NationStates Jolt Archive

As inspired by a dispute over pro-wrestling on another thread: What is the proper measure of "artistic value" or "artistic merit"?
Is it income produced, popularity, emotional response, the opinions of learned critics, or something else? Is it a combination of factors? Or is it simply a fraudulant concept who's time has passed?

“I don’t know art, but I know what I like.”

Basically it’s a fraudulent concept that elitists with no real reason to be elitists like to hide behind.

personal taste. after long enough, I would say the impact it has on culture too (ie staying power)

Wouldn't personal taste and the old saw "I know it when I see it" be an emotional response?

Wouldn't personal taste and the old saw "I know it when I see it" be an emotional response?
yeah, pretty much (sorry, it won't register my votes on the poll. Yay for bad internet)

ars gratis ars

What is the proper measure of artistic value or merit?

M = AV/$

The proper measurement of art is as subjective as any opinion of art could ever be.

To some the only way to judge art is by emotional response.

To others by comparison to old art and ideas.

To yet others still profit is a measure

and so it goes on as such forever---

To place a standard.....is just plain simple minded.

Too complex to quantify in a way that covers all forms of art.

ars gratis ars

I don't know about you but that sort of circular reasoning smacks of a fraudulant idea to me...

ars gratis ars
hmm...I know it as "art pour l'art"

Personally, I think art is all about emotions, philosophy, challenge and provocation (positive and negative). Art becomes art with the reaction it creates in the observer, even if that observer happens to be the artist him/herself.

Art that is not perceived cannot be art. But everything that is perceived and creates a reaction is art. It can take virtually all forms and shapes, from a traditional painting to a street performer sneaking up on people and touching them lightly or blowing in their ears, startling them.
It's the reaction that makes the difference. That moment in perception that suddenly changes us and the way we perceive the world, even in the slightest.

Personally, I think art is all about emotions, philosophy, challenge and provocation (positive and negative). Art becomes art with the reaction it creates in the observer, even if that observer happens to be the artist him/herself.

Art that is not perceived cannot be art. But everything that is perceived and creates a reaction is art. It can take virtually all forms and shapes, from a traditional painting to a street performer sneaking up on people and touching them lightly or blowing in their ears, startling them.
It's the reaction that makes the difference. That moment in peperception that suddenly changes us and the way we perceive the world, even in the slightest.
I like this very much.

you said you take pictures, no? If you do, I'd be very interested to see some of your work.

Personally, I think art is all about emotions, philosophy, challenge and provocation (positive and negative). Art becomes art with the reaction it creates in the observer, even if that observer happens to be the artist him/herself.

Art that is not perceived cannot be art. But everything that is perceived and creates a reaction is art. It can take virtually all forms and shapes, from a traditional painting to a street performer sneaking up on people and touching them lightly or blowing in their ears, startling them.
It's the reaction that makes the difference. That moment in peperception that suddenly changes us and the way we perceive the world, even in the slightest.

Well put.

I like this very much.

you said you take pictures, no? If you do, I'd be very interested to see some of your work.

I draw and paint a bit, that's correct. But I wouldn't call myself an artist, really, because most of what I do is not done with the aim to create reation, but with the very profane goal of being decorative ;)

I'm changing that at the moment, though.

I draw and paint a bit, that's correct. But I wouldn't call myself an artist, really, because most of what I do is not done with the aim to create reation, but with the very profane goal of being decorative ;)

I'm changing that at the moment, though.
haha...well, the beauty is even if it is just to be "decorative" it has a reaction. Your reactive goal is just to create something that is pleasing.
But if you would ever care to send some over, I'd love to see them.
This reminds me that I haven't drawn anything other than my future tattoo in a very long time...thats sad.

haha...well, the beauty is even if it is just to be "decorative" it has a reaction. Your reactive goal is just to create something that is pleasing.
But if you would ever care to send some over, I'd love to see them.
This reminds me that I haven't drawn anything other than my future tattoo in a very long time...thats sad.

