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

[Pattern-chaser]

In my view, the problems with "art" emerge when we apply the adjectives "good" or "bad". There is no such thing as good or bad art, IMO. There is art, and it's art if the artist says it is. But how do we assess art, if that is the case? Easy, there is art that I (or you, or...) like, and art that I don't particularly care for.

This works for me...?

Yours is by no means a silly view. However, I think it's important to remember that, as subjective as evaluations of given works of art may be, such evaluations can be shared by a great many people. Art museums are filled with artifacts that hundreds of thousands--sometimes even millions--of people consider to be intrinsically fascinating. A good art critic can articulate and reflect upon such shared evaluations.

I think it's the judgements of "good" and "bad" that cause the problems. Even more specific than that — the use of these words, in the way we use them, *externalises* — even *objectifies*? — our judgements, and seems to claim widespread agreement.

It's fine for us all to judge, according to our own standards, that's what humans do.

But when we proclaim something is "good", publicly, aren't we trying to claim that our judgements are so wise and insightful () that more or less everyone else accepts them too? Isn't it that implied claim to universality or consensus that is the core of the problem? "I'm so clever that *everyone* agrees with me!" Without the egotism, I think the problem might just fade away?

[rainchild]

Publicly describing a work of art as "good" need not constitute anything more egotistical than a recommendation. Since we are social creatures, our recommendations necessarily reflect information and insights that we gain from others, e.g., teachers of art history, criticism, and philosophical theories of value; exposure to many works of art; knowledge of what the art's audience likes. I'm just not seeing any intrinsic egotism here.

[Stoppelmann]

Publicly describing a work of art as "good" need not constitute anything more egotistical than a recommendation. Since we are social creatures, our recommendations necessarily reflect information and insights that we gain from others, e.g., teachers of art history, criticism, and philosophical theories of value; exposure to many works of art; knowledge of what the art's audience likes. I'm just not seeing any intrinsic egotism here.

I disagree; the very use of the word "good" or "bad" is inappropriate. I might say that a work of art doesn't "work for me" or has no impact, but since I am not the measure of what art is, nor its quality, I have no right to attempt to give a statement of quality. As I listed above, the spectrum of varying qualitative characteristics is broad, and my judgement is purely my impression.

What you are speaking about is conformity with the existing theories of value, which is the framework in which criticism is made for those who acknowledge that framework. When that framework is assumed to be essential for any appreciation of a work of art, and certain experts rule that anyone who has been moved by something they have deemed "bad" is wrong, things get out of hand.

Art is an appreciation of something that doesn't glare at you but connects with the receptors that life gives us: some we have and some we don't, depending on many factors. When I became enthralled with The Little Prince by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, I had people around me who reacted disinterestedly and said, "It's only a children's novella," as though that were a valid qualitative statement. The novella's simple but elegant watercolour illustrations are impactful to many because of their simplicity, and how they emphasise the message of the story, but it seems it doesn't connect with everybody.

[Pattern-chaser]

In my view, the problems with "art" emerge when we apply the adjectives "good" or "bad". There is no such thing as good or bad art, IMO. There is art, and it's art if the artist says it is. But how do we assess art, if that is the case? Easy, there is art that I (or you, or...) like, and art that I don't particularly care for.

This works for me...?

Yours is by no means a silly view. However, I think it's important to remember that, as subjective as evaluations of given works of art may be, such evaluations can be shared by a great many people. Art museums are filled with artifacts that hundreds of thousands--sometimes even millions--of people consider to be intrinsically fascinating. A good art critic can articulate and reflect upon such shared evaluations.

I think it's the judgements of "good" and "bad" that cause the problems. Even more specific than that — the use of these words, in the way we use them, *externalises* — even *objectifies*? — our judgements, and seems to claim widespread agreement.

It's fine for us all to judge, according to our own standards, that's what humans do.

