What is objectively good art?

[oldbadger]

It's not "undefinable" as you keep wanting to assert. It's not whatever you want it to be or whatever you think it is. It is what it is. You wouldn't tell a doctor that medicine is whatever you think it is, or a lawyer that the law is whatever you want it to be. So stop telling yourself and others that art is whatever you think it is, or say it is. Art is what it is regardless of what you think or say. Just as are all those other human endeavors.

Oh, PX, this is so messed up!
Of course it is my right to tell a doctor what I think about medicine! At the instant that any doctor tells me that s/he is right because s/he is a doctor we are immediately presented with a perfect example of 'ad hominem'.
Of course I would tell a lawyer about some law, have often done so, and have often been correct. Lawyers argue against lawyers as well, as do doctors against doctors.

You have no rights to be correct about anything unless you can show a case, a situation. To argue that you are right because you are an artist is not only 'ad hominem', but

I'm not. I telling you what art is. And what art is not.

I am waiting for your definition of 'what art is'.

It's not the function nor purpose of art, or artists, to give you joy or make you feel your emotions. And as an artist, I find it a bit insulting that you think this is my job.

Trust me in this one thing....... if your work did not satisfy our emotions together (I'm married) then your work would not be seen in our home.
All the world might trample a path to your door for your work, but if we didn't like it we wouldn't want it.

If my or any artist's artworks do that for you, that's fine; we're happy for you. But that isn't why we do what we do. And doing that does not define what we do as good art or bad art or art or not art.

This reminds me of an artist colleague of mine who would have very heated moments about a public that didn't know anything, were not bright enough to see the value in what he did. Nobody wanted his work.

Now please give us your definition of 'what art is'.

 

[Secret Chief]

Nobody wanted his work.

In his lifetime Van Gogh sold only one more piece of art than me.

 

[Martin]

What is objectively good art?

Convince me that art can be objectively good.

Have we defined "good" yet? Does it mean something which provokes a response?

 

[Revoltingest]

The deeper meaning of whose work, Koons or Warhol?

Koons seems to be telling America, “your culture is gaudy, infantile, quasi pornographic trash”.

Warhol, well; hard to sum him up in a sentence. A lot of observations around the theme of “image” though, superficiality vs substance, the disconnect between the seer and the seen.

I don't know Koons.
Warhol's stuff just struck me as meh....
Like kids painting trash cans to look like giant beer cans.

 

[Revoltingest]

In his lifetime Van Gogh sold only one more piece of art than me.

He sold you?

 

[Secret Chief]

He sold you?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What is objectively good art?

Convince me that art can be objectively good.

Depends what you mean by "good".
If by that you mean "aesthetically pleasing", then no. As that would be subjective.

If on the other hand you mean "good" as in what art is supposed to be about, then I'ld say any work of art that moves people one way or the other, which captures or draws out emotions one way or another.

The more easier it is for the work to achieve that, the "better" the work is, I'ld say.

One doesn't have to "like" a specific art form or whatever in order to appreciate its artistic value in that sense.

Would that be "objective"? No. Not in the sense that it would be such still in the absence of any human minds. In the absence of such, a beautiful sculpture is just an oddly shaped piece of rock.

Any human concept or construct will always be subjective as such.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Without there being a few rules in art, I can draw this in 10-15 seconds like I did, and call it 'art':

View attachment 54096

And I bet there is at least one hipster out there who can be tricked into believing that is a drawing by some famous street artist and the hipster will go to town with a symbolic analysis of what the green scrapping across the head means and derive some majorly deep message to human kind from it and call it absolutely fabulous and pay a big bag of money for it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Art often employs craft (it does not have to). But that does not make craft, art.

Duh.

Medicine often employs logic, but that does not make logic, medicine.

Duh.

Justice often employs evidence, but that does not make evidence, justice.

Duh.

Art often employs humor, but that doesn't make humor, art.

Duh.

Art often employs decoration, but that doesn't make decoration, art.

Duh.

Art often employs singing, dancing, acting, writing, painting, drawing, carving, building, design, and a whole lot of other activities. But that does not make all those activities art.

Duh.

Well, that was easy.
You never even addressed my definition of art
as being about the manner of communication.

 

[Revoltingest]

The more accurate term for "classical music" is art music. "Classical" is a certain period of art music (approx 1730-1820).

I know that classical is a particular period.
But "classical music" is a common term for a wider range.
"Art music" sounds strange....suggesting the "art song"...
...those awful (IMO) lieder by Schubert.
Besides, all kinds of music could be "art".

 

[Secret Chief]

And I bet there is at least one hipster out there who can be tricked into believing that is a drawing by some famous street artist and the hipster will go to town with a symbolic analysis of what the green scrapping across the head means and derive some majorly deep message to human kind from it and call it absolutely fabulous and pay a big bag of money for it.

The "business" side I find ridiculous. I'm sure many people will have seen (on programmes such as Fake or Fortune, or Antiques Roadshow) examples where a piece of art which has yet to be ascribed to a particular artist has a potential value of X or Y, depending on who the artist turns out to be. And yet the piece of work remains the same. On the programme I watched last night a small sculpture was investigated to discover whether or not it was by Henry Moore. The art expert confidently declared that if it turned out to be by Moore it would be "worth" 1 million pounds. If it turned out not to be by him, then it would only be worth 1 thousand pounds. Cobblers.

 

[Revoltingest]

I made a joke about your grammar...."me" was the objective
case. Had you used "I", the nominative case, it would've
implied a following verb about your making the sale.


My annoying pedantry from yesterday continues into a new day!

 

[Revoltingest]

The "business" side I find ridiculous. I'm sure many people will have seen (on programmes such as Fake or Fortune, or Antiques Roadshow) examples where a piece of art which has yet to be ascribed to a particular artist has a potential value of X or Y, depending on who the artist turns out to be. And yet the piece of work remains the same. On the programme I watched last night a small sculpture was investigated to discover whether or not it was by Henry Moore. The art expert confidently declared that if it turned out to be by Moore it would be "worth" 1 million pounds. If it turned out not to be by him, then it would only be worth 1 thousand pounds. Cobblers.

It's little more than autograph collecting.

 

[Erebus]

And I bet there is at least one hipster out there who can be tricked into believing that is a drawing by some famous street artist and the hipster will go to town with a symbolic analysis of what the green scrapping across the head means and derive some majorly deep message to human kind from it and call it absolutely fabulous and pay a big bag of money for it.

One of the things I found hilarious was the artwork of Pierre Brassau. He was a chimpanzee who had been taught to splash paint onto canvas. Apparently he was more interested in eating the paint than actually painting with it.

His random splodges were presented to some art critics who were unaware of the fact that Brassau was a chimp. One of them said, "Brassau paints with powerful strokes, but also with clear determination. His brush strokes twist with furious fastidiousness. Pierre is an artist who performs with the delicacy of a ballet dancer." Another said, "only an ape could have done this."

 

[RestlessSoul]

I don't know Koons.
Warhol's stuff just struck me as meh....
Like kids painting trash cans to look like giant beer cans.

Walking through the Warhol exhibition at the Tate Modern last year was like taking a walk through the 2nd half of the 20th Century. Elvis, Marilyn, riots in Detroit, Mao tse Tung, Nixon, various Kennedys, it was all there, next to the industrially packaged tinned food.

 

[RestlessSoul]

The "business" side I find ridiculous. I'm sure many people will have seen (on programmes such as Fake or Fortune, or Antiques Roadshow) examples where a piece of art which has yet to be ascribed to a particular artist has a potential value of X or Y, depending on who the artist turns out to be. And yet the piece of work remains the same. On the programme I watched last night a small sculpture was investigated to discover whether or not it was by Henry Moore. The art expert confidently declared that if it turned out to be by Moore it would be "worth" 1 million pounds. If it turned out not to be by him, then it would only be worth 1 thousand pounds. Cobblers.

Banksie's are getting ripped off walls before the aerosol paint has even had time to dry. And hardly anyone knows who he is.

 

[Secret Chief]

It's little more than autograph collecting.

I know that classical is a particular period.
But "classical music" is a common term for a wider range.
"Art music" sounds strange....suggesting the "art song"...
...those awful (IMO) lieder by Schubert.
Besides, all kinds of music could be "art".

Hey, don't argue with Wiki. I realise what the common term is, I use it myself. It just conjures up ancient white men in curly wigs.

 

[Secret Chief]

I made a joke about your grammar...."me" was the objective
case. Had you used "I", the nominative case, it would've
implied a following verb about your making the sale.


My annoying pedantry from yesterday continues into a new day!

Me am not worthy.

 

[Secret Chief]

Banksie's are getting ripped off walls before the aerosol paint has even had time to dry. And hardly anyone knows who he is.

Don't tell anyone, but it's me.

 

[Secret Chief]

One of the things I found hilarious was the artwork of Pierre Brassau. He was a chimpanzee who had been taught to splash paint onto canvas. Apparently he was more interested in eating the paint than actually painting with it.

His random splodges were presented to some art critics who were unaware of the fact that Brassau was a chimp. One of them said, "Brassau paints with powerful strokes, but also with clear determination. His brush strokes twist with furious fastidiousness. Pierre is an artist who performs with the delicacy of a ballet dancer." Another said, "only an ape could have done this."

Reminds me of a piece of music called Bubbles by Alexander Comitas. Or 4'33" by John Cage. Tricky thing, art.