I'll have to photograph and scan some, then :)
I desinged my tattoo myself as well, here's a pic:

Desing (http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b24/cabrawest/Seahorse.jpg)

Tattoo (http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b24/cabrawest/.Tattoo.jpg)

I'll have to photograph and scan some, then :)
I desinged my tattoo myself as well, here's a pic:

Desing (http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b24/cabrawest/Seahorse.jpg)

Tattoo (http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b24/cabrawest/.Tattoo.jpg)
wow...I like that alot. I designed the one on my back, working on getting a good version of my next one


tattoo (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v306/zbronto/P1010013.jpg)
I really should scan the one I'm drawing. Its a celtic square knot, and will either have the bruins sign in the middle, or the kanji for music

“I don’t know art, but I know what I like.”

Basically it’s a fraudulent concept that elitists with no real reason to be elitists like to hide behind.
Does this mean I shouldn't have quit my day-job last month because now I'm just being elitist without any excuse?

I actually am an artist and I voted that it's a combination of factors, primarily personal taste followed by the test of time. Personal taste determines whether the artist's work has meaning for anyone other than himself (thus, whether he gets to be an artist today), and the test of time indicates how much meaning it has, for how many people, for how long (thus whether he'll still be an artist 100 years from now).

I'm heartened to see that emotional response is also a popular choice because I'm all about eliciting emotional responses with my work. Bodes well for moi.

Personally, I think art is all about emotions, philosophy, challenge and provocation (positive and negative). Art becomes art with the reaction it creates in the observer, even if that observer happens to be the artist him/herself.

Art that is not perceived cannot be art. But everything that is perceived and creates a reaction is art. It can take virtually all forms and shapes, from a traditional painting to a street performer sneaking up on people and touching them lightly or blowing in their ears, startling them.
It's the reaction that makes the difference. That moment in peperception that suddenly changes us and the way we perceive the world, even in the slightest.
I love this. :)

Personally, I think art is all about emotions, philosophy, challenge and provocation (positive and negative). Art becomes art with the reaction it creates in the observer, even if that observer happens to be the artist him/herself.

Art that is not perceived cannot be art. But everything that is perceived and creates a reaction is art. It can take virtually all forms and shapes, from a traditional painting to a street performer sneaking up on people and touching them lightly or blowing in their ears, startling them.
It's the reaction that makes the difference. That moment in peperception that suddenly changes us and the way we perceive the world, even in the slightest.
Excellent post. *bows*

Didn't Dali have a pretty specific answer for this?
http://www.horizonzero.ca/textsite/eat.php?is=5&file=1&tlang=0
“The jaw,” wrote Salvador Dali, “is the best tool to grasp philosophical knowledge.” And indeed, as John C. Welchman explains in this essay The Philosophy of the Jaw, throughout his enthusiastic life Dali was to pursue food and drink as deliriously, and with as much relish, as he did surrealist painting. Yet he wasn’t simply ravenous. Rather, in Welchman’s opinion, Dali’s sensitivity to the endless allusions to food that garnished the avant-garde art world of the early twentieth century actually revealed the emergence of an “alternative esthetic” — one in which the optical appreciation of art was supplanted by the oral. Perhaps Dali himself phrased it best when he explained: “We find suddenly that it does not seem enough to devour things with our eyes…our anxiety to join actively and effectively in their existence brings us to want to eat them.”
---

the merit of an object created to gratify the desire to create is the gratification it brings to everyone it is shaired with.

the merit of creating art is the gratifiction it brings by doing so.

does it make sense to judge the merrit of the end object?
this depends entirely on what is done with that end object and why.

if it is a useful object given away that is well suited to its function, that of course is merit in and of itself and goes without saying, though of course not specificly 'artistic' merrit.

but if an object's purpose is to be decorative in a public place then of course its merit depends upon not so much a consensus as, for each individual who experiences the environment thus contributed to, how its presence adds to or detracts from the experiencial qualities of that place.

feduciary consideration has its own circular illogic unrelated to any sort of merrit at all, artistic or otherwise.

=^^=
.../\...

By the way, don't limit the discussion to just the "fine arts" or "graphic arts". The inspiration for this question is the WWE thread, in which Fass said that pro-wrestling has no artistic value and people disagreed.

If the proper measure of art is evoking an emotional response, then WWE does have artistic value.

The next question is whether it's possible to assign comparitive value to different works of art - for example, is it possible to say that Hamlet is better theatrical art than WWE's Royal Rumble?