But when we proclaim something is "good", publicly, aren't we trying to claim that our judgements are so wise and insightful () that more or less everyone else accepts them too? Isn't it that implied claim to universality or consensus that is the core of the problem? "I'm so clever that *everyone* agrees with me!" Without the egotism, I think the problem might just fade away?

Publicly describing a work of art as "good" need not constitute anything more egotistical than a recommendation.

If you describe as "good" a piece of art that does not impress me, I am inclined to respond with disagreement. If you say you like it, or don't, there is nothing to argue with — you are simply stating your own personal preference, that I must accept without demur. That my own assessment of the art disagrees with yours is now irrelevant.

If you say it's "good" and I say it's "bad", there is clear disagreement between us. But if you say you like it, and I say I don't, there is no contradiction, nothing to dispute, is there?

[Lagayascienza]

Maybe terms like "good", "bad" and "better" are not suited to discussions of art. Perhaps tastes in art are a bit like our gustatory preferences. I loath the taste of coriander. Others love it. No one is right or wrong. It depends on who's doing the tasting. Maybe it's similar with art. We can certainly make judgements about what people seem to prefer. Say we want to discover preferences for basil or coriander, or for cubism or impressionism. No problem. We'd just do a survey and we get a more or less objective answer. But that is not the same as saying that one is good and the other bad or that one is better than another. There is no objective meter we can us to prove that a work of art is good or bad or that one is better than another. If we must use terms like "good", "bad" and "better" then maybe we should at least be explicit about the criteria we are using to make such a judgement. But, then, those criteria themselves may not enjoy universal assent - they may seem to others to be arbitrary or non-objective and thus questionable. In which case, we'd have to argue for them, too.

Not worth the bother.

As for the question of the OP, I'd say art is art if you, or someone else, thinks it's art. But, of course, that doesn't make it art to everyone. To others it may be nonsense. But that's no big deal. It just means that there are no black and white answers. People sometimes feel uncomfortable with this sort of indeterminacy - they like black or white answers. That's understandable and it's usually not a problem. I guess it only becomes problematic when people get dogmatic and insist that they are right and that others should agree with them. If we're talking about art, then all I can say is, Good luck with that.

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

At what point is art no longer art ?

This is a very important philosophical question,
because contemporary fine art paintings ain't cheap.

I would much prefer to copy & paste the following article
that addresses this important philosophical question, however,
the following article contains photos of a wide spectrum of
contemporary fine art paintings as carefully selected examples
illustrative of what might, or might not, be considered
to constitute a legitimate contemporary fine art painting.

In the following article, there is a section titled,
THE PROCESS OF FINE ART CREATION, where
one best-selling contemporary painter reveals
his intimate secrets for the first time.

The article is titled : Wool me twice.
To read it, simply copy & paste the following line
into your browser's URL input field :

www. quantumantigravity.wordpress. com/fool-me-twice/

I highly recommend the above article.

And I am looking forward to learn your philosophical opinions.

Thank you,
Jon

[Stoppelmann]

At what point is art no longer art ?

This is a very important philosophical question,
because contemporary fine art paintings ain't cheap.

You are talking about a specific area of society in which art is objectified and traded, and prices are agreed upon by people trading within that group. It only has to do with art as such in that it is objectified art being traded, and not necessarily with the impression one gets from the creativity employed.

I would much prefer to copy & paste the following article that addresses this important philosophical question, however, the following article contains photos of a wide spectrum of
contemporary fine art paintings as carefully selected examples illustrative of what might, or might not, be considered to constitute a legitimate contemporary fine art painting.

In the following article, there is a section titled, THE PROCESS OF FINE ART CREATION, where one best-selling contemporary painter reveals his intimate secrets for the first time.

www.quantumantigravity.wordpress.com/fool-me-twice/[/b]

It must be accepted that the market is there for anyone willing to invest the enormous sums mentioned. Still, many examples shown didn’t display the creative ability that I admire, so that art sector is irrelevant to me. I think that is all I can say about it.

