A Thought:

[samnite]

The problem with criticism of art is that it tries to create objective ways of judging art. We have yet to develop any truly effective systems, and thus we end up obscuring what's actually good art in favor of what merely seems like good art.

Discuss.

Comments

mmm arrttt =)

[raqtateraid]

I don't even know where to begin with this statement. In general I agree with you. It's true most people who don't have more then an average basis in art tend to favor more aesthetically pleasing art, and or what is socially in at the time. There really isn't any way to define what art is, let alone "good" art. In the end it all tends to be objective or rather relative (which I hate to say). There have been many philosophers who have written many thesis on what they believe to be the key behind good art. I however, believe there is no way to generalize art. In the risk of sounding cheesy art is in the eye of the beholder. On a more personal note my favorite art has some sort of and or passion behind it or tries to make a statement, whatever it may be. On that note i will continue on my endless journey to figure out what i consider good art for me. I suppose that's what everyone who wonders about art should be thinking about.

Re: mmm arrttt =)

[samnite]

But making art subjective and saying that it's just whatever you like seems sort of a cop-out. Don't you think that some things are just plain better than others? I love Harry Potter, but I have trouble saying it's in the same league as Shakespeare. I'm trying to be non-analytical here, which is hard, but our society has set things up in such a way that we treat Shakespeare as superior simply because there's more "smart stuff" going on beneath the surface. Ignoring that, do you really think the two are equal? Maybe they are, but it's hard for me to accept. It seems to me that some art really IS better. That doesn't mean we need to generalize or standardize. It just means that we can know what's better if we keep working on it.

So instead of worrying about what great art is for me, I plan to continuing worrying about what great art is for everyone. It's harder, and may ultimately be fruitless, but it seems worthwhile to me.

Re: mmm arrttt =)

[raqtateraid]

While i understand where you are coming from i don't agree. If you only look at art that is good to everyone else then when does it become what you like, and not what everyone else approves of? It doesn't seem fruitful to be chasing other people's ideals on what "good" art is if you don't think it's good for you. For example i understand Pacaso's art is deffinitly valued because of his background, and because people say it's great. I however, don't like pacaso's work at all. His work means very little to me, but it still is art. Here is the question why is it art if i don't like it? Well it's art because other people say it's art and should be vauled. If i went on what people say is great art than as an artist i would never explore what i consider appealing to me. I think it really depends on what the individual believes what art should be vauled. I don't think it's cop-out to like what you like, because art in the end is up to the viewer to decied whether they consider it art or not. I guess that's the tricky thing about defining art

Re: mmm arrttt =)

[samnite]

But honestly, do you really think... no, not think, FEEL... do you feel like there is art that is better than other art? I bet you do. I do too. Most people feel that way. It's when we start thinking about art and trying to figure out what makes it good that we usually end up just finding bad things to be good art, or good things to be bad art. I'm not making a value judgement on Picasso, but perhaps Picasso isn't great. Society tells us he is, but society can be wrong. The system of art criticism can be wrong, and I believe it is. That's my point.

I'm not saying you have to like what everyone else likes. I'm saying that when we figure out what good art really is, we'll all like it because it really is good art and not just pretending to be good art.

[anonymous]

i think you're wrong about us not having any truly effective systems. why do you say that? as far as technical fundamentals of art are concerned, i think we have a pretty sound basis for criticism. look at all the progress the art world has made in terms of perspective, color handling, etc. in that regard, of course some art is better than other art

[anonymous]

that was eliza by the way. long time no see.

[samnite]

But the technical aspects do not make great art. They make really good paintings/drawings/whatever other sorts of art, visual or not, you want to include. There's a subtle difference. That's why people aren't that interested in photorealistic paintings all the time. Obviously, there are great works of extraordinary precision, but the most skilled painter in the world still seems to be nothing without an idea, even if that idea is just to copy the most beautiful landscape he's ever seen

[anonymous]

when i say "technical" i dont really mean excluding ideas - i should have been more clear. technique has to do with ideas - they are just visual ones. for example, composition requires a certain kind of thought, but it wouldn't call it conceptual.

i don't think experimentation is bad - it just causes a lot of people to applaud art that doesn't necessarily deserve it (given that i think some art is better than other art). of course it's necessary to experiment - someone has to do it. i agree with you there but i don't think what i was saying is wrong.

also - the reason we can call picasso and raphael great is because they have both proven that they have technical skill. you can break the rules in any art form as long as you learn them and prove you are competent first. just something to think about.

I disagree

[smeddy]

There are so many theories on what makes "good" art out there that in one sense whatever your opinion of great, original art will fit into some definition. However most modern contemporary criticisms of art give a basic underlying principles and criteria that I think most people will agree with.

You should really read Kant's criticism of art and aesthetics. I took a course on this very topic by the way. No time to write more for now, but I may go back and look at my essays to brush up and post later.

Re: I disagree

[samnite]

I firmly believe in a few things

[pistalion]

Making a guideline or ruberic for "good" art would as sensible as greating criteria for a lovely sunset. The laborious process of critiquing art is necesarily so grand and sometimes overwrought with complications because art is such a powerful tool within society; it demands careful inspection and evaluation. Simplifying how art is critiqued would just water down the lens we view art with.

[samnite]

On one hand, yes, it seems impossible to create a unified theory of art criticism, because art is so complex, but on the other hand, I'm sure people felt that way about physics until Newton came along.

What I object to is what our society currently passes off as "careful inspection and evaluation". It's all sort of a joke. Think about "Oscar Movies". The movie that acts like it's the greatest work of art wins frequently enough for it to be annoying, at least to me. Meanwhile, I'll be surprised if Batman Begins, a brilliant movie, gets more than a nod. It's acceptable for everyone to like Batman Begins, but apparently that means it's not great art.

I'm not saying that people have to like all great art, or that all great art is just the things we like, but I think somewhere along the line we stopped appreciating things we did like so that we could instead appreciate things that make us feel smart, discerning, and cultured. Really, it just makes us snobby.

[pistalion]

Urgh - if I wasn't completely swamped with work, I'd give your comment a second read over, and a proper response. Sadly, that won't happen, right now. Maybe I'll just end up debating this with you, over the weekend. ;)

[taintedblade]

"beauty is in the eye of the beholder."
im too lazy to present logical thought argument, so i quote bombard!