Arguably 99.99999% of all art is pure and steaming crap, the vast majority of which gets pinched off and discarded down the toilet of obscurity before anyone but the creator of that particular crap has a chance to see / hear / taste / feel / smell it.
Of what actually makes it out into public view as “art”, I’d say way less than 90% is, actually, crap.
This all seems to be based on the underlying assumption that art has an objective and measurable quality (or level of crapness, if you prefer). But I suspect many people would disagree with that premise, and even if they did agree, they would probably disagree on how to measure it.
If you replace crap with no value, it becomes clearer.
Most art has no value to anyone. People would not have it even for free. That's why most artists struggle and do something else to pay for their living.
But under that argument, any art that has ever earned money (such as a movie or song that sold a single copy, or a video that earned a single penny of advertising revenue, or a busker who gets given a few quid) has value.
And in many cases the value of of a piece of art is not about the quality of the artwork itself, but the perception of it's value. I wonder how many people would genuinely want a Picasso in their home if he was an unknown artist and it had no financial value or bragging rights?
But if you only value art by jow profitable it is, that seems to be completely different the point the article is trying to make about quality. And you'd probably come to the conclusion that Mickey Mouse or Pokémon is the epitome of art, which I suspect many would disagree with.
Of course. Art is a social construct and context dependent. There is no need to art mysticism where the works of art are somehow inherently valuable or
meaningful.
> Mickey Mouse or Pokémon is the epitome of art, which I suspect many would disagree with.
"Art is anything you can get away with" – Marshall McLuhan (Andy Warhol just McLuhan and put the idea into practice)
I don't mean that in some kind of "mystical" way, but in that other people perceive it to be valuable.
For instance, a Picasso painting has very little intrinsic value to me. Given a choice, I wouldn't have one in my house. But the fact that other people are would be willing to pay me thousands (millions?) for it means that it does have value to me (because I can sell it) - but only in the same way that a gold bar or some share certificates do.
Whereas the exact same painting by an unknown artist would have no value to me, because I don't want it and I can't sell it.
Yes...but at least in high-functioning countries, "crap" food, housing, and such are okay at meeting basic human needs.
Vs. crap art, crap movies, and crap music are more suitable for "liquidation galleries", The Other Kind of Horror Week at the local arthouse theater, and torturing captured enemy spies.
My wife and I like beautiful skies. Not necessarily spectacular, just beautiful. If I were to say 90% of skies were crap you wouldn't even bother discussing it. So it is with this. An article about nothing.
Of what actually makes it out into public view as “art”, I’d say way less than 90% is, actually, crap.