For Blixa: Is all art "good?"

[_asbestosman]

Some people like MP3s and sound systems with kind of crappy speakers and too much bass. But with some education on accoustics, mixing, sampling, imaging, and other things, some examples to work with, that same person a few hours later will be able to appreciate better sound. Same holds true with art, beer drinking, and literature.

I think that's a good example and one I agree with. I might add other food to that list as well as video games too. Sometimes a great game is actually quite simple from a technical POV. Sometimes it is complex.

[_Gadianton]

For Blixa,

I meant something like a "-" between all those words. heh, not to completely run everything together. I know postmodernism is more diverse, so is modernism, (even positivism is far more diverse than it's usually given credit for), I was just looking for a basic point to sum up a good chunk, if i had to state more simply in phil language I'd say in modernism, knowledge and truth is mitigated by the subject, and in postmod, by the community. The fact that truth is mitigated and unstable is just as much a feature of modernism as postmodernism. Some more extereme postmods run with it more. But existentialism, where the cartesian subject holds the key to interpretation (as a common example, Sartre's "the wall") and positivism notwithstanding its kneeling before science, with its extreme anti-realism and ultimate skepticism or at best, pragmatism, are very much modernist, not postmodern, and I think are more in line with the problem usually blamed on postmod, that anyones opinion is just as good as another. A very cheap summary might be that any relativism in postmod usually happens at the community level wheras any relativism in modernism happens at the individual level. (the subject)

Oh, and on pretty much all the points you made, I defer to you of course.

[_Gadianton]

by the way, speaking of art. What do you guys think about my new av? I made it in photoshop playing around textures and lighting and I think it's bad ass. Feel free to speak honestly, I won't get mad. But if you think it sucks, it will probably hurt my feelings. Just so you know.

[_Dr. Shades]

*the equation of art with what's on a canvas really sums up what I find inadequate about this question as a starting point.

Of all the statements made so far, this is the one which throws me the most. What is art other than that which is on the canvas (not counting music, poetry, etc.)? It certainly isn't the frame, or the wall on which it hangs, or the wire which rests across the hook.

[_Gadianton]

*the equation of art with what's on a canvas really sums up what I find inadequate about this question as a starting point.

Of all the statements made so far, this is the one which throws me the most. What is art other than that which is on the canvas (not counting music, poetry, etc.)? It certainly isn't the frame, or the wall on which it hangs, or the wire which rests across the hook.

It's kind of like DCP asking, what are morals for atheists, other than a bunch of atoms bumping together and synapses firing?

[_Moniker]

by the way, speaking of art. What do you guys think about my new av? I made it in photoshop playing around textures and lighting and I think it's bad ass. Feel free to speak honestly, I won't get mad. But if you think it sucks, it will probably hurt my feelings. Just so you know.

Gad, I was partial to your other one because it reminded me of Bad Religion (the band). Yet, I'm okay with the new one. I'm impressed with what you do with photoshop. Either way I always like your inverted crosses!

[_Moniker]

*the equation of art with what's on a canvas really sums up what I find inadequate about this question as a starting point.

Of all the statements made so far, this is the one which throws me the most. What is art other than that which is on the canvas (not counting music, poetry, etc.)? It certainly isn't the frame, or the wall on which it hangs, or the wire which rests across the hook.

Shades, why don't you give your definition of "good" art. Post some images!

[_Ren]

What makes art "good" for me is that it captures my attention in the sense that it is visually interesting. If it induces some sort of emotional or intellectual response for me I consider that "good" art.

Yeah - this is the kind of definition I've always thought of too. I think this is the only kind of definition that can stand any test of time. I think it also points towards the idea that the definition of 'good' art is completely subjective.

(As opposed to - say - a 'good' long jump, or a 'good' rebuttal).

Some people like MP3s and sound systems with kind of crappy speakers and too much bass.

...now this is an example that a luddite like me can relate to!
...I remember distinctly a conversation about how an 128-bit encoded MP3 sounds no different to a CD.

....and my reply being 'what?!' All the horrible audio artifacts, especially at high frequencies ('S' sounds, hi-hat's etc.), dull quality etc.
Are you kidding?!

I feel I can also appreciate good songwriting, technical playing ability, mood, attitude etc. in music.
But I seem to lack all kinds of appreciation when it comes to other art forms - especially visual art.

...I'm trying to work on it :)

To quote my dad: "I don't know art, but I know what I like." My eye is what I use to decide if a piece of art is good or not. Screw the technical jargon, the critics or whatever. If I like something I like it. If I don't I don't. And no one else's description is going to override my opinion.

I know what you're saying here. And I think you're right to an extent.
But I've sometimes looked at something and thought 'Meh - whatever'. But then someone else talks about it a bit, and suddenly I see all the things that I've been missing about it. In that sense, I've had 'my opinion' over-ridden all the time. And it clearly tells me that I often miss a lot about what's in front of me - that I would appreciate, if I could only 'see it'.

[_Blixa]

*the equation of art with what's on a canvas really sums up what I find inadequate about this question as a starting point.

Of all the statements made so far, this is the one which throws me the most. What is art other than that which is on the canvas (not counting music, poetry, etc.)? It certainly isn't the frame, or the wall on which it hangs, or the wire which rests across the hook.

Sculpture.

Photography. Installation art. Performance art. Conceptual art, etc. etc. all go beyond "that which is on a canvas." Art isn't that which hangs on a wall, or is an image on a two-dimensional surface framed or not. But this is just the most literalist of explanations having to do with media. As I've said before, art is defined by its institutional placement, its historical location and the nexus of ideas within which it resides.

By your definition Thomas Kincade paintings are art in the same way a Jackson Pollack painting is. And while they may popularly be understood as such, they aren't really anywhere near the sphere of art production today which has moved on from representational oil painting (and which it was never truly defined by) and will continue to move on, developing new forms, institutional matrices etc., as it historically unfolds.

All of this isn't to say that painting has been discarded, or technical skill, but that those are just two items in a vast roster of what's been happening in last 200 years. I was going to suggest a look at Peter Burger's "Theory of the Avant Garde," as a place to start, but maybe even something like a good textbook-y book would be useful. The first one I see on my shelf is "Avant Garde and After: Rethinking Art Now," but there are hundreds of similar works which might cut to the chase for you.

As for contemporary master painters, two names come to mind: Anselm Keifer and Gerhard Richter, though there are many others. Richter is especially interesting to me.

The best I can do is say, read. How one sees anything, how one even recognizes any "thing" as a "thing" is dependent on a myriad of prior assumptions and concepts. The best way to get an idea what assumptions you're under the spell of is to read about other ways of conceptualizing not only the subject under investigation but the world itself.

[Ahoody]

What makes art "good" for me is that it captures my attention in the sense that it is visually interesting. If it induces some sort of emotional or intellectual response for me I consider that "good" art.

Yeah - this is the kind of definition I've always thought of too. I think this is the only kind of definition that can stand any test of time. I think it also points towards the idea that the definition of 'good' art is completely subjective.

(As opposed to - say - a 'good' long jump, or a 'good' rebuttal).

Some people like MP3s and sound systems with kind of crappy speakers and too much bass.

...now this is an example that a luddite like me can relate to!
...I remember distinctly a conversation about how an 128-bit encoded MP3 sounds no different to a CD.

....and my reply being 'what?!' All the horrible audio artifacts, especially at high frequencies ('S' sounds, hi-hat's etc.), dull quality etc.
Are you kidding?!

I feel I can also appreciate good songwriting, technical playing ability, mood, attitude etc. in music.
But I seem to lack all kinds of appreciation when it comes to other art forms - especially visual art.

...I'm trying to work on it :)

To quote my dad: "I don't know art, but I know what I like." My eye is what I use to decide if a piece of art is good or not. Screw the technical jargon, the critics or whatever. If I like something I like it. If I don't I don't. And no one else's description is going to override my opinion.

I know what you're saying here. And I think you're right to an extent.
But I've sometimes looked at something and thought 'Meh - whatever'. But then someone else talks about it a bit, and suddenly I see all the things that I've been missing about it. In that sense, I've had 'my opinion' over-ridden all the time. And it clearly tells me that I often miss a lot about what's in front of me - that I would appreciate, if I could only 'see it'.

Part of the difficulty is that "taste" seems to get confused with defintion (what art "is.") And taste is notoriously bound up in unspoked assumptions that only come to light when one makes an effort. And then, as you say, Ren, taste often changes.

If I ever talk about "major" or "important" artists it is a matter of their influence or situtation within the cutting edge of contemporary debate, or some standard other than some "objective" ranking of technical proficiency. For most people who work with art, the relative value of any single work (or artist) is due to the ability of that "thing" to bring together a host of complex ideas in an especially arresting manner, or to open up new challenges or experiences or advance the way things have been thought of or experienced before. Most serious artists (and I include Raphael and Michaelangelo, too) are well versed in the historical traditions in which they participate and understand their situation vis-a-vis specific traditions.

Everyone is "entitled" to their opinion in some sense, but there are also such things as ignorant opinion and informed opinion. In the final instance I don't care what a person likes or dislikes, but it does rather make a difference to me if opinion is grounded in knowledge and understanding or is an off-the-cuff reaction to something unfamiliar and glanced at.