What is interesting, if it wasn’t faked, is the elephant’s painting. One reason is that the picture seemed to be from a human perspective, which raises the question about the conditioning that went into causing an elephant to paint at all. The second question is, why didn’t the elephant paint a scene typical of his/her environment, like a picture of other elephants?

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

The second question is, why didn’t the elephant paint a scene typical of his/her environment, like a picture of other elephants?

I have just checked, and the video I saw was showing this elephant Suda painting an elephant.

[rainchild]

... the very use of the word "good" or "bad" is inappropriate. I might say that a work of art doesn't "work for me" or has no impact, but since I am not the measure of what art is, nor its quality, I have no right to attempt to give a statement of quality. As I listed above, the spectrum of varying qualitative characteristics is broad, and my judgement is purely my impression.

What you are speaking about is conformity with the existing theories of value, which is the framework in which criticism is made for those who acknowledge that framework. When that framework is assumed to be essential for any appreciation of a work of art, and certain experts rule that anyone who has been moved by something they have deemed "bad" is wrong, things get out of hand.

Art is an appreciation of something that doesn't glare at you but connects with the receptors that life gives us: some we have and some we don't, depending on many factors. When I became enthralled with The Little Prince by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, I had people around me who reacted disinterestedly and said, "It's only a children's novella," as though that were a valid qualitative statement. The novella's simple but elegant watercolour illustrations are impactful to many because of their simplicity, and how they emphasise the message of the story, but it seems it doesn't connect with everybody.

I am indeed speaking of conformity to existing theories of value, but I see nothing wrong with this. Our ability to understand that our culture inheres in a network of social conventions does not, by itself, make it desirable for us to ignore or somehow transcend them. Consequently, I don't see anything wrong with the idea that Leonardo DaVinci produced better art than Margaret Keane. Most people in my own culture, and in a number of others, would agree with this assessment.

As for disagreements and differing individual perceptions, these will always exist. This is true not only for art, but for a host of other endeavors, including cooking. I can't stand Brussels sprouts, but I know plenty of people who enjoy them. Such diametrically opposed perceptions do not prevent people from making judgements about good and bad cooking. Compare a five-star chef to yours truly. My friends made me promise not to cook. The same can't be said of a five-star chef. To say that one of us prepares better meals than the other is a fair assessment.

As for "The Little Prince, it is a child's novella, having been written to be comprehensible to children. However, nothing prevents this child's novella from being one of the most outstanding examples of its genre or from containing content that adults find interesting or thought-provoking. I don't believe for a moment that you are the only adult who thinks that "The Little Prince" is a good book. The days in the 1970's and beyond when "The Little Prince" was a bestseller in the USA are part of my living memory.

[Stoppelmann]

I am indeed speaking of conformity to existing theories of value, but I see nothing wrong with this. Our ability to understand that our culture inheres in a network of social conventions does not, by itself, make it desirable for us to ignore or somehow transcend them. Consequently, I don't see anything wrong with the idea that Leonardo DaVinci produced better art than Margaret Keane. Most people in my own culture, and in a number of others, would agree with this assessment.

My point was that the framework that gives a monetary value to art differs from the value one sees when connecting with the artist's expression. The term ‘value’ can mean the importance, worthiness, or usefulness of something, or used to designate the estimated monetary worth of a thing.

As for disagreements and differing individual perceptions, these will always exist. This is true not only for art, but for a host of other endeavors, including cooking. I can't stand Brussels sprouts, but I know plenty of people who enjoy them. Such diametrically opposed perceptions do not prevent people from making judgements about good and bad cooking. Compare a five-star chef to yours truly. My friends made me promise not to cook. The same can't be said of a five-star chef. To say that one of us prepares better meals than the other is a fair assessment.

But that was not something I was doubting, if anything, I was pointing this out. I suppose some people have a natural need to show their superiority and attempt to correct what needs not to be corrected.

