Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8645893" data-attributes="member: 7023840">See? This is the perfect example of why I disagree with you.Your argument will forever privilege the opinion of gatekeepers over actual people; moreover, it ignores the actual history of the thing being discussed, dismisses the contributions of (inter alia) movements like folk art, and doesn't even grapple with the nature that the appreciation of art is completely subjective.Let me turn this around- if your child makes you a drawing, and dies shortly after, is that art more important to you than a Leonardo you see in the museum?Or how about this- Salvator Mundi was attributed to Leonardo (the &quot;Last Lenoardo!&quot;) and sold for $450 million. However, it probably isn't a Leonardo - and the painting itself is ... not great. Its value does not lie in the artwork, but in the (probably incorrect) attribution. Prior to this attribution, it sold for $1,175.People's preferences (for modern art, for classic art, for kitsch, for Hummel figurines or Superhero prints) are incredibly subjective. That doesn't mean that experts cannot discern differences in art that most people do not understand (such as explaining why the patterns in a Pollock are so compelling, or the importance and skill in a Kusama Infinity Net Painting, or the brushwork in a Leonardo), but I will have to categorically reject the idea that someone else gets to tell me what art I have to enjoy or not because it is &quot;better&quot; or &quot;worse.&quot;Or, for that matter, what qualifies as art and what doesn't.One person's trash TV is another person's amazing cult program that snobs overlook.One person's Schindler's list is another person's overwrought Spielbergian middlebrow movie that elevates cheap pathos because ... it's easy to evoke.&nbsp;It was 70 years ago that Cahiers du Cinema began celebrating the work of &quot;trash genre director&quot; Hitchcock, by the way.ETA- anyway, all of this goes back to the original point I keep making. People need to stop using &quot;objective&quot; to privilege their own opinions. If something really is objective, then there shouldn't be an argument. The temperature is objective. Your opinion about what art is better ... isn't.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Snarf Zagyg, post: 8645893, member: 7023840"] See? This is the perfect example of why I disagree with you. Your argument will forever privilege the opinion of gatekeepers over actual people; moreover, it ignores the actual history of the thing being discussed, dismisses the contributions of (inter alia) movements like folk art, and doesn't even grapple with the nature that the appreciation of art is completely subjective. Let me turn this around- if your child makes you a drawing, and dies shortly after, is that art more important to you than a Leonardo you see in the museum? Or how about this- Salvator Mundi was attributed to Leonardo (the "Last Lenoardo!") and sold for $450 million. However, it probably isn't a Leonardo - and the painting itself is ... not great. Its value does not lie in the artwork, but in the (probably incorrect) attribution. Prior to this attribution, it sold for $1,175. People's preferences (for modern art, for classic art, for kitsch, for Hummel figurines or Superhero prints) are incredibly subjective. That doesn't mean that experts cannot discern differences in art that most people do not understand (such as explaining why the patterns in a Pollock are so compelling, or the importance and skill in a Kusama Infinity Net Painting, or the brushwork in a Leonardo), but I will have to categorically reject the idea that someone else gets to tell me what art I have to enjoy or not because it is "better" or "worse." Or, for that matter, what qualifies as art and what doesn't. One person's trash TV is another person's amazing cult program that snobs overlook. One person's Schindler's list is another person's overwrought Spielbergian middlebrow movie that elevates cheap pathos because ... it's easy to evoke. It was 70 years ago that Cahiers du Cinema began celebrating the work of "trash genre director" Hitchcock, by the way. ETA- anyway, all of this goes back to the original point I keep making. People need to stop using "objective" to privilege their own opinions. If something really is objective, then there shouldn't be an argument. The temperature is objective. Your opinion about what art is better ... isn't. [/QUOTE]

Verification