By the way, don't limit the discussion to just the "fine arts" or "graphic arts". The inspiration for this question is the WWE thread, in which Fass said that pro-wrestling has no artistic value and people disagreed.

If the proper measure of art is evoking an emotional response, then WWE does have artistic value.

In a way, it does. In much the same way as does any McDonalds commercial, any computer game, any interview with a celebrity, any quote of a movie that makes it into everyday language...
All these are artistic expressions of our time. The mass-media themselves are artistic expressions of our time. Art does not need the aim of being art, it always depends on the viewpoint of the spectator.


The next question is whether it's possible to assign comparitive value to different works of art - for example, is it possible to say that Hamlet is better theatrical art than WWE's Royal Rumble?

I think it is possible to value different works of art; it can be done taking different factors into consideration :

1) How much did this work of art alter the way the spectator/reader/listener perceives the world?

2) How many spectators/readers/listeners have been affected in that way, and how many more might be in the future?

3) For how long did the work of art influence these people, meaning how long did it remain in memory, how many times did it surface, how many decisions did it ultimately influence, how long did it emotionally move?

Hamlet seems to be the superior article here.

I think it is possible to value different works of art; it can be done taking different factors into consideration :

1) How much did this work of art alter the way the spectator/reader/listener perceives the world?

2) How many spectators/readers/listeners have been affected in that way, and how many more might be in the future?

3) For how long did the work of art influence these people, meaning how long did it remain in memory, how many times did it surface, how many decisions did it ultimately influence, how long did it emotionally move?

Hamlet seems to be the superior article here.
I'm going to difer here, though I think you've been nailing it to the wall otherwise. (I would defer to Roland Barthes entry in Mythologies on the artistic merits of profesional wrestling.)

I have a problem, and it's been brewing, with the notion of ranking in this manner. I have most of this conflict with my collaborator who is a die-hard ranker, always ready to jump in and say that this is better than that, etc.

I find that excercise unneccisary and defeating the point. There doesn't, to me, seem to be any value in assembling things in a numbered line, one better than the other in some sort of crazy art hierachy. Hamlet is better for lengthy play about madness and revenge and the costs, WWE is better for a well choreographed butt kicking served on a hefty plate of mellodrama. You wouldn't walk into one expecting the other result, so why would you put the two in line?

I think that the only real purpose that serves is wankery (I'm not directing this at you). It's for the people straining thier arms to pat themselves on the back for being so clever to like the 'better' art. It's an act of smugness and self-congratulation.

To a certain extent you can compare similar types of art, say The Rocky Horror Show to Hamlet and say one is better than the other, but even then I question the value.

It's not so much that I think that art should be judged in a vacuum, that it can't be compared to other works, but to rank the value seems like a pointless gesture.

I would say a combination of things but true art should be able to express or show a snapshot of the contemoprary times or something.

No Jigsaw crap unless it is a Jigsaw.
Umbrellas i nthe desert is not art neither is a drunk Japanese woman falling over.

I'm going to difer here, though I think you've been nailing it to the wall otherwise. (I would defer to Roland Barthes entry in Mythologies on the artistic merits of profesional wrestling.)

I have a problem, and it's been brewing, with the notion of ranking in this manner. I have most of this conflict with my collaborator who is a die-hard ranker, always ready to jump in and say that this is better than that, etc.

I find that excercise unneccisary and defeating the point. There doesn't, to me, seem to be any value in assembling things in a numbered line, one better than the other in some sort of crazy art hierachy. Hamlet is better for lengthy play about madness and revenge and the costs, WWE is better for a well choreographed butt kicking served on a hefty plate of mellodrama. You wouldn't walk into one expecting the other result, so why would you put the two in line?

I think that the only real purpose that serves is wankery (I'm not directing this at you). It's for the people straining thier arms to pat themselves on the back for being so clever to like the 'better' art. It's an act of smugness and self-congratulation.

To a certain extent you can compare similar types of art, say The Rocky Horror Show to Hamlet and say one is better than the other, but even then I question the value.

It's not so much that I think that art should be judged in a vacuum, that it can't be compared to other works, but to rank the value seems like a pointless gesture.

Thanks for pointing that out. It seems I left out one important factor : Personal preference.

