no value, but it can also not be defended against proactively. If one is writing for one's own or close others' enjoyment, to heck with the rules--freedom reigns! If one is attempting to sell one's work, or place it in any venue that has a review process--like an e-zine--one must understand that most--if not all--of those making decisions regarding a work's inclusions believe in and apply the rules in the review process.

Good luck. (and that's sincere, not a snide comment or disparagement)

 

[Merlion]

Ok before we proceed with anything else, since it seems to have become an issue for some and people appear to have gotten some incorrect impressions, I'm going to say a bit about my own writing.

First, although I have mentioned this before, and I realize most of you may not believe me, this discussion has basically nothing whatever to do with my own writing, in any direct sense. I havent been traumatized by peoples reactions to my stuff, nor do I expect to be. This conversation is a general, philosophical one. It was brought on mainly by the criticisms I've seen of works that I feel are a bit overly abrasive, and those that express the idea that the work in question is simply bad, that everyone agrees that its bad, and that anyone who doesnt think its bad simply lacks the judgement/training/senses/taste/intelligence to tell that its bad. Rather than admiting the fact that if it isnt bad for that person, then it isnt bad for that person.

I am not currently striving powerfully to make my writing my primary living. Its something I would love to happen eventually, and there are things going on right now with me that may have a chance of making that happen, but I'm not "quiting my day job", so to speak.
I write for several main reasons. Because the things in my head want to be let out. Because I enjoy it. Because I wish to bring people enjoyment and emotion through my work wether its joy or sadness or fear or whatever. Because I hope to maybe make people think a little, and maybe share some of the insights or knowledge that I've aqquired in my life (yea I know some of you will find that presumptious but I'm sure those of you who write most likely feel the same way).

I am well aware that my work will be critiscised by people if it attains a wider audience. I'm well aware that people will say it sucks, that its crap, that its worthless. Its not going to break me, don't worry.

I am also well aware that the primary criteria used by commercial publishers will be the same as that used by commercial anything: money. If I send a story, or a novel or a collection of stories to a publisher, there decisions about it will be based primarily on if, and how much they think it will sell. The widely-accepted criteria that we've discussed may enter into the decision about wether it will sell, but if it does it will be that publishers own personal version of those criteria, because they do vary and are when push comes to shove, a set of opinions, and because it will also depend on the target market.

As far as people in general, the majority of people evaluate a work on a similarily basic principle. Their personal opinion, wether they like it or not. And I have no problem with people not liking my work. Even people calling my work worthless isnt going to wound me, or make me stop writing. I don't think its a good practice, but for myself and my work, because what I write has value to me, and because it has already given me and others happiness and enjoyment, I know that it isnt worthless, and nothing can change that. I just disagree with the practice of making those sorts of statements.
Anyway the point of the post is this: this discussion isnt about my work in an remotely specific way. Its a general discussion of certain practices and ideas, as they apply to art and creativity in general.

 

[Merlion]

Nah, man, you're way off base there. As folks have pointed out, if I express opinions that people of certain ethnicities, religions, sexualities, size, or physical ability, are somehow less of a person than me, I am clearly espousing an inferior opinion. Conversely, someone who takes a contrary position has a superior opinion

Those arent issues of opinion, they are issues of fact. Of course its still possible for a person to hold an opinion that is contrary to fact, and that is the one case where an opinion is simply wrong, because it isnt an opinion issue. Its a fact that humans are humans regardless of skin colour etc. Anyone who believes otherwise is simply either ignorant (which I use here in the non-pejorative sense of lacking knowledge) or simply hateful (or possibly both). Just like someone who believes you can put your hand in boiling water bare and unprotected for 5 minutes and not suffer scalding is simply incorrect...because it isnt a matter of opinion, its a matter of fact.

But you cannot have superior and inferior opinions about things that truly are a matter of opinion, such as art, taste in food, career prefernces and the like. (And yes I am setting aside grey areas and contested/theoritical areas/ideas that are hard to prove or disprove etc).

Some people are inferior to others in demonstrable ways

Some people may be better at certain things than others, yes. I'm terrible at anything relating to numbers for example...many people are far better at it than I. But that doesnt make them better people, it just makes them better at math.


Now I might say that I am a "better" or at least more moral person than say a bank robber or a rapist, but even that doesnt erase their potential.

You can't tell me that an orphan in Darfur has the same potential as the child of intelligent, educated, wealthy parents in a first world country - or the same chances as you or I or anyone else in this thread

I already covered that when I mentioned that someone may be prevented from using or experiencing their potential, for various reasons. It doesnt remove the potential, and it doesnt make them an inferior person, it just means their situation prevents them from doing all that they might have.

And, beyond the whims of fate, some folks are simply not cut out for great things

Depends entirely on how you define great things. I have a feeling you say this because of how you define great things. No, not everyone can or will become a great author, or a military hero, or a doctor who cures cancer.

But every act of kindness or compassion is a great act. And anyone can perform an act of kindness.

 

[Merlion]

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.

None of my ideas have ever "passed" despite people frequently insisting that they would.

And facts are even less likely to "pass", and the fact that in the end, artistic efforts are a matter of subjective opinion that are all possessed of a certain intrinsic worth or value (for what they taught the artist if nothing else) is a fact.

I think I addressed many of the ideas that you seem to be expressing here in my post about my writing. I should also add, I am not in school for literature or anything else, and at this point I have no plans to do so at any point. Not because I think doing so is worthless, but because I feel it would be a waste of time and energy for me personally, not because I have some tremendous gift and dont need assistance or information but because of how I see art, and how I see education.


None of this is about any personal experiences of mine as a writer. Also, I should make it clear, once again, that I do not reject the value of the "collective opinion" based criteria you all go on about. I just reject the notion that those criteria are absolute and/or immutable, or that they are able to declare something valueless. However for me especially, since at this point I am not writing to live, the opinion of the establishment is only important to my work when I choose to make it so (as I actually often do for various reasons).

Also while I'm here I want to thank you Wild Gazebo for your well-thought out posts, and also for the concern you've shown for my feelings, even if it isnt needed in quite the way you may think.

 

[Mark CMG]

None of my ideas have ever "passed" despite people frequently insisting that they would.

Eventually you'll discover why this is problematic.

 

[Merlion]

Eventually you'll discover why this is problematic.

Well, if I am as immature and unintelligent as you keep insinuating, why do you respond to my posts?


And how exactly can it be problematic for me, when I just explained that all the things you people seem so worried about...that I'm going to give up on writing, or be destroyed the first time someone calls something I wrote crap, arent an issue for me?

Nevermind, I'm tired of the implied insults that have become your sole contribution to this otherwise relatively pleasant discussion, so I am placing you on ignore (and yes, peoples opinions of my work, however negative they may be, I dont have a problem with..repeated insinuations that I'm simply an ignorant child I do)