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

[Merlion]

Which makes it a 'guilty pleasure' as described earlier - a bad piece of art that you nevertheless enjoy.

-Hyp.

No...a peice of art that failed at its intended purpose, but fullfilled a different one instead. You could say it as, it was a bad painting of a dog, but not a bad painting.

 

[bodhi]

I'm not, again not neccesarily, speaking on the level of changing the world or the "artistic community" although I am not discluding any of those things either. I'm talking on the basic level.

Ah, but I think that (most, at least) of those you are taking exception to are speaking on the "artistic community" level.

Person A says "This sucks!"
Person B says "No, it doesn't generate hard vacuum at all."
Confusion ensues.

 

[Mark Hope]

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.

I agree in general. But the point remains that, based in fact or not, those are still opinions that people hold. And, as such, can be measured as inferior or superior.

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.

I would argue that I am a better person than a paedophile. There are people in the world who are objectively worse than others.

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.

"Potential" is a purely theoretical concept. Beyond the philosophical concept that everyone has the same potential, you cannot prove it in reality. It pleases you to believe that everyone has the same potential, but you cannot prove that it is so.

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.

You cannot measure "all they might have" done, nor can you assert that a person's potential exists as anything other than a product of your own opinion and beliefs. Such a thing exists only in a purely theoretical world - a world that we do not inhabit. It would be nice if we did, but we don't.

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.

Again, you assert that "every act of kindness or compassion is a great act", but you cannot prove this in any real sense. It pleases you to believe this, nothing more. I understand that there is a prevailing fashion to believe that we are all equal, all have the same potential, and that small acts of kindness can be defined as great. But these are nothing more than conceits of the ego couched in prosaic language. You are welcome to believe such things, but you cannot state them as facts. If you wish them to be accepted as facts, you must prove such an assertion.

 

[Storm Raven]

I'm talking on the basic level.

There is no "basic value". Everything is only valuable or not relative to other things.

 

[Storm Raven]

I'm not so sure about that, at least in the way I think of things. In terms of commonly held opinion, I'd say definitely yes to the first part. However, the problem with the first part is, if your going to create a "best" and a "worst", people have to agree on it. Agreeing that something without a certain flaw is better than something otherwise the same but with the flaw is pretty straightforward...everyone is going to pretty much agree. I can say Earthsea is better than Eragon. But is Earthsea better than LOTR? Is Conan better than Fafrd (or however you spell it) and the Grey Mouser? How do they compare to Earthsea and LOTR? and on and on and on...

At this point your argument seems to be "we cannot come up with a rigid ordinal ranking system, therefore no gradiations of value are possible" which is a little like saying that because we cannot catch all murderers, we should not try to catch any.

The real answer is that we do what we can. Earthsea is better than Eragon, and that will probably meet just about every informed opinion. Therefore, we can make assessments. I can probably name a hundred fantasy genre books that informed consensus will agree is better than Eragon, and very few published works that informed consesnus will agree rank lower than eragon on the quality scale. More fine tuning is not necessary. Does it really matter if Eragon is better or worse than The Younger Gods or Left Behind? They are all lousy writing, and all of no real value as books.

We don't have to rank books in rigid order. This isn't some E! channel list of "100 Greatest Fashion Gaffes!" or something like that. We just have to evaluate them well enough to tell what are good works, and what are not. And that we can do.

 

[Merlion]

At this point your argument seems to be "we cannot come up with a rigid ordinal ranking system, therefore no gradiations of value are possible" which is a little like saying that because we cannot catch all murderers, we should not try to catch any.

The real answer is that we do what we can. Earthsea is better than Eragon, and that will probably meet just about every informed opinion. Therefore, we can make assessments. I can probably name a hundred fantasy genre books that informed consensus will agree is better than Eragon, and very few published works that informed consesnus will agree rank lower than eragon on the quality scale. More fine tuning is not necessary. Does it really matter if Eragon is better or worse than The Younger Gods or Left Behind? They are all lousy writing, and all of no real value as books.

We don't have to rank books in rigid order. This isn't some E! channel list of "100 Greatest Fashion Gaffes!" or something like that. We just have to evaluate them well enough to tell what are good works, and what are not. And that we can do.

Yep, each of us can do that for ourselves according to our own opinion and taste

But we cant tell everyone else ours is the only opinion that matters, or that theirs is the wrong taste to have.


We could, but we'd be wrong. We'd also be extremely egotistical.

 

[grimslade]

All art has value

I will grant that no art is worthless in the literal sense.
If you take the abstraction of worth down to the lowest possible denominator, there is worth in everything.
Strike 'worthless' from the argument from now on. I don't think anyone has been arguing for saying something is literally worthless.

What we are saying is that there is a scale of quality to art. You do not experience art in a vacuum. No one is sceptical enough to judge every piece of art as if it is unique. Your previous experience is factored in to each new experience. You create your own value scale of what you like and judge the new work to those prior standards.

Here's the kicker though, unless you have lived your entire life as some hermit in a cave, you have been influenced by the culture you live in. So a lot of those value judgements you make come from the society you live in and are the same as all the other unique snowflakes out there. This is what makes up the standards we can grade art on. Some art is better than others because out of the numerous experiences/experiments we have had, there are common denominators that have shown through.

I'll even agree with you that no one can just say "This work is bad" as a fact. They need to back it up. "This work is bad because..." with appropriate reasons is valid. There are conventions that make up a form. Break too many of the conventions and the art is poor. It no longer fits into the form. Art without context is just raw stimulus.

 

[Storm Raven]

Yep, each of us can do that for ourselves according to our own opinion and taste

But we cant tell everyone else ours is the only opinion that matters, or that theirs is the wrong taste to have.

No one but you is talking about taste. In point of fact, several people have stated that there are works of art that are bad, and yet they still like them. They have even been labeled "guilty pleasures".

No, the question is whether there is a method for evaluating artistic endeavors and assessing whether they are good, bad, or indifferent. You keep veering between "what people like" and "whether something is a valuable work of art". The two are not the same thing.

And since the question of whether a work of art has value, or it is worthless is based upon a concensus determination, it is interesting that you seem to think those who disagree with you think "ours is the only opinion that matters". Nothing could be further from the truth. In this argument, the only person who is arguing that theirs is the only opinion that matters is you, by insisting that your "art is entirely subjective, and must only be evaluated subjectively" standard is correct.

 

[Wild Gazebo]

An interesting question for you Merlion. What action, or pursuit, or idea, in the known universe would you consider worthless? And, if none, how could you conceivably use it in a structured argument about anything: as it doesn't have any pertinent meaning?

 

[Merlion]

What we are saying is that there is a scale of quality to art. You do not experience art in a vacuum. No one is sceptical enough to judge every piece of art as if it is unique. Your previous experience is factored in to each new experience. You create your own value scale of what you like and judge the new work to those prior standards.

Here's the kicker though, unless you have lived your entire life as some hermit in a cave, you have been influenced by the culture you live in. So a lot of those value judgements you make come from the society you live in and are the same as all the other unique snowflakes out there. This is what makes up the standards we can grade art on. Some art is better than others because out of the numerous experiences/experiments we have had, there are common denominators that have shown through.

I'll even agree with you that no one can just say "This work is bad" as a fact. They need to back it up. "This work is bad because..." with appropriate reasons is valid. There are conventions that make up a form. Break too many of the conventions and the art is poor. It no longer fits into the form. Art without context is just raw stimulus.

But everyone creates their own context. As you say, it will be influenced by their culture, but its still their own personal opinion formed from their feelings, thoughts and experiences.

And thats why 1) there is no single standard that art can be judged on for EVERYONE. For the majority perhaps, but I think in this case even the minority is relatively sizeble and 2) most importantly, no one has the right to tell another person their opinion of a work is wrong or incorrect simply because it doesnt fit that of the majority.

In other words if you use your standard to decide a piece of art is "bad", but i still think its good, its still good for me no matter what criteria you've applied to it.