As I said before, art only becomes art in the moment of perception. As everybody perceives it differently, there is NO way to reach a general conclusion on what art is better that everybody would agree on.
So, if I'm asked to evaluate art, I tend to go with the majority, really, as is shown in the criteria I applied. None of this suggests in any way that one individual would necessarily be moved more by Hamlet than by WWE, but over the years more have been moved by Hamlet than by WWE.

I would say a combination of things but true art should be able to express or show a snapshot of the contemoprary times or something.

No Jigsaw crap unless it is a Jigsaw.
Umbrellas i nthe desert is not art neither is a drunk Japanese woman falling over.

I don't know about the Japanese woman, but umbrellas in the desert definitely is art. It did affect my perception of the world.

I don't know about the Japanese woman, but umbrellas in the desert definitely is art. It did affect my perception of the world.
The only thing of note is that it killed someone.

There is no such thing as artistic merit. "Good" is an opinion. If you can produce "good", that makes you a good artist. But "good" changes from person to person. A moron might think painting A is wonderful just because he knows the artist. But does that make the painting good? No. Art sucks and you all know it.

The individual is the proper measure of artistic merit above all; whether or not that view is shared ultimately determines its popularity and permanence, but ultimately art is in the eye of the beholder and anything else only affects its durability as an example of a particular style.

The inspiration for this question is the WWE thread, in which Fass said that pro-wrestling has no artistic value and people disagreed.

You pay too much attention to what I write if it makes you start threads about it.

And, it's WWE. It is the bottom scraping of mind-numbing entertainment for the stupid masses.

You pay too much attention to what I write if it makes you start threads about it.

And, it's WWE. It is the bottom scraping of mind-numbing entertainment for the stupid masses.

Heh. What a self centered elitist you are!

Art is anything that is born outside our two basic needs: food and reproduction.

And that's it. Whether it's good or not is subjective.

whether or not it achieves its desired effect - whether that be an emotional response, shock, aesthetically pleasingness... whatever.

but we all know the real answer is money. viva la capitalism.

You pay too much attention to what I write if it makes you start threads about it.

And, it's WWE. It is the bottom scraping of mind-numbing entertainment for the stupid masses.
Someone hasn't seen a monster truck rally...

Art is anything that is born outside our two basic needs: food and reproduction.

And that's it. Whether it's good or not is subjective.
So space programs and cancer research are art? I guess I think there are more than two basic needs.

I think there's another way to think about the topic question:

Art -- in the form of painting, etching and carving -- has existed for more than 20,000 years. Is it a meaningless luxury, or does it serve some purpose in human society?

Of course, I'm biased, but I'm of the opinion that any activity that continues for so long and so universally must be serving a purpose. I think the question of artistic merit can be thought of as the question of the purpose of art.

whether or not it achieves its desired effect - whether that be an emotional response, shock, aesthetically pleasingness... whatever.

but we all know the real answer is money. viva la capitalism.
But art also exists outside of the marketplace. There are thousands of very good artists in the world who do not seek to sell their work, but only exhibit it or give it away for free -- dedicated amateurs (literally, people who do it for the love of it). Also, there are many traditional uses of art that are not traded on the marketplace -- personal adornment, interpersonal gifts, spiritual offerings/expressions, and so forth. There have always been and probably always will be artists within any societal group, whether they (or anyone else) make money off it or not.

Heh. What a self centered elitist you are!

I don't know what sort of taste void you live in if one has to be elitist to realise what sort of crap WWE is.

But art also exists outside of the marketplace. There are thousands of very good artists in the world who do not seek to sell their work, but only exhibit it or give it away for free -- dedicated amateurs (literally, people who do it for the love of it). Also, there are many traditional uses of art that are not traded on the marketplace -- personal adornment, interpersonal gifts, spiritual offerings/expressions, and so forth. There have always been and probably always will be artists within any societal group, whether they (or anyone else) make money off it or not.
it was sarcasm.

it was sarcasm.
Oh. Never mind. :)

Personally, I think art is all about emotions, philosophy, challenge and provocation (positive and negative). Art becomes art with the reaction it creates in the observer, even if that observer happens to be the artist him/herself.

Art that is not perceived cannot be art. But everything that is perceived and creates a reaction is art. It can take virtually all forms and shapes, from a traditional painting to a street performer sneaking up on people and touching them lightly or blowing in their ears, startling them.
It's the reaction that makes the difference. That moment in perception that suddenly changes us and the way we perceive the world, even in the slightest.
right on the money

art is communication between the artist and all his viewers for the lifetime of the work.

good art speaks to you. great art speaks to you in a sophisticated manner. its the difference between a cheap romance novel and anna karenina. both speak to you but tolstoy is more sophisticated.

Critical acclaim, since the common populace lack the capacity to appreciate conceptual art.

Critical acclaim, since the common populace lack the capacity to appreciate conceptual art.
Sadly, thanks to the "American Idol Effect" (all those shitty singers had people encouraging them), this is what I use in my work...

I would say that to a large extent, the amount of dedication, skill, and talent involved is a big factor, as well as the motivation. Great art demands a great deal of skill and effort to make. Emotional response is also very important and I think great art must also be effective emotionally.

It depends who you ask.

Basically it’s a fraudulent concept that elitists with no real reason to be elitists like to hide behind.

That's like saying medical effectiveness is a fraudulent concept that élitists fall back on.:rolleyes: The whole "it's all a matter of taste" thing is just something bad artists hide behind (and it works wonders for Britney Spears and Michael Jackson). Face it, all art is not created equal.

If it serves no other purpose other than aesthetics, it's art.

The Chrysler Building is artistic, but functional. It's not art.

Scarlett Johansen (see this month's Vanity Fair) is art. :D

Speaking as an artist, (a successful, commercial artist) if it isn't bankable - I isn't interested. I've learned a lot since doodling in the margins of textbooks.

If it serves no other purpose other than aesthetics, it's art.

The Chrysler Building is artistic, but functional. It's not art.

Scarlett Johansen (see this month's Vanity Fair) is art. :D
I kind of agree, but what about the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel? It's decorative, but it also serves a religious purpose -- a sermon in pictures. Is it still art? What about political art?

Speaking as an artist, (a successful, commercial artist) if it isn't bankable - I isn't interested. I've learned a lot since doodling in the margins of textbooks.
"successful" "artist"

My two favorite words to see in the same sentence. What's your secret? Do you have a website? (If you do, please TG it to me.)

I chose 'other' on the survey.

The measure of artistic merit is meaning.

"successful" "artist"

My two favorite words to see in the same sentence. What's your secret? Do you have a website? (If you do, please TG it to me.)

My secret is this: give up on the so-called "fine" arts. I tried for years to get noticed in that arena, only to learn, in the end, it really is all about how well you wear your clothes & whether you give good head or not.

No, I myself do not have a website. However, the company that employs me to make their product (online rich media) look good does have one. I'll see about sending you the links... though I might do that from the studio tomorrow. Sending a link now (after getting home from teaching an After Effects class and putting in a full day's work) seems too much like work right now.

Tell you what, TG me and I'll make a point of sending some really good links (the ones not generally available to the non-paying public) your way. Sounds okay?

Well, in that case, it seems artistic nihilism has already won out. Maybe I wasn't wrong when I speculated I would be the last classical composer if my attempts at learning composition go well.

My secret is this: give up on the so-called "fine" arts. I tried for years to get noticed in that arena, only to learn, in the end, it really is all about how well you wear your clothes & whether you give good head or not.

No, I myself do not have a website. However, the company that employs me to make their product (online rich media) look good does have one. I'll see about sending you the links... though I might do that from the studio tomorrow. Sending a link now (after getting home from teaching an After Effects class and putting in a full day's work) seems too much like work right now.

Tell you what, TG me and I'll make a point of sending some really good links (the ones not generally available to the non-paying public) your way. Sounds okay?
Bueno. Shall do. I'm just fascinated to see what people are paying for.

Yeah, I'm trying to make commercial art my new day job and have the fine art function as a kind of advertisement for it. You know, trying to sell the rubes on the cache of having a "real" artist freelance their logos for them. Whatever. I'm trying to get back into it after having abandoned it for almost 10 years. I majored in advertising design, and I love doing it, but I have major problems not telling my clients that they are tasteless assholes. I'll probably be working as a secretary again in a year or two. This is something I put myself through every now and then -- secretary / quit and do artwork for 2 years / commercial design / get bitter, spend all my money / repeat.