The Myth of Good Art
Is there something like ‘good’ art and if so then what exactly makes it good? Can there be good art without people? Is there something like ‘mind independent’ good art?
The craft of art seems to apply a kind of standard based on imitation / successful re-creation. If I paint a picture-perfect landscape (which I find beautiful), then the painting can be judged based on how well it ‘captures’ the landscape. As a craft, art can be judged, but this says little to why the landscape initially was beautiful to me. It is also important to note that no one created the landscape either; yet it still evokes a response. Furthermore, artists frequently create art which ‘captures’ nothing familiar and yet can be considered beautiful.
What exactly are we looking for when we set out in search for good art? Can there really be a set of standards which all individuals ‘ought’ to hold too? If you want to do ‘math’ you do not have to apply math-rules if you do not want too; but by forfeiting math-rules you simultaneously forfeit doing any math. Yet regarding art, this ‘appreciation’ seems to be a kind of rule-making rather than rule-following. Perhaps the elite Mathematicians participate in math-rule-making but the common observer needs little to no specialization in art to make art rules.
Might this be because all art needs is a self? Whereas math needs a math-know-how?
Given that there is not good art structure which one ‘ought’ to possess, why do we have something like ‘good art’? What might an idea like this provide for people (disregarding if it is real or not)? Or might we still argue for / against the structure of good art? How might it be defended? Or is it something we ‘ought’ not to care about anymore?
Is ‘good art’ something the individual recognizes in what is being observed, or is good art something the individual observes in what she is willing to recognize?
posted by Joel at 3:56 PM
13 Comments:
I find, in discussions of what makes art "good", most people readily agree to disagree....until you see a price tag on someone's work.
"Well, it's good....I guess, but not '$500.00 good'"
I think what math and art DO have in common is they both can inspire someone, being as that they both exist whether or not anyone takes the time to interpret it and make it their own.
The truth of math, and the existence of landscapes (and other various natrual phenomena which trigger emotions within us) have always been there and always will be.
I've often wondered if it's fair to say that any art which stirs up and emotional reaction, can be considered "good art".
I remember getting angry with a movie for its disturbing elements. I was wanting to write if off as garbage; but a friend of mine gave me some perspective.
"Well Trev, obviously it succeeded in stirring an emotional reaction out in you. Why not allow yourself to be positively affected by a negative experience?"
Since then, I've entertained the possibility of an objective "art reality".
Thoughts?
As I'm taking a philosophy of art class right now, I'm going to add the perspectives from there...
So there are several camps on the matter, and what I've found is that there is no real agreement on which is "winning," but rather they are all good and it is just a matter of what resonates more with you.
Institutional Theory is all about the "art-club" of people who "decide" what is and is not good art. This is what is seen with modern art and the pompous pricks who sit in the galleries and talk about the deep meaning of melted cheese poured on a bust of Abe Lincoln. It basically says that art is good because a group says it is good, and that means "good" art changes from place to place, time to time, etcetera. The flaw is that some young child who knows nothing about the "art community" could never make "art" in this view...
Essentialist Theory is the "rules" view of art you allude to, which basically says that there "MUST" be some sort of list that you can use to check if something is really art, and if it meets all the requirements then it must be good. That breaks down into what should be on the list, and so forth. There are two main views there, one which says art should be seen like the word "game," in that we define art in relation to other art, just like not all games fit a set checklist, but we know a game because it resembles other games. The other says the list should be really simple, like was there someone who made the art with the intention of it being art, and that's good enough...
There's more, like does art need to be intentional, does it need to resemble "something," like a real place or person, the embodiment of an emotion, etcetera...
Any way, then there is the aesthetic evaluation of art, which has its own things. What is in art? Is it objective, in that everything we need to know is in the art itself, or is it subjective, in that the meaning comes from the intention of the artist, the resulting artwork, and the relationship between the artwork and the audience?
--------------
Clearly there is a lot in there. There is much more, but it gets so convoluted. According to my class, I am an anti-intentionalist objectivist, because I believe that we don't need to know about the home life or beliefs of the author or artist, and what they meant for the work to convey either is found within the work itself or it doesn't matter (thus anti-intentionalist), and the full meaning of the work should be able to be found within the work itself, and if you need to make up things to make your theory work, thus adding to the work, you are nuts (thus objectivism).
Even writing that out seems like it isn't REALLY what I believe, because it is so hard to pin down exactly what you believe about art. And that is what makes it seem so very subjective from person to person. Is something good art because it looks like something good? There is a professional, highly-regarded photographer who takes pictures OF PICTURES by famous photographers, and then prints them. Sometimes she just reprints other people's negatives. And THAT is apparently good art in the modern art community. Seriously. That makes me want to scream that there has to be a standard for art, and they are totally missing the mark.
On the other hand, some people think that Iggy Pop is as good as Mozart, is as good as Garth Brooks, is as good as their 2-year-old on the drums, etc. That seems to point that there is NO standard for art...
...I don't know where I'm going with this. I think you need to unpack what you will from this comment and we can continue on...
Okay, good. These are some interesting points of view, but more importantly I think they also show that such an approach to art is not deep enough. We can think of Trev’s comment as applying a fiscal approach to art.
How about instead of considering if a work of art is ‘good’ by applying (or not applying) a set of standards, we simply consider a work ‘if it can be considered good at all?’ If it can (even if this applies to any and all possibilities) we then consider the why and the how art comes to be considered good.
In this way, the various ‘ways to consider good art’ (the options you suggested) can be considered, but we never have to pick one over the other. Even though these options themselves are trying to dive as deep as they can to uncover what ‘good art is’ they seem to stop short at explaining the area they find themselves competing within. For the most part, ‘philosophical approaches to anything’ try harder to ‘win competitions against opponents’ than they do trying to explain the contextual comparison they might have with their opponents.
In order to really do this ‘arena’ philosophy, we must first let go of the scientific presupposition that we ought to look for the ‘right’, ‘correct’, or ‘best’ answer. Thus, if we find something worth saying about this ‘arena’ it will NOT say anything ‘right’, ‘correct’, ‘best’, or ‘ought’ about art.
Does this make sense?
The trouble that seems to feed the desire for a "list" of criteria for good art is that if we lack such a list, and instead opt for what you seem to suggest, the door is open to anything.
In class we discussed this: If anything which CAN be considered good art IS considered good art, then the mind of a madman will open the door to EVERYTHING being good art, potentially. If that happens, and everything can be good art from some perspective, the whole meaning of "good" art is lost, and we don't need the word at all.
Yet, because we DO distinguish (or want to distinguish) good art from bad art, there must be a line... somewhere. And thus we try to set forth criteria for where that line is drawn. Of course there could be multiple lines, some for each person, but what the community that discusses this sort of thing (professionally) all agree upon is that without some form of line, we don't have any idea of what good art even means.
-------------
So I get what you are saying, but if that is the line you want to take you need to deal with this fear that is driving everyone else. Yes, it (the above reasoning) does drive for this "right vs wrong" way of evaluating things, like on a spectrum, but that seems to be a mentality which is very hard to escape.
So take that as you will... I'm not necessarily purporting my own beliefs, but I think I am arguing well the reasoning behind the other beliefs.
It's very difficult for me to ask the "why" and the "how" by removing standards. I can't do it. Even if I remove all existing, subjective standards and presuppositions from my palette of reason, my mind imediately creates a new road block.
I agree with Leif, we DO want to distinguish good art from bad art - even if it's not fair to want such a thing.
A "fiscal" approach is a great way of putting it, and it's certainly where I stand (at least, that's my bottom line). When some form of art is offered to me (or the chance to observe it rather), whether it be a film, gallery or otherwise, I go straight to contemplating the potential return on my investement and weigh out the difference. "Is this film going to get me my 15 bucks worth? Am I going to regret spending 20 dollars and 2 hours in this exhibit?"
I appreciate Joel, how you said "In this way, the various ‘ways to consider good art’ (the options you suggested) can be considered, but we never have to pick one over the other", but do we really have an option? Perhaps we can re-train and re-develop our thinking over time. But we are who we are. I can't just tell myself to appreciate something. At least, not without some serious post-experience thought/perspective. But, in the moment? Doubtfull.
How does one break free from that?
Leif: I think if we refuse to allow all possible art become potentially good art, then we are already applying an uncovered standard for good at. Uncovered in how we ask a question, there lies the potentiality for the answer we are seeking; thus we half-form the answer before we even find it by asking a question.
Leif said:
“If anything which CAN be considered good art IS considered good art, then the mind of a madman will open the door to EVERYTHING being good art, potentially. If that happens, and everything can be good art from some perspective, the whole meaning of "good" art is lost, and we don't need the word at all.”
This is what needs to happen if we are to take on this idea of art from the ground up. Otherwise, the refusal to open up our possibility to this degree represents we have already made up our mind in some extent for the kind of answer we want to find. In other words, you cannot talk about art in general because you have already made up your mind (in some ‘seeking’ way). All you can do is participate after this point, which is to argue for your own point of view.
That is fine, but it is secondary. Even though you might say ‘I do not really know what I think’ you still have limitations applied to the possibility of what you might think, or might find out you are thinking/believing about art. Do you see what I mean here?
It would be like a person asking ‘what is 2 plus 2? I want to know but I already know it is not 4’. They can still genuinely ask the question, but if they have already made up their mind as to what is not a possible answer, then they have already begun forming the answer in how they have asked and modified the question.
You are right that we do want to distinguish good art from bad, but we can keep this in mind as our goal and still open up the possibility for any and all art to become good. In fact, such an approach will eventually lead to the same kind of ‘standards’ as to any point of view, but we will begin deep enough to keep these other points of view in communication (keep them in mind).
This will keep us from merely fighting for our own view, instead of arguing for our point of view, we will end up really saying something about art in general.
Again, there is nothing wrong with arguing our own view, but that is something other than having a philosophical inquiry into art in general. Is that convincing?
Trev said:
“It's very difficult for me to ask the "why" and the "how" by removing standards. I can't do it.”
And
“But do we really have an option? Perhaps we can re-train and re-develop our thinking over time. But we are who we are. I can't just tell myself to appreciate something.”
I am not asking you to change your mind/personality/beliefs about art. If you only want to talk about art from a personal standard then we will only do that. This inquiry is not about just figuring out our personal views, but trying to say something about art in general. Thus, it is not a personal request, but an imaginative one. Imagine beyond your personal views. All this dialogue is going to try and accomplish is imaginative. After it is done, the extent to which the imaginative content changes you personally is entirely up to you alone.
We follow Socrates “I cannot change anyone’s mind, I can only make them think.”
I do not want to change your mind, I only wish to get you to imagine things.
Okay, I'm alright with that explanation of where you are going here. So back to your earlier comments, then...
Joel said:
"How about instead of considering if a work of art is ‘good’ by applying (or not applying) a set of standards, we simply consider a work ‘if it can be considered good at all?’ If it can (even if this applies to any and all possibilities) we then consider the why and the how art comes to be considered good."
I think that when using the term "good," the knee-jerk usage simply means, "I like it." Even if we are saying something like, "good for you," we are in a way saying, "I like that you are doing that."
So if we can take the notion of "good art" to mean simply what we like or can appreciate, then I believe a work of art CAN be considered good or bad.
So that's my "starting line" for what begins the process of if art can be good. I think it can indeed be considered in the realm of good/bad, because the term good is really just an extension of our appreciation of something.
Leif said:
“I think that when using the term "good," the knee-jerk usage simply means, "I like it." Even if we are saying something like, "good for you," we are in a way saying, "I like that you are doing that."”
And
“So if we can take the notion of "good art" to mean simply what we like or can appreciate …. for what begins the process of if art can be good.”
This is still is not a deep enough place to start. We do not want to start with a pre-decided definition of ‘good’ or ‘good art’ but rather look at instances where they arise and then are dubbed so. Obviously someone will mean ‘good’ in your above suggestion, but we do not want to start as a competitor for this definition, but really take a good look at where it is used.
We need to look at ‘good art’ from a Phenomenological perspective and that means allowing for whatever ‘good art’ is to reveal itself. This will mean that the possibility for what is considered good art, as well as the various standards for qualifying/quantifying good art will be opened up all the way.
Only from here may we ask what about ‘good art’ makes it ‘good art’. In order to start at this point, we have to give up the preconceived definitions for ‘good art’ otherwise we will fail to escape the point of view we are starting with.
The solution to this problem is to take on more and more possibility and apply it to what we want to look at.
So we cannot start with a knee-jerk usage, not can we take a personal approach of ‘appreciation’. Why? Because we are bound to encounter others who will define ‘good art’ differently than our knee-jerk response, and because we will find people who are not ‘appreciating’ art in the way we are. We cannot know this for sure, but opening up the possibility for ‘good art’ will mean pushing ourselves back farther than this.
Does this make sense? Is it convincing?
I've got a response, I'm just writing my final paper this weekend. I'll write something as a reply within a couple days...
Okay, here I am -finally- diving in.
For me it is problematic to attempt to evaluate art as good or bad without appealing to some other standard (like its sociological/historical value, its moral value, or its emotional/spiritual value in relation to an individual viewer, or what Joel described with the landscape painting -it's "accuracy").
If we lost our obsession with judgement we'd be in (I think) a better place to encounter art. I believe we should encounter art as we encounter nature: simply. Just look (or hear, or whatever) and take it in. Don't search for meaning. Just take it in. Or don't take it in.
Like what the Jackson Pollock character says in 'Pollock': "Nobody looks at a bunch of flowers and asks 'what does it mean'?"
Film director Richard Eyre said, "Art must be its own argument." I think that's it exactly. If you find art valuable then it is, if you don't then it isn't. Trying to put a price tag on a work of art is ridiculous. And yet it must be done, I guess. So Picasso sells for millions, and the musicians who live upstairs from me all work part-time jobs.
That's economics, not art.
----------------
As far as the Leif/Joel discussion goes, I say before we can even talk about art being good or bad, we must first establish what we even mean by the word art.
I say art is anything that is called art.
Though if I call it art and you don't that's a real dilemma.
Matt:
Declaring “Nobody looks at a bunch of flowers and asks ‘what does it mean?’ is still making the judgement: ‘there are things not worth asking meaning-for [such as flowers] because to ask for meaning from them is to miss something else about it’.
“Art must be its own argument” is still an appeal to explain (or account for) art as something unexplainable (or something we ought not to try and explain).
The surface level appeal to something nebulous may be correct but it still only suspends the problem to another level of thought: if art is to be suspended from the realm of meaning to the more general level of ‘encounterable’ then if we still wish to think and talk about it, we still have to decide ‘how’.
So do not be too hasty to abandon judgement. We do not have to avoid it, only do it with our eyes open.
Broadening the discussion to ‘what is art itself?’ prior to ‘what is good / bad art?’ is another way to open up the possibility of our starting point.
Matt says “art is anything that [one call’s] art”.
I agree that this is a good place to start our conversation.
After Leif’s response I will suggest what I think the next step is in defining art in general as a way to get at further defining the good / bad art definition.
Starting point:
What is art: anything possible
What is good art: anything possible
Pending Leif’s response, this is where I think we should start.
Sorry I've taken so long...
I'll try to tackle these apart from one another...
Joel said:
"We need to look at ‘good art’ from a Phenomenological perspective and that means allowing for whatever ‘good art’ is to reveal itself."
-I think that this notion is ill-defined. Unless "good art" is a sentient being which actually CAN reveal itself, all you are saying is that we will "somehow" be able to see what is good art. That will still require us to use a preconceived notion, and of course that will be different for all of us without previously defining it.
Joel said:
"Only from here may we ask what about ‘good art’ makes it ‘good art’. In order to start at this point, we have to give up the preconceived definitions for ‘good art’ otherwise we will fail to escape the point of view we are starting with."
-So I am disagreeing with you here. By virtue of the fact that we can never fully agree on what falls into the realm of "good art," we can never move to the next step of dissecting said art to see what makes it good. The only way for your method to work (as defined above; you can clearly alter it in response) is for us to individually "discover" what good art is, and I argue that this is simply going to be an extension of what we already personally have for "good art" criteria.
My contrasting view here (as mentioned above) is to instead come to the table with our eyes open about what we define as "good" and thus "good art." Then we can debate one another regarding our definitions, and from there come to an agreed-upon definition of what "good" even means. I think if we do that, THEN we can continue on and apply that definition to art (perhaps as Matt has suggested we must also define "art") in order to uncover what is UNIVERSALLY "good art," and then what makes it good to each of us.
So regarding your previous post, you said we can try to start with:
What is art: anything possible
What is good art: anything possible
I am suggesting that we still need to agree upon what "good" means before we do these two steps.
Leif: I think you have the cart in front of the horse here.
In a discussion about art, there are two ways to approach (not exhaustive) and it seems that you and I are both touching on these two in some way.
I am suggesting that we look at the ‘how’ and the ‘why’ of signifying ‘art’ and ‘good art’. We will figuring out the definition as it emerges in various ways, but to do so ‘as a whole’ we will need to try and shed off as much pre-conceived ideas about what we are investigating, otherwise we will inadvertently define what we are seeking before we go looking for it. What does it mean to leave it undefined? Simply, it means to be open to another (on to infinite) possible definitions. Yet, in order to do this, we will have to give up the ‘ought’ we feel in our own definition; we do not have to forsake it entirely, just suspend it.
It sounds to me that you are suggesting that we just take on each other’s definition and debate them accordingly. By dialoguing we will uncover our own definitions and help each other uncover theirs. This method can also work, but it depends upon all of us taking each other as serious as we take ourselves; it also demands that we are willing to learn each other’s conceptual language regarding art. In other words, it means we open up the forum to listen to everyone tell their story, define good art and then respond.
I think your way is the longer way, but that does not make it wrong. I just think that it depends upon too much willingness for everyone to listen, learn and take in. In the end we will not so much have a working definition of ‘art’ or ‘good art’ we will simply have everyone’s take on the matter.
What if our definitions do not overlap at all?
For instance you said:
We will debate “in order to uncover what is UNIVERSALLY "good art," and then what makes it good to each of us.”
But does not this already assume that there is something universal? Why begin with something already assumed? Why not start prior to it being universal and ask whether or not art can or should be considered universal?
In the case of your method, such assumptions would be active but covered up. The reasoning behind your position would be powered by things unknown (for example your pursuit of a universal definition of art).
Leif said:
“I am suggesting that we still need to agree upon what "good" means before we do these two steps.”
This is where I think you have the cart in front of the horse. To define ‘good’ prior to discussing how to define ‘art’ and ‘good art’ would be to do the work before doing the work. If, however, you mean that we need to have another open possibility for ‘good’ then I agree. The amended starting point will be as follows:
What is good: anything possible.
What is art: anything possible.
What is good art: anything possible.
Goal: to say something about art in general
Not the goal: to define a definition of ‘good art’ which has ‘ought-ness’
In other words, we take as our starting point for this discussion: anything possible in an attempt to suspend our pre-conceived notions as much as possible. You are right Leif, that we cannot fully suspend them, but we can try.
In a sense then, I am suggesting we do my method, even though I know we will inevitably fall into doing your method. Yet I think having this starting point and the goal will provide the best chances for a good dialogue.
But I do not want to quibble about methods. So this is not me saying your method is wrong. Your objections are noted and you may bring them up again if you wish. But to progress this before it becomes lame, I will proceed onward with my own agenda.
In other words, give me a chance to show you my method, even if you do not agree.
Post a Comment
<< Home