I've recently become fascinated with Man Ray and Robert Rauschenberg and I don't know why. I have no intention of becoming an expert on art so I am not bothering to look up the theory behind their mixed media creations. Even if they had one, I'm not sure it would interest me. I'm more interested in what my reaction to art says about me. Art for me is a tool for self-discovery. What the artist or art critic says about the work might be interesting, but mostly irrelevant to me.
I came up with this after watching several documentaries about Andy Warhol. In one, his brother says that he became very ill when he was 9 or 10. His mother took loving care of him and nursed him back to health. She would daily feed him Campbell's soup from the familiar red and white labeled can. That's when I found my answer: Art is personal. What the artist hopes for is that the viewer will have a similar reaction and appreciate it the way the artist does. He succeeded with his Campbell soup can series to say the least.
This essay would have been 10x better if the author had included at least one concrete example of every category they were attempting to use in their framework; eg
> Art that is good and to your taste
> Art that is bad and to your taste
> Art that is good and not to your taste
> Art that is bad and not to your taste.
Just tell me what you mean so that I can figure out whether I agree or not, please!
As good writers expand their audience, they slowly narrow the things they consider self-explanatory, because the wider your audience, the fewer shared understandings they all have.
The art of explanation, and communication, is finding enlightening ways to make sure your audience understands your frame, even if some will find it repetitive, while others to stretch to grasp it.
I don't think examples would be repetitive, I think they'd be counterproductive because the tastes of the audience are varied and that would confound the point of the categorization. To the extent that the examples have explanatory power, they'd be explaining the author's taste in art, which isn't relevant.
"But in conversation you will be unable to speak with others who do not share your tastes, you will be unable to defend these tastes beyond asserting that you like what you like, and you will be unable to understand the weakness in what you like because what you like is good, and what you do not like is not good, and that is the totality of your understanding of art."
The art world is already so off-putting, nice how the above tone of conversation doubles down on it. Can hardly get any more snobby. Modern art is a scam. It's ugly low skill garbage where winners are selected by jury, a type of incest.
In similar vain, all our buildings and infra are butt ugly.
How pathetic is that when archeologists dig up artifacts once belonging to the oldest of civilizations, their art is stunning and way ahead of us. We've artistically devolved, effectively to a state of no art. Which we then mask with bullshit like "art can't be defined", "it's in the eye of the beholder".
This framework and article don’t just apply to traditional painting art. This applies to any art: video games, movies, TV shows, books, even web design. Discussion of all of these things would be elevated if people can separate what is good and bad from their own preferences.
It's really impossible to separate good and bad are from your own subjective opinion, as there is no true objective criteria that you can judge art by. There are criteria that can be chosen -- for example, how did the artist apply light to their painting -- but these criteria 1. depend on the specific kind of art (in the same vain, not all paintings utilize light in the same way or for the same purpose) and 2. are inherently subjective because they are being chosen by a subjective being.
The closest we can maybe come to being able to objectively judging art is as a collective/society saying that some art is good, and that the opinion holds true over time.
But that sentence isn't arguing for the notion of some "absolute good art". If I had to criticize it, it would be to say it doesn't go far enough by still accepting the concept of good vs bad art, whereas I think interesting discussions are multidimensional.
For example, why do you defend archeological architecture? Are the pyramids "good" because they are opulent? That sounds like a sensible stance at a glance, but then what of the Burj Khalifa?
Is Calvin and Hobbes not acclaimed? Is it not art? What of obscure manga about gender identity?
Why is Turning Red controversial? Who is it relatable to, and does that matter?
Suddenly equating one's opinion w/ "good vs bad" seems superficial. There's historical context, there's political commentary, and commentary on the commentary, and how that shapes the rest of the contemporary works.
