I sometimes get sick of people saying they like something because they "just like it", being unable or unwilling to examine their own life and culture. So maybe to some extent I share your annoyance with people who express views and are really unable to defend or justify themselves. This I still don't get: "art should be judged for art's sake, on its own explicit merits." If there are objective, self evident "merits" that determine quality in art, why does everyone have different standards? Those who understand "art for art's sake" are still only going by their own set of standards, and what makes their standards the best?
Well, here's the thing: if you say art cannot have universal merits that can be defined, then what's the point of actually creating it? And what's the point of talking about it? Art would exist solely for entertainment (because one could not objectively that it served any other function), and could not be compared objectively.
Comments 2
This I still don't get: "art should be judged for art's sake, on its own explicit merits." If there are objective, self evident "merits" that determine quality in art, why does everyone have different standards? Those who understand "art for art's sake" are still only going by their own set of standards, and what makes their standards the best?
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment