Being a whatever vs being a good whatever

Pfhorrest

Just a fleeting thought for discussion: I’ve previously given plenty of thought to how people tend to conflate the question “what is art?” with the question “what is good art?”, such that they feel bothered when something they find artistically displeasing or subpar gets called “art” at all, as though calling it “art” is implicitly saying it’s good art, good at doing whatever art is supposed to do.

It crossed my mind this morning that something similar seems to happen with gender terms like “man”: in some sense, it seems as though some people will say that someone is “not a man” if the person in question doesn’t measure up to their standards of manliness, if they’re not good at doing whatever a man is supposed to do. I haven’t given it more extensive thought yet but I feel like something to do with the social construction of gender vs sex might be implied here: the social construct of “man” is the reification of the notion of “good man” as in “good male person”: someone who does what is expected of a male person.

Can anyone think of other cases where being a kind of thing at all is conflated with being a good example of that kind of thing?

Jack Cummins

↪Pfhorrest

I think about the question of good art and bad art a lot. There may be certain standards, even ones deemed as professional, but it is extremely hard to claim them as objective, as opposed to subjective. I know that I think that U2 are a wonderful band, and I like so much alternative music, but I am sure that others would disagree. So , it does come down to the way the subjective is seen, in the context of wider socially agreed standards and measures of what is viewed as 'good'. This is an example in music but I believe that it goes beyond, in the arts and other aspects of cultural life.

T Clark

people tend to conflate the question “what is art?” with the question “what is good art?” — Pfhorrest

Robert Pirsig, author of "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance," solved this problem by defining art as "high quality endeavor." The example he gave was the very skilled welder who fixed the fender on his motorcycle. I've come to think this is not a very useful definition. In a previous discussion, someone, was it you @praxis? said that art is anything created with an aesthetic purpose, i.e. intended to be judged by aesthetic standards. I find that a really helpful way of looking at things. It also deals with the good art vs. bad art question.

What does that say about the broader question raised in the OP? To me it says define first, judge later. A man is an adult male human. Of course, these days we have to describe what a male is too, but let's not get into that here.

baker

Can anyone think of other cases where being a kind of thing at all is conflated with being a good example of that kind of thing? — Pfhorrest

Being a true Scotsman.

praxis

I think anything can be called art and that framing something this way is merely an invitation to view it aesthetically, which is a beautiful thing really. The world would be a better place if we more frequently viewed it aesthetically.

But of course there are more mundane and often manipulative reasons for defining something as art, masculine, or whatever.

Leghorn

Can anyone think of other cases where being a kind of thing at all is conflated with being a good example of that kind of thing? — Pfhorrest

It seems to me that it is instinctive to conflate identity with goodness. We do this whenever, for example, we take a bite of food, grimace and exclaim, “That’s not food!”

@baker’s “true Scotsman” reminded me of the old tv show theme song, “Daniel Boone was a man, was a real man”. The two parts of this verse really express the same sentiment; the second part is just added for clarification.

Returning to food, in defining what it is we might presumably call it “dry nourishment for the body”. How then do we explain the difference between good and bad food? Substituting the phrase, as in a mathematical equation, “dry nourishment for the body” for “food”, we obtain, “good food” = “good dry nourishment for the body”, and “bad food” = “bad dry nourishment for the body”. How would you respond, however, to this objection: “But ‘good’ is already implied in ‘nourishment’, so in the first equation, ‘good’ is redundant, and in the second, ‘bad’ is contradictory”?

Pfhorrest

↪Leghorn

I’d say that things can be nourishing to a greater or lesser degree, so some things can be better or worse as sources of nourishment go. Something that’s not very nourishing, or negatively nourishing, is not very good, or actively bad, for use as food.

The way I phrased that last bit raises another interesting philosophical point. I go on a lot about how to be is to do, things are defined by their function, but perhaps that’s as much about the purposes they are put to as it is about their (efficient) causes: a chair is made a chair by its being used to sit on, and something is a good or bad chair inasmuch as it is useful for that purpose.

Maybe this was more the point on Aristotle’s “final cause” and associated teleology: not so much about someone having a purpose in mind being responsible for enacting the efficient cause of its existence, but about the very definition of it being a thing of that kind at all hinging on its being used for some purpose. A rock can “become a chair” without someone efficient-causally doing something that changes its form or substance, but just by putting it to the use of sitting upon.

skyblack

The OP seems to be asking why do we measure with the "good example"? It seems to me we do it as part of measurement and meaning. Except, i would substitute the words "good example" with 'ideal example'. The ideal example sets the correct standard from which you will measure, which is why it's used. The ideal example assigns the right value to that which is being measured. But the need for measurement and 'labeling' drops if you do not wish to do either.

praxis

But the need for measurement and 'labeling' drops if you do not wish to do either. — skyblack

Ah, but labeling and social norms can be handy, can't they "sissy" man?

skyblack

Ah, but labeling and social norms can be handy, can't they "sissy" man? — praxis

Absolutely. They are needed and can be used, when required to give someone like you a reality check. Which is why that phrase was correctly used in your case.

praxis

↪skyblack

Unfortunately, people like you can use them stupidly.

skyblack

Unfortunately, people like you can use them stupidly. — praxis

Go back to playing with your cartoons.

praxis

↪skyblack

:ok: :point:

