In that individual opinion of a given work of art, in what ever medium, is subjective, what really dictates whether something is 'good', or at least 'of merit'? If I was shown a late Picasso and asked, simply, if I liked it, my answer would be a resounding no, and yet no art critic is ever going to say Picasso couldn't paint. But if I don't like it, then how does it have any more merit than something painted by a chimpanzee? Or, for instance, what is it about Hirst's sheep in formaldehyde that qualifies it as 'good' ? I don't think I'm getting my point across very well, but what I'm trying to do here is discover the what, hows and whys a given work of art is considered 'officially' good - despite varying subjective opinion.
Well I think there is a large amount of opinion involved. For example, as you said, you don't like the works of Picasso, so if you went to a art show and they were auctioning off one of his works, would you buy it? I'd say probably not, so in that case the piece of art is basically worthless to you. But obviously, a lot of people like it, or it wouldn't be so popular. Then again, there are also rules within any art medium that can determine whether it's "good" or not, and those play a role as well. Although I still don't understand how works like this become popular. It's kinda cool to look at, but I mean come on, the "artist" literally just splashed paint on a canvas.
Most people would assume a work is good based off of whether the majority like it or not but I think that's ignorant. The majority loved The Avengers whereas movies like The Zero Theorem are almost unheard of. Just like everyone loves Metallica or Linkin Park but only very few people like Pain of Salvation and Opeth. With my own work, I'll look at a story differently when it gets published but there are things I've gotten published that I look at now like "eh, it was alright." Just like there is plenty of unpublished material that I have that makes me say, "damn, I'm surprised it's not accepted yet." There could always be room to make things better but it just matters on the product really. It truly is subjective, hahaha.
One of the first ever pieces of CW - I read on wf.org - was penned by an Australian geezer in the hum(or) section. It was dire and so horrible, horrible - and so long ago the author must be dead. 'Then, when no one was looking I took a big shit in the middle of the art gallery. Some bloke came up and said he wanted to buy it. You wanna buy my shit? I said. 'Absolutely,' replied this faggot in a suit and tie, a right poncer. 'Well how you gonna get my shit under your arm, eh? heh heh...tell me that, with a forklift?' Fackin' modern art, facken spit.'
Yes, it's all down to individual opinion when all's said and one, but this still doesn't get to the nub of the question. And that is what qualifies 'merit' in a given work of art? Let's go back to the Picasso analogy. There's a Picasso hung on a wall. On one side is Joe Bloggs (a factory worker) and on the other is a world famous art critic. Joe Bloggs looks at the painting and says, "That's crap that is! He's got the eyes on the same side of the head. I've got a five-year old daughter could do better than that!" Now there's not an art critic in the world who's going to respect Joe Bloggs opinion, but why? Okay, so Joe Bloggs doesn't have any art degrees, he knows nothing about art or the artist, but what he does know is that he doesn't like it. Now I don't consider myself totally ignorant when it comes to art, but I certainly couldn't explain to Joe Bloggs why his views would not be valued by anyone in the profession, only that I'm sure they wouldn't.
Come on @Jud, you don't want to be one of those blokes. There's a whole narrative of art, history. Granted, 'artists' can be irritating, or superior, and we all have our spikes of prejudice - mine include photographers - and actors, and visionaries who can't hold a pencil, but y'know - to coin a phrase - put it in perspective.
Oh, I'm not. Far from it. I'd be closer to the art critic in my example. Just playing the Devil's advocate.
I'm a fan of much of Picasso's work. So I would ask you, why does your opinion have any more merit than that of said chimpanzee? Or why does mine? You answered it yourself: It's opinion, and it's subjective. Neither opinion is right or wrong. If you want to know why people consider Picasso an important artist, I can answer that for you: groundbreaking, in terms of style and colors. At that time it was difficult to achieve the colors he got with the paints that were available. And his paintings look easier to do than they actually are. Try to make one yourself. Especially his backgrounds. I'm a fan of Jackson Pollock's work. I always liked his stuff--the vibrancy of the colors, and the effect of movement he managed to get. You said it's kinda cool to look at. Go see one in person. Seeing it in person magnifies that perception of movement. Standing in front of them, you'd swear some of those paintings are alive, with a pulse. When I look at his work, I always hear music in my head...Vivaldi's Four Seasons, Bach, sometimes thrash metal. Again, to you I'd say try to make one yourself. The way the paint is layered yet doesn't turn muddy is kind of a feat. For the most part, each color stays crisp in the layering. But really, it's the effect of movement, and the fact that in person, his paintings don't look flat, like paint...they look more like multiple layers of string or something. And some of them, because of the feeling of movement and "aliveness", bring out unexpected emotions when you see them in person.
Exactly. But I still maintain that within the establishment there's an over-riding air of opinion being passed across as fact. "This work by Picasso is a masterpiece because bla bla bla..." Because why? Because you say it is? Because it has technical merit? Because as an art critic you daren't say otherwise? It's only bits of paper (certificates, qualifications) and reputation that permits someone to announce a work of art as officially good, rather than simply give their own opinion on it. That said I've now lost focus on what I set out to do with this thread. It was never meant as an art critic bashing. Truth is I accept there are people better qualified than I to pass judgement on a work of art, but I was trying to establish... Oh, I don't know. I can't feel my fingers. Or my nose.
To which I would again say, why not? Because you say so? There's no difference. It's simply reverse snobbism.
But I'm not the one passing my opinion off as fact. I'm simply expressing an opinion. An art critic explains why something is a masterpiece.
Spoiler: For size I did this a while back just to see how it would turn out. All I did was paint a canvas black and then splash white paint on it for about 20 minutes. I'm sorry, I still don't see the appeal of this, but that's just my opinion, and I respect yours
It will be interesting to remind you of this conversation if someday your writing is lauded by a major critic. We'll see how you feel about their opinions then, my friend. I'm not an art critic. I do know the technical reasons why Picasso was considered an important artist, and I know what I personally like. But I sure as hell am not going to tell someone else they're wrong for liking or not liking something. I despise reverse snobbism as much as I do run of the mill snobbery.
Firstly I find 'modern' art to be quite shit. Yes I say that with a conviction towards that which gets sat next to the classical pieces that hipsters think are shit. A shoe cannot be art, a fucking rock you found in the middle of nowhere is not art, and well filling a can with your own shit is most certainly self explanatory. Or my personal favorite, painting a border on a canvas, or better yet just slopping white chunky paint on one. Sure says high art when a woman drops eggs filled with paint from her cooch onto a canvas, or that guy that shoots paint from his ass. Hell there was even a urinal that made the rounds for fucks sake. Honestly what the hell happened? Its like the more advanced we got we regressed in talent and standards. So while I may not enjoy a Pablo Picasso, it is infinitely better than the shit we get now-a-days. (End Rant)
You needed about 30 more layers there, dude. ;-) ETA: Pollock spent way more than 20 minutes. But you gave it a shot, which is more than most who rant about him. ;-)
Of course it's individual opinion. But we don't have 7 billion different types of "good" books, representing the individual opinions of every single person on the planet, do we. We got some sort of standards and we can compare each book to those and we can guess in advance if a book is going to be generally accepted as "good". Otherwise publishing would be a completely random job, each book would have a 50:50 chance to make money or lose money. But the publishing is earning money. So how do they know in advance? Well it must be because they can guess which is "good" and which isn't worth it. You have a situation where one editor has to have the same opinion as those thousands (or millions) of readers who are going to buy that book. Then that opinion isn't so individual then, it must be kinda general. Large groups of people must have the same opinion of what's good and what isn't. Hmm....
I wouldn't say that's entirely accurate when it comes to publishing. I'm not sure 'Good' and 'What will sell' always go hand in hand.
I really don't think "good" is a useful term in relation to art of any sort. For writing, I like "effective". It acknowledges that different works have different goals, different ways of meeting those goals, etc. I think I'd probably also see value in "important" for some works? "Groundbreaking", "influential", "significant", maybe "sophisticated", "memorable"... lots of other descriptors. But "good"? For me it says both too much and too little to be of any use.
As I say in an earlier post, I think I've failed miserably in my attempt to get across my point. The moment's gone now and I'm ready to move on, although @Spencer1990 came as close to answering my question as anyone, when he said that it is institutionalism which is to blame.
Why not? Someone took time and effort to design and create something that serves a specific purpose. What makes it any different than this: Spoiler: for size Or this: Spoiler: for size