I believe there is a category error when we try to say anything about art as art is a mode of being or a mode of experience which cannot be put into words, the same way we can't talk about what the color red looks like or explain what the sea or the sky look like. They can only be experienced. Now, when I see someone talking about "art", there is probably a hidden word next to it they are referring to. It could be art "industry" or art "people" or art "culture" but never art in itself. Even what i'm saying now is not about art, i'm really talking about art "discourse" and art "experience". But they're still away from the thing in itself which cannot be put into words. You just feel it and when it's felt, you can call that art and noone has to agree with you.
To speak meaningfully about art you only need to expand your understanding of what constitutes art. "Thoughtful" conversations on art have nothing to do with brush strokes or color palettes or even taste. Qualifying art as "good" or "bad" is a subjective measure you probably should've left in middle school. And realistically, you'll never really know what is "good" or "bad" art without years of exposure to the ideas and thoughts that go into the work.
I don't agree, and I suppose this is just my opinion but I just tend to dislike the idea that art is in the eye of the beholder.
I think we've extended the use of the word art too far. In my opinion art is really just paintings and sculptures. Good art involves a lot of skill, eg: years of practice, attention to detail, sophisticated processes, careful choice of mediums, tasteful composition, and choice of subject matter. While a lot of this stuff is opinionated there are definitely rules to a lot of these things. There are essentially guidelines that have log existed for measuring an artists ability to capture color, shapes, light, and movement. Even with more modern styles like van Gogh and Monet these rules applied.
At some point we threw this out the window with the post modern movement and said art can be anything, becoming more focused on the cleverness and profound underlying message that this new "art" contained rather than the skill, dedication, and aesthetics that went into it.
Let's say you see tens or hundreds of works by artists who qualify ("years of practice, attention to detail, sophisticated processes, careful choice of mediums, tasteful composition, and choice of subject matter"). Do you think you'd describe all the works as "good"?
Seems doubtful.
Or maybe you would say they are indeed all "good", but not equally good. Or maybe each night be "good and...." some other quality, varying between the works.
So what are those qualities that might distinguish between all those "good" works? And might you see if they apply to other forms of visual art? Perhaps those qualities might find a fuller or more varied expression in other media?
> At some point we threw this out the window with the post modern movement and said art can be anything
I remember the first time I walked into a gallery and saw that someone had stenciled "FUCK" on the wall and the docent was smugly explaining about how artistically creative it was. Nah, sometimes a "FUCK" is just a "FUCK."
So-called modern art is, at best, a money laundering scheme, and other applications go downhill from there.
That's not to say there aren't tons of gifted and talented artists making art today, they just aren't who you're going to see in the galleries.
What you appreciate is the "craft" of art. Which is great, the work of talented artists that are able to craft amazing scenes and stories is truly beautiful. Eventually though, you need something more than just the aesthetics of it all.
I think its safe to argue that after thousands of years of art, we (the viewer) evolved to want more from it all, and the art world responded in kind.
A really subversive piece of art work (Ai Weiwei) is a lot more stimulating than a beautiful portrait (Rembrandt).
In my opinion photography is close but still distinct enough that I would call it separate from art, film takes this even furthur. Cooking is way different from art, sure you can add the word "arts" after anything, but all it's really saying is that the thing is being done in a creative manner...
I don't think I've ever heard such a circumscribed definition of art before. Did you get this conception of art from somewhere or is it just a personal redefinition of the word?
I get where you are coming from, but to me it's like saying a painting is "visual music" or to call a painter who doesn't make music a musician, those are just two totally different things.
My main criticism here is the overextension of the word "art". It's often used to describe something as "creative", "tasteful", "well made", "pretty", or even just "really good". But that doesn't mean something is actually art. In my opinion real art is like a good view, it's a carefully crafted physical object that's only purpose is to be nice to look at, nothing else. And a real artist must make real art to truly be one.
If you want to call something art as an expression then that's totally fine, I just think it's ridiculous to say music is literally art.
What do you base this idea that “art” should only include sculptures and painting. Some cursory googling into the etymology and history of the word suggest it was often used in even more broad senses, describing things probably neither of us would consider “art”.