As for "The Little Prince, it is a child's novella, having been written to be comprehensible to children. However, nothing prevents this child's novella from being one of the most outstanding examples of its genre or from containing content that adults find interesting or thought-provoking. I don't believe for a moment that you are the only adult who thinks that "The Little Prince" is a good book. The days in the 1970's and beyond when "The Little Prince" was a bestseller in the USA are part of my living memory.

Once more, you merely repeat my point as though you are contradicting me. Perhaps it would be better to accept that some people, like me, just give illustrations of a simple point of difference, and not engage in an academic dispute, which has no value – another meaning of the word.

[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.

[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.

[rainchild]

I am indeed speaking of conformity to existing theories of value, but I see nothing wrong with this. Our ability to understand that our culture inheres in a network of social conventions does not, by itself, make it desirable for us to ignore or somehow transcend them. Consequently, I don't see anything wrong with the idea that Leonardo DaVinci produced better art than Margaret Keane. Most people in my own culture, and in a number of others, would agree with this assessment.

My point was that the framework that gives a monetary value to art differs from the value one sees when connecting with the artist's expression. The term ‘value’ can mean the importance, worthiness, or usefulness of something, or used to designate the estimated monetary worth of a thing.

As for disagreements and differing individual perceptions, these will always exist. This is true not only for art, but for a host of other endeavors, including cooking. I can't stand Brussels sprouts, but I know plenty of people who enjoy them. Such diametrically opposed perceptions do not prevent people from making judgements about good and bad cooking. Compare a five-star chef to yours truly. My friends made me promise not to cook. The same can't be said of a five-star chef. To say that one of us prepares better meals than the other is a fair assessment.

But that was not something I was doubting, if anything, I was pointing this out. I suppose some people have a natural need to show their superiority and attempt to correct what needs not to be corrected.

As for "The Little Prince, it is a child's novella, having been written to be comprehensible to children. However, nothing prevents this child's novella from being one of the most outstanding examples of its genre or from containing content that adults find interesting or thought-provoking. I don't believe for a moment that you are the only adult who thinks that "The Little Prince" is a good book. The days in the 1970's and beyond when "The Little Prince" was a bestseller in the USA are part of my living memory.

Once more, you merely repeat my point as though you are contradicting me. Perhaps it would be better to accept that some people, like me, just give illustrations of a simple point of difference, and not engage in an academic dispute, which has no value – another meaning of the word.

But I am contradicting you, inasmuch as you have expressed the notion that a) judging works of art as "good" or "bad" has no valid basis, and we would do well to dispense with them. I have also contradicted your notion that such judgements are inherently arrogant.

[Stoppelmann]

... the very use of the word "good" or "bad" is inappropriate. I might say that a work of art doesn't "work for me" or has no impact, but since I am not the measure of what art is, nor its quality, I have no right to attempt to give a statement of quality. As I listed above, the spectrum of varying qualitative characteristics is broad, and my judgement is purely my impression.

What you are speaking about is conformity with the existing theories of value, which is the framework in which criticism is made for those who acknowledge that framework. When that framework is assumed to be essential for any appreciation of a work of art, and certain experts rule that anyone who has been moved by something they have deemed "bad" is wrong, things get out of hand.

Art is an appreciation of something that doesn't glare at you but connects with the receptors that life gives us: some we have and some we don't, depending on many factors. When I became enthralled with The Little Prince by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, I had people around me who reacted disinterestedly and said, "It's only a children's novella," as though that were a valid qualitative statement. The novella's simple but elegant watercolour illustrations are impactful to many because of their simplicity, and how they emphasise the message of the story, but it seems it doesn't connect with everybody.

But I am contradicting you, inasmuch as you have expressed the notion that a) judging works of art as "good" or "bad" has no valid basis, and we would do well to dispense with them. I have also contradicted your notion that such judgements are inherently arrogant.

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.

Secondly, the word arrogant is not used in the whole post. Instead, I illustrated examples where someone can be deeply impressed by a work and be told by an “expert” that it is rubbish or by indifferent people that it is trivial.

So perhaps you are reading something into my words.

[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.