Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Stoppelmann]

What is the difference between a child's splodges and a trained artist's efforts? Technique and life experience. There are objective standards, but they are not absolute. Sometimes naive art can capture a feeling in an exciting way. Sometimes ostensibly technically proficient art is dull.

Modernism is valid, and it is improved by postmodern considerations rather than being replaced by them. The principle broadly applies to the world in general. Standards apply, but they are not absolute.

Whilst I agree with you, I would like to point out that I saw a picture that was considered high art that looked incredibly like my son's scribblings on the wall, and in fact, it was my wife who pointed it out, saying I had painted over an artwork.

[Sy Borg]

What is the difference between a child's splodges and a trained artist's efforts? Technique and life experience. There are objective standards, but they are not absolute. Sometimes naive art can capture a feeling in an exciting way. Sometimes ostensibly technically proficient art is dull.

Modernism is valid, and it is improved by postmodern considerations rather than being replaced by them. The principle broadly applies to the world in general. Standards apply, but they are not absolute.

Whilst I agree with you, I would like to point out that I saw a picture that was considered high art that looked incredibly like my son's scribblings on the wall, and in fact, it was my wife who pointed it out, saying I had painted over an artwork.

There is indeed an element of wankery in the art world, famously so. In a sense, it's the same wankery we are seeing in universities today. People get carried away, so lost in their ideals that they forget actual reality.

In terms of art, they are so busy with concepts that they forget to actually make art, ie. something that is beautiful and/or expressive. Such "modern" art is all concept and no artistry, no aesthetics. Still, there is an audience for it, who are similarly blinkered by ideology, so it's valid in that sense.

[Lagayascienza]

What is the difference between a child's splodges and a trained artist's efforts? Technique and life experience. There are objective standards, but they are not absolute. Sometimes naive art can capture a feeling in an exciting way. Sometimes ostensibly technically proficient art is dull.

Modernism is valid, and it is improved by postmodern considerations rather than being replaced by them. The principle broadly applies to the world in general. Standards apply, but they are not absolute.

Technique and experience certainly count for something - especially when it comes to painting realism. But even with realism, technique and experience, although necessary, may not be sufficient. There is a certain something extra that, IMHO, must be present to lift a painting above mere representation - composition, line, colour, transitions of value, texture... these can all play a part in creating an arresting image. However, the combining of these qualities is felt by the artist rather than calculated, it is an exercise in aesthetic judgement by the painter rather than an outcome of rules or technique. Mere realism, which depends only on technique, isn't necessarily enough to qualify as art. But, of course, that's just my own opinion. I have been told on occasions that my work is too realistic so I've tried to loosen up bit.

When we're talking about abstraction and post-modernism, artists can be much freer with paint. But even here, technique is still important if we want the work to be archival. If the paint falls of the canvas after only a year, then the art is lost. So, whilst art criticism may contain a lot of baloney, there are standards both aesthetic and technical that artists need to aim for.

[Pattern-chaser]

All art is "valid", IMO. And there is only one standard that seems to make sense: "Do I like it?"

[Pattern-chaser]

The term ‘value’ can mean the importance, worthiness, or usefulness of something, or used to designate the estimated monetary worth of a thing.

Yes. This has always upset me. For there are circumstances when the former and the latter differ markedly, and it can be a mistake (IMO) to demean value and worth by diminishing it to a trivial financial comment.

Minor rant over.

I disagree. Monetary value is just a communication tool to help different individuals (who can have radically different personal and by definition subjective value systems) mutually agree such that both can be satisfied with a transaction.

Money is, in the end, just a convenience. It makes barter, and the like, easier.

To use it as a universal way of making things equal or equivalent just doesn't work for me.

Weregild is a good example, that seems to equate a life or lives to a sum of money. It's comparing apples with oranges, and looking for an 'exchange rate' between the two. I don't think there is one...?

[LuckyR]

The term ‘value’ can mean the importance, worthiness, or usefulness of something, or used to designate the estimated monetary worth of a thing.

Yes. This has always upset me. For there are circumstances when the former and the latter differ markedly, and it can be a mistake (IMO) to demean value and worth by diminishing it to a trivial financial comment.

Minor rant over.

I disagree. Monetary value is just a communication tool to help different individuals (who can have radically different personal and by definition subjective value systems) mutually agree such that both can be satisfied with a transaction.

Money is, in the end, just a convenience. It makes barter, and the like, easier.

To use it as a universal way of making things equal or equivalent just doesn't work for me.

Weregild is a good example, that seems to equate a life or lives to a sum of money. It's comparing apples with oranges, and looking for an 'exchange rate' between the two. I don't think there is one...?

Well there is one. As stated, it's called "money". You're free, of course to not like it, but whereas it may perform it's job well or poorly, that's what it does.

[rainchild]

As you can see from my original post, I said that the word "good" or "bad" is inappropriate because our impression is purely our impression, and as individuals, we are not the measure of what art is for other people.

"Good" and "bad" are appropriate words for art criticism because our subjective impressions are not exclusively our own. The uniqueness of anyone's mental life considered in its entirety does not rule out the existence of aspects of our mental lives, including our impressions of art, that we share with others. For example, the notion that neon plaid is not appropriate to wear to funerals in the USA and some other countries is not unique to an individual. Many people share this subjective norm. To the extent that esthetic standards are socially constructed in the same way, one can speak of "good" and "bad" art intelligently even if there are others who disagree with you about your application of such standards to a particular work.

[Stoppelmann]

As you can see from my original post, I said that the word "good" or "bad" is inappropriate because our impression is purely our impression, and as individuals, we are not the measure of what art is for other people.

"Good" and "bad" are appropriate words for art criticism because our subjective impressions are not exclusively our own. The uniqueness of anyone's mental life considered in its entirety does not rule out the existence of aspects of our mental lives, including our impressions of art, that we share with others. For example, the notion that neon plaid is not appropriate to wear to funerals in the USA and some other countries is not unique to an individual. Many people share this subjective norm. To the extent that esthetic standards are socially constructed in the same way, one can speak of "good" and "bad" art intelligently even if there are others who disagree with you about your application of such standards to a particular work.

I may share some things with people, but whether I connect with a work of art or not is my own subjective impression, which may even change with time. The only use of good and bad can be in an agreed framework, such as when estimating the monetary value of something.

[Pattern-chaser]

As you can see from my original post, I said that the word "good" or "bad" is inappropriate because our impression is purely our impression, and as individuals, we are not the measure of what art is for other people.

"Good" and "bad" are appropriate words for art criticism because our subjective impressions are not exclusively our own. The uniqueness of anyone's mental life considered in its entirety does not rule out the existence of aspects of our mental lives, including our impressions of art, that we share with others. For example, the notion that neon plaid is not appropriate to wear to funerals in the USA and some other countries is not unique to an individual. Many people share this subjective norm. To the extent that esthetic standards are socially constructed in the same way, one can speak of "good" and "bad" art intelligently even if there are others who disagree with you about your application of such standards to a particular work.

[My highlighting]

That's not art, that's social etiquette, something quite different, and possibly much darker...


Oh, and I think our subjective impressions are exclusively our own. Others may prove to hold similar views, but that's little more than coincidence and a shared environment/context.

[rainchild]

Yes, my example comes from social etiquette (my bad). I should have pointed out that the people who think that Michelangelo's "David" is beautiful and that Goya's "Saturn Devouring His Son" is provocative and fascinating are not randomly distributed among those who have viewed them. I think you give short shrift to shared environment/context. As for coincidence, I doubt that this plays even a small role in the fact that many people share the same subjective evaluations. It's important not to confuse subjective sensations (incorrigibly private) with subjective evaluations (often shared--sometimes by entire societies).