I'm not so much interested in whether you agree, although that's fine as a response, I'm more interested in your thinking about the writing. — Sam26

I don't have strong knowledge of or interest in linguistic analysis, so I'm going to make comments from the point of view of an editor.

General comments:

• I had a bit of trouble following how one idea lead to another and how they might all fit together. Do you have an outline. I think that would help. As you note, you plan to add more upfront to describe the goal of the writing. This might help address this issue when you add it.
• I don't think the first person plural point of view works very well here. It feels too informal for a serious and somewhat technical subject.
• I think there are a lot of unnecessary words here, i.e. words that don't add any information or insight, e.g. unneeded modifiers, "extremely important." It would make sense for you to go back and be fairly brutal about removing words you can't explicitly justify. In my own writing, I have found this tends to make the whole text clearer and easier to read.
• Check for awkward phrasing and grammar mistakes. I'll try to note any I see.

Specific comments:

First paragraph

Since language is the tool that allows us to make knowledge claims, it would follow that we should have a basic understanding of how language works. Specifically, how do we learn the meanings of our words or concepts? The importance of understanding how we learn the meaning of our concepts is crucial to understanding how concepts work. And, since much of what we will be examining in these musings is about knowledge claims, it is extremely important to be as accurate as possible about what it means to have knowledge. This brings us to the subject of linguistic analysis, and its relation to what it means to know. — Sam26

What do you mean by "knowledge claims?"
What do you mean by "linguistic analysis?"

Clarify. Maybe language is a tool that allows us to make knowledge claims, it isn't the only one. Are you saying that is the primary purpose of language to make knowledge claims? That doesn't seem right. If that's what you are trying to say, you should clarify and justify it.

There is a whole lot of work out there by linguists, psychologists, cognitive scientists, etc. that talks about how language is structured, how it works, and how people learn it. Are you familiar with that? That kind of information seems like it would be indispensable to this kind of discussion.

"Musings" is too chatty. Also unnecessary.

That's as far as I'm going to go unless you tell me that the kind of thing I'm providing is what you are looking for. If so, I can go through the rest. If not, we can leave it there.

It is formulations 1 and 3 that I had in mind, and I think Kolakowski probably had them in mind as well.

I think 2 is different. If, for instance, I decide not to vote, am I “using other people as a means to an end”? I don't think so. I wouldn't mind, in the case of veganism, to include sentient non-human animals as moral agents in 2 to be honest, but that doesn't change the fact that, in a sense, a single person's choice to buy meat probably won't change the future production. — Amalac

For what it's worth - This, from the "Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy" article on Kant's Moral Philosophy:

Kant claimed that all of these CI formulas were equivalent. Unfortunately, he does not say in what sense. What he says is that these “are basically only so many formulations of precisely the same law, each one of them by itself uniting the other two within it,” and that the differences between them are “more subjectively than objectively practical” in the sense that each aims “to bring an Idea of reason closer to intuition (by means of a certain analogy) and thus nearer to feeling”. He also says that one formula “follows from” another, and that the concept foundational to one formula “leads to a closely connected” concept at the basis of another formula. Thus, his claim that the formulations are equivalent could be interpreted in a number of ways.

Kant's universalization rule implies the Golden rule (role reversal). — Agent Smith

I think you're right, but I'm not sure. Are the CI and Golden rule logically or morally equivalent?

At the end I'm unsure, is Kolakowski's objection valid after all? — Amalac

I am not in any way a student of Kant, but I do find his categorical imperative provocative. Here is my understanding from Wikipedia:

Kant included three formulations for the categorical imperative:

• 1 - Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
• 2 - Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.
• 3 - Thus the third practical principle follows [from the first two] as the ultimate condition of their harmony with practical reason: the idea of the will of every rational being as a universally legislating will.

Honestly, I don't really get Formulations 1 and 3, but I love the simplicity, subtlety, and humanity of Formulation 2. So, a couple of questions. 1) Did Kant think that the three formulations are equivalent logically or morally? 2) If we used Formulation 2 rather than 1, what impact would that have on Kolakowski's argument.

I have some more thoughts, but I have to go out for a couple of hours.

To the question: What if everyone did the same? One can answer: that hypothetical scenario is irrelevant, in the real world it's almost certain that not everybody will do the same things I do, and most likely won't change their actions or decisions due to finding out about my individual actions or decisions. — Amalac

This came to mind. From Joseph Heller's "Catch 22," which I loved when I read it 45 years ago but which I'm afraid to read again in case it isn't as good as I remember:

“From now on I'm thinking only of me."

Major Danby replied indulgently with a superior smile: "But, Yossarian, suppose everyone felt that way."

"Then," said Yossarian, "I'd certainly be a damned fool to feel any other way, wouldn't I?”

The qualities you mention don't constitute a basis for the quality of art. — Raymond

Says you. — T Clark

Off course. But you say also. — Raymond

Here are some examples of the kinds of things I have said in this thread about what art is and how to judge it's quality.

I just tossed that list characteristics out off the top of my head based on the kind of things I value and that get my attention. — T Clark

Your standard of art is tougher than mine. I think you're making it more highfalutin than it needs to be. I think it makes sense to say that art is anything that someone presents for aesthetic judgement. Then we get to decide if it's good art or not. For me, that judgement is based on what I experience when I look at it. — T Clark

What constitutes good art, good music, good literature, good landscaping, good architecture, good sculpture, good... whatever is determined by the votes of everyone interested in the matter.
— Bitter Crank

I think that's an unsatisfactory answer. I'm not sure how much better I can do, but I'm going to try. — T Clark

I provide these as evidence that I've tried, and I think mostly succeeded, to be clear that my judgements are based on my personal experience of art. You, on the other hand, present your judgements as dogmatic truth

The difference here, that I feel should be made, is that you're interfacing with the Tao Te Ching in a religious sense. — Noble Dust

Not true, although it's true that I don't interface with it as a work of art. I don't think that means that my experience of the TTC is not relevant to the issue we are discussing, i.e. judging the value and quality of a work from a different time, culture, and language.

The qualities you mention don't constitute a basis for the quality of art. — Raymond

Says you.

But you were deeply moved by someone's translation of that document from an ancient language bearing scant resemblances at best to English; not by the document itself. — Noble Dust

I won't say that I am able to experience the Tao Te Ching as thoroughly as someone in China 2,500 years ago, but I am confident that Lao Tzu would recognize the connection between his experience of the phenomena described in the TTC and mine.

Indeed. Whoever told you that doesn't understand that all languages can be translated into one another. All languages are spoken by people and no language is an isolated entity without an overlap with other languages. Even mathematical language. Language separates, gives a means for identity but it doesn't isolate. — Raymond

See my response to Noble Dust, above.

Taking the discussion to ancient Chinese poetry (if it can be called that in the western sense) certainly takes things to a very specific place. I like the Tao Te Ching too, and I know you're an advocate. I won't make any comment about that specifically, but instead try to draw it back to the western Poetic tradition for ease of use. Do you agree or disagree when it comes to English poetry? — Noble Dust

To clarify, what I was trying to say is that; if I can be deeply moved and informed by a 2,500 year old document written in a language I cannot write, speak, or even understand; my ability to judge the quality of a document or other artistic work that was written 10, 100, or 500 years ago in my native language shouldn't be surprising.

These are all contingent to art. Except the narrative. The narrative is the key ingredient. If the artists knows to tell a story, then he/she is an artist. Everyone has a vision. What's so special about the artistic one? Everybody can tell the truth. What is so special about truth in art? It's not art in itself. Technical mastery comes with practice. Surprise can be distracting. For emotional insight you can go to a shrink. Children exhibit playfulness. Complexity and simplicity, just take a walk or look at the smoke blown in the wind. Idiosyncrasy, being original? That's the kill for Japanes art. Depth? Depth in the literal sense is easily learnt and turns reality in a fixed abstraction which, is in reality a weird collection of shapes in 2d. Depth? Shallow stories can be just as interesting. Going deep distracts the view from the object you go deep in. History I can learn from books or listening to people. You can learn it from people too and by watching the Nightwatch you can learn the clothes worn by the elite or the stuff used by them, even that dogs looked the same back then. — Raymond

I didn't say that the elements in my list can't be found elsewhere too. I also didn't say that including one or more or all of those elements makes art good. What I said is those elements and others are the factors that influence our experience of art, which is the basis of quality.

To an extent it still does, but the problem with poetry specifically is it's obvious reliance on language as it's very medium. So as language changes and evolves, our ability to interface with older poetry changes. We have to rely on interpretation rather than immediate apprehension. — Noble Dust

In a discussion recently, someone said that it is futile for modern English speakers to try to understand and experience the lessons and message of the Tao Te Ching. From personal experience, I know that's not true.

When we were cataloguing art for Sotheby's, we had to explain why a work was important. It is part of a tradition, a heritage and context and this can be understood to some extent and the work 'valued' accordingly. No one says this is ultimate truth but it may be part of an important system for human beings. — Tom Storm

I think the bare minimum value of a tradition is it's ability to be questioned. Through questioning, it may be done away with, or it may grow stronger. I don't have strong leanings, philosophically, in either direction. It depends on the tradition. — Noble Dust

If the value and quality of art are a function of the viewers' experience of the art, which I think they are, then tradition, culture, heritage are important because they influence and create a frame for that experience, not because they set standards of quality.

This work is clearly MUCH better than Pile of Bricks. — Bitter Crank

I think it's piles of crushed bricks - PoCB.

But I think this highlights another aspect of art and aesthetics which almost seems to be a taboo of sorts: art forms are born, they live, and they die. Poetry is dead. The novel is dying. Music is dying, actually. Shows (TV shows) are in their prime. This is just an aspect of the human experience and it's evolution. — Noble Dust

I don't buy this. You say poetry is dead but that, if it's true, just means that there is a shortage of good new poetry. It doesn't mean that good poetry can't be written now or that old poetry doesn't still have the vision, passion, and power it had in the past. Maybe TV shows are in their prime, but that doesn't mean that "Fuller House" isn't crap.

a world where we need the comfort of familiarity. — Noble Dust

The comfort of familiarity and personal preference are fine, but that's different from quality.

In college I worked as a security guard at a relatively small modern art museum. A visitor had left their grocery bags inside by the front entrance upon entering the museum (I forget if it was raining or not). Long story short, soon enough some other visitors started asking who the artist of this artwork was (the visitor’s grocery bags, that is). It was quite the rave for a little while. — javra

I think this is a really good example. It's the reverse of the P-o-B at the construction site. The P-o-B is not seen as art because, in context, it is not clear that it is intended to be judged on an aesthetic basis. The bag of groceries is judged as art because, in context, it is mistakenly assumed it is intended to be judged on an aesthetic basis.

I know it’s elitist of me - bad me - but when the emperor has no clothes there are no clothes on the emperor, irrespective of what others might affirm. — javra

Maybe so, or maybe you don't see something that others; just as perceptive, intelligent, and soulful as you; do because of your background or ignorance of the medium or style. I've always thought that Indian music sounds like screeching, but I believe that there is something of value there because people I respect experience it.

OK, I didn't get this statement then. If you don't recognize P-o-B as an intended artifact, then how would you discern it to be art? How would anybody for that matter? — javra

P-o-B looks like a pile of bricks. If I saw it in a museum, the intent of the artist that it be considered as art would probably have been clear to me. At the job site, it probably wouldn't be. As @Tom Storm noted, if it were a sculpture of the human form, I probably would recognize that it was intended as art, even at the job site.

Just because something is aesthetically pleasing does not entail that it is art. — javra

I never said that it did.

Point being, even if you find P-o-B to be aesthetic, this of itself doesn't constitute it as an artwork (from your pov). — javra

Agreed.

anything aesthetic - like a gorgeous tree - is discerned as artwork by you — javra

I never said that and I don't believe it's true.

If you were to find the work 'Equivalent V111' by Carl Andre (basically 120 house bricks arranged in a pattern) dumped on a building site it would just be a pile of bricks. If you found a Rodin sculpture dumped in the same location it would still be art despite being context free. Does this add anything to our understanding of definitions? — Tom Storm

Interesting question. First off, of course you're right. If I saw the Thinker at a construction site I would know it was art while I probably wouldn't even notice Andre's Pile-o-Bricks. Does that have a bearing on whether or not P-o-B is art? I don't think so. To me, it's the artificiality and the intent that makes something art.

I was thinking that the difference between the P-o-B and the Thinker is just a matter of quality, but that doesn't work either. I went and looked at Equivalent VIII on the web and I really liked it. In an earlier thread, "Beautiful Things," the first things I posted were these:





I think Machu Picu is just about the most beautiful thing ever created by people. Three years later I tripped across these while Google Earth exploring in the Shetland Islands in Scotland:





They are 5,000 years old for God's sake. These wonderful structures were made by stone age tribes people before Jesus. Before Aristotle or Lao Tzu. Before anyone whose name we know. Tell me those men and women didn't have souls.

Stone work does something to me. It touches me deeply. I don't know why, but I can feel the surface of the stones in the picture. Smell the dust. Taste the grit between my teeth. Feel what it's like to pick them up. Strangely enough, I can feel those same things with P-o-B, so it's probably not the right work to use as an example with me.

I tend to agree with you on this one. But, then, how else resolve the questions addressed within this thread? Namely, what "is and is not art" and "what is good art". — javra

I'm not sure what we'd find if we did a poll of the participants in this thread, but I at least have come to an understanding of what it means for me to call something "art." I have two partially overlapping definitions that I like:

[1] Art is anything offered by someone for evaluation on the basis of aesthetic standards.
[2] Art is something artificial for which the only meaning is the experience it elicits from the user/viewer/reader/listener.

I'm pretty sure you won't find them especially satisfying, but they work for me. Some of the other participants in the thread also thought they might be useful.

That leaves the question of what standards to apply to determine whether or not art is good. I have some ideas that I tried to lay out in the last few of my posts. They still need a lot of work.

this proposal is freely given for anyone to rip to shreds — javra

I won't rip it to shreds. What struck me, as an engineer, is that this is a very engineering approach to art. Engineers like to have a rational basis for what we decide. Rational in this usage means there is an objective evaluation, often a calculation, that can be performed that will come up with a reproducible answer. This kind an exercise makes us feel all warm and fuzzy. If someone asks us how we made our decision, we can point to a piece of paper and say "see."

One thing engineers need to know is when to apply engineering standards and when not too. For me, art is one of the activities where that type of standard is not the right one.

Yes, I think we are now heading somewhere. However these terms can also be recast as pejoratives. 'Simplicity' can be 'simplistic', depending upon your point of view...'Idiosyncrasy' can be 'self-indulgent' depending on your point of view. — Tom Storm

The questions remains, how do we tell if 'depth' or 'history' or 'complexity' have been achieved in a aesthetically satisfying manner? — Tom Storm

I just tossed that list characteristics out off the top of my head based on the kind of things I value and that get my attention. I've thought of several more since I wrote that post. As for "how do we tell?" - I know it when I see it. Yes, I know...That gets us nowhere. Your question is the one we're trying to answer. For me, it's the whole point of this discussion and the one on interpretation we participated in before.

I've set myself a task. I'm going to spend some time looking back over things I thought were good recently - a couple of books, something I ate, maybe "Casablanca", my favorite Christmas tree ornament, some silver plate forks and spoons I love. Good things have hooks that grab my attention and pull me in. I think you and @Reformed Nihilist are right - surprise has something to do with it. I'm going to see if I can reexperience what it feels like to be hooked. I'll see what I can come up with.

If you don't know how to identify if you've found an acceptable answer, then how do you know that engaging in the process has worked for you in figuring things out? How could you tell that you had something figured out? — Reformed Nihilist

Either you misunderstood something I said earlier or I misunderstood something you said. Either way, this seems like a fruitless direction for the discussion.

It's a process that's worked for me before when I try to figure something out.
— T Clark

How do you know? Honest question. — Reformed Nihilist

I don't understand the question.

Ok, but why must these things be accounted for? — Reformed Nihilist

In my judgement, those are some of the things worth considering when evaluating the quality of a work of art. Those are things that, to my mind, will have a positive effect on my experience. They're not the only things. I could make the list longer.

It seems to me that it's pointless to try to answer a question if we don't have any way of knowing what a satisfactory answer looks like. — Reformed Nihilist

It doesn't seem pointless to me.

Don't mistake me, I'm not criticizing your attempts at answers in favor of mine, I'm criticizing the process. — Reformed Nihilist

It's a process that's worked for me before when I try to figure something out.

Government officials and employees sometimes put their investments in blind trusts to avoid conflict of interest. They give up control, or even knowledge, of how their investments are managed for the period they are in office. Seems like a good plan for the US Congress.

If you don't have anything by which to decide sufficiency, then how do you know that what I offered is insufficient? How do you play a game when you don't know what it means to win? — Reformed Nihilist

In a previous post, I listed some of the factors I think go into deciding whether or not a particular work of art is high quality:

There's artistic vision, truth, technical mastery, surprise, emotional insight, playfulness, complexity, narrative, simplicity, clarity, idiosyncrasy, depth, history, humor, community.... and on and on. — T Clark

Your formulation doesn't address those elements. As I also noted:

I don't know how to put all that together. — T Clark

That's what we're here for. At least that's why I'm here.

Personal opinion and public acclaim do not make any art at all, any more than a stadium full of cheering fans make plays on the field. — Bitter Crank

Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying in your previous post.

The artist puts all that together. IF he or she is successful in putting it all together really well, there will be individual and public acclaim for 'a great work of art'. Probably -- it might take quite some time to appear, but it usually does, eventually.

People like good art. That good art is better than bad art, just like good food is better than bad food, is just my personal opinion. You can prefer bad art and bad food if you like. — Bitter Crank

Two thoughts on that. First the good, which is better than the bad is bad - As I said before, there is so much good stuff out there that you'll never read, watch, listen to, or eat it all. And people will keep writing, composing, choreographing, filming, performing, and cooking more good things every day.

Now the bad - a lot of stuff and much of the new stuff out there is either crap or a thin veneer over hollowness. McDonalds (which I eat at once a month or so), TGI Fridays, Pottery Barn, expensive hotels and restaurants with plastic decor and plastic food, Lee Childs books, any Simpson's episode less than 15 years old. I love seafood. I've always gone to Legal Seafoods, a medium sized chain in the northeast. They make a fish chowder that is one of the best things I've ever eaten. Wonderful. Now the family business has been bought by a corporation with plans for expansion and they've streamlined/ corporatized the menu. No more fish chowder.

I chant the old coots motto - Hell in a handbasket I tells ya!

BTW, I do not feel inadequate, — Bitter Crank

[joke]And yet you clearly are.[/joke]

I do not feel inadequate, or that I am shirking my responsibilities by not posting THE definition of art, or a list of the elements of great art (or bad art). A) IF I were to post those things, there would still be disagreement. B) The question of what makes good art good has not been finally answered by many others. — Bitter Crank

That's true of everything we write on this forum. That doesn't mean it's not worthwhile to try. I find it worthwhile - it's important to me. Why should we treat art any differently?

Culture is changeable, and so does the definition of cultural products. Opinions are personal because we each experience the world (and art) individually. What meets the criteria of greatness today may not be on the list tomorrow. Johan Sebastian Bach was the IT composer, then he wasn't. A century later, he was revived. — Bitter Crank

Again, that's true of everything we write on this forum. I'll quote again from one of my favorite poems, which I quoted from just a day ago. "Black Cottage" by Robert Frost:

For, dear me, why abandon a belief
Merely because it ceases to be true.
Cling to it long enough, and not a doubt
It will turn true again, for so it goes.
Most of the change we think we see in life
Is due to truths being in and out of favour.

Again, a link for those who are interested:

https://www.poemhunter.com/poem/the-black-cottage/

God, I love that poem.

So how would we know when something was sufficient? Sufficient for what purpose, or to what end? — Reformed Nihilist

Yes... well...that's what we're trying to figure out here.

The socio-cultural world was highly local for any individual for most of human history, and we never seemed to run out of new art then, so I expect not. — Reformed Nihilist

Things have changed, so I'm not sure you're right about that. I hope you are. Just look at stores throughout the US. Every town, every mall, has the same stores, the same restaurants. When we went to Europe in the 80s, one of the parts I liked best was figuring out how many French francs in a Dutch guilder. Now it's the Euro. The EU is trying to homogenize the economies of it's members. Corporations are trying to standardize our expectations and desires to fit into their business plan.

The US, the world, is becoming more and more like an airport or hotel lobby. As I find myself saying a lot these days, it's not my problem. I'll be long gone. But still...

I would propose that an element that is common to good art, and that is still consistent with the notion that there can be differing tastes, is that good art offers us a specific experience that is similar to surprise. Good art creates expectations, and subverts them, sometimes subtly, sometimes obviously. — Reformed Nihilist

This makes sense to me, but I don't think it's enough. Maybe necessary but not sufficient.

There's an interesting phenomena that, so far as I can see has been going on since time immemorial. Every generation, what is considered good breaks the conventions set by previous traditions. — Reformed Nihilist

I've thought about this from the other direction - New music often goes to outside sources to find new musical language, e.g. African music has become part of popular music in the US and Europe. As the world homogenizes, will we eventually run out of fresh sources and end up with all culture the same everywhere?

If it's just personal opinion then I have no real interest in discussions because I don't really care what others think. — Tom Storm

You say you don't care what others think, but I think you are interested in what they think. You're willing to listen and be influenced. Taught maybe.

Culture, I hear, is a collective process, a cooperative product.

Culture, tradition, elites,
— baker

and others. What constitutes good art, good music, good literature, good landscaping, good architecture, good sculpture, good... whatever is determined by the votes of everyone interested in the matter. — Bitter Crank

I think that's an unsatisfactory answer. I'm not sure how much better I can do, but I'm going to try.

Hmmm... and there I was thinking we were discussing how we might arrive at criteria for good or bad. If it's just personal opinion then I have no real interest in discussions because I don't really care what others think. — Tom Storm

There is something more than personal opinion and public acclaim that makes good art. There's artistic vision, truth, technical mastery, surprise, emotional insight, playfulness, complexity, narrative, simplicity, clarity, idiosyncrasy, depth, history, humor, community.... and on and on. I don't know how to put all that together.

Art is not about being able to reproduce a scene optically (thereby rendering it abstract and ARTificial). The most abstract paintings are in fact the optically (hyper-)realistic ones. Art is not about imitating or expressing personal feelings. It's about expressing ideas. It's not about creating pleasurable esthetic experiences. You can find that anywhere (just take a morning walk through town, or nature, or blow smoke through incoming sunrays).

Art is about expressing worldviews (scientific experiments for example). About criticizing society. — Raymond

This is not right. You can read some of the other posts in the thread if you want the real explanation.

I accept the correction. — tim wood

I didn't intend it as a correction. I think I'm asking the same questions you are. What was Wittgenstein talking about?

I'm asking you. You're the one making claims about merit that seem to hint at some kind objectivity. — Tom Storm

I agree. Many technically astonishing artists have no depth or emotion in their work. It's all technique. But this starts to get alarmingly speculative. What does it mean to have 'depth' or 'feeling' in your art? I certainly know that in the classical tradition there are pianists and violinists who can hit all the notes with wonderous ability and yet is seems 'empty'. Fuck... are we heading towards qualia again? — Tom Storm

I'll throw this in with little hope that it will resolve anything. I'd like to try it out though. I have another definition of art that applies to my personal experience - Art is something created by people that has no meaning beyond the experience elicited in the viewer/listener/reader. The only thing of value we can really say about a work of art is a description of our experience of it.

Given that definition, what can we say about the quality of art? How is one experience better than another? Is it universality? The more people who are moved by something the better it is. Is it depth of feeling? That's probably how I judge if something is good for myself - how deeply I am moved emotionally and intellectually; how much has my awareness of myself, my senses, or the world increased?

I think that's somewhere in the vicinity of a partial answer. I don't really know where to go from here.

Hinge propositions seeming to be what R. G. Collingwood calls absolute presuppositions. — tim wood

When I looked up "hinge propositions" on the web, I got the same impression you did, but I'm not sure if they are the same as absolute presuppositions. Collingwood is very clear that presuppositions are not propositions, which is a conflict. Also, one of the examples of a hinge proposition in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy is "I have two hands."

I do not know why some people think it is an upgrade to put a beautiful seashell in a case and hail it as art. — Bitter Crank

I didn't say it is an upgrade. I said it is what makes it art. Art is not an upgrade from nature.

The entire visible universe is available for one's aesthetic judgement (see Van Gogh, Starry Night). — Bitter Crank

According to my definition, the entire universe is not art because it has not specifically been offered by someone for aesthetic judgement. "Starry Night," on the other hand, has been. If you don't agree with or accept my definition of art, I'm sure you don't find this distinction useful.

Aesthetic judgement doesn't kick in just because we are in a museum displaying art. It also kicks in when we see an interesting, almost cadmium yellow fungus. Beautiful! What's its name? What is the coloring composed of? Interesting how the yellow fades to brown over a week's time. How many shelf fungi start out as bright yellow? Et cetera. — Bitter Crank

Agreed. Again, according to my definition, aesthetic judgement doesn't make it art, it is the act of presenting something for aesthetic judgement that does. It's a human act. Art is a human act.

I wasn't saying the art expert was right, merely that there may be distinction between excellent draftsmanship and artistic merit. Quite often people think virtuosic displays of skill imply excellence, just as the converse may also be held as true. — Tom Storm

I think that's highlighted by the fact that Picasso could draw a nice pitcher when he wanted to but he was trying for something else.

I have often wondered about how skillful technique counts toward making good art. When I think of folk art, I think of people who's technique is not sophisticated, but who have artistic vision. In country music the cliche is "three chords and the truth." At the same time, it seems to me that overcoming difficulties in technique, finding a way to express yourself within constraining artistic conventions, is at the heart of art.

The point is apart from subjective taste, what do we have? — Tom Storm

This is something I've thought a lot about without coming to a satisfying conclusion.

"it is not surprising that there is a lot of bad art. "What is surprising is that there is so much good art -- everywhere" — Bitter Crank

On the day I was born there were more very, very good books than I could read in 100 lifetimes. Since then, there are dozens, hundreds, thousands of good books published each year. Every generation gets whatever they can create plus everything anyone else created all back through history. Same is true for music, visual art, sculpture, movies, TV, everything really.

And now, more than ever, it's all available to us in our homes. We don't even have to stand up. I can sit here in my easy chair and see just about the entire product of human culture for thousands of years.