> Qualifying art as "good" or "bad" is a subjective measure you probably should've left in middle school
Judging good from bad requires hubris, and a strong internalized belief in some kind of inalienable order. The inability to distinguish good from bad is an inability to distinguish between virtue and vice, wholesome and depraved, worthwhile and worthless. In other words, someone who distinguishes between good and bad takes on the role of judge and all the responsibilities that entails. The one who doesn't, abdicates this responsibility, and thus frees themselves from accountability. Which is cool. But lame.
Judging art is harmless. So dare be a judge in the presence of art. It is strangely liberating.
> And realistically, you'll never really know what is "good" or "bad" art without years of exposure to the ideas and thoughts that go into the work.
That's a premise, which is relatively modern. With art, you can just known in your bones when something is good, and when something is bad. When in the presence of "good" art, there's a gravity you can physically not escape. That feeling can be intellectualized, of course, it makes for fun dinner conversations. Nonetheless, it is absolute.
All that said, the article is actually pretty good (although it is not to my taste).
> someone who distinguishes between good and bad takes on the role of judge and all the responsibilities that entails. The one who doesn't, abdicates this responsibility, and thus frees themselves from accountability.
Nah :)
Someone can judge a work as "good" or "bad" then shrug off any "responsibility" e.g. by dismissing further discussion.
Equally someone might judge a work to be neither good not bad but something else -- disruptive, satirical, insightful, humble, obsequious -- and willingly take "responsibility" for their judgement, i.e. defend, debate, discuss, modify it.
> Judging art is harmless.
This is strongly dependent on context. To someone's face? As a politician?
> So dare be a judge in the presence of art. It is strangely liberating.
> Qualifying art as "good" or "bad" is a subjective measure you probably should've left in middle school.
And this notion is precisely one I reject. The author himself makes the distinction between art one likes and good art, though he doesn't offer an explicit metaphysical explanation and I wish to stay clear of any kind of relativism that may be implied. (My initial reading allows for competing interpretations of the article.)
For instance, if we take the example of the fine arts, we must distinguish between beauty and taste. Beauty is objective (and as a transcendental, is to be identified with the transcendentals of the good and the true). It concerns a thing's perfection in relation to some telos, some form. Taste, on the other hand, concerns one's subjective experience of pleasure experienced in the reception of a thing. This is why we can, in principle, speak of someone having poor taste or refined taste. Poor taste is undiscerning and lacking in sensitivity, even going so far as to prefer vulgarity to refinement. If beauty were a mere matter of taste, then we could not speak of good or bad taste, or of garishness and the sublime, except as a glorified way of saying "I like this, but not that; this pleases me, that does not". I do not accept this view, though it is the received and conventional view today. A shabby and nihilistic view rooted, no doubt, in our Cartesian inheritance.
Now, this doesn't automatically mean that there can be no debate about the beauty of an art piece. Indeed, the very possibility of debate presupposes a distinction between beauty and taste, between the objective and the subjective reception of a thing. What it does mean is that aesthetic judgement is, like moral discernment and logical reasoning, something that requires not just capacity, but something that must be refined and perfected. If we debate such things—the good, the true and the beautiful—we do so with a view of conforming ourselves to the truth, and in the case of beauty, our tastes with the beautiful, just as through ethics we seek to conform ourselves to the good.
This essay [1] by Peter Schjeldahl, originally given as a lecture to the School of Visual Arts in NY, gives, in my opinion, a much more poignant treatment of the subject of this blogpost.
GPT-3 has a style. It's coherent blithering somewhat unconnected to the real world. This, not coincidentally, is the same style popular with bloggers, pundits, and people who have the need to create text without having much to say. GPT-3, unanchored to any underlying world model, shows this style in its purest form.
After you've read enough GPT-3 output, unanchored blithering becomes painfully obvious. The parent article does look like that.
This is a repost, by the way. The same article was posted on HN two weeks ago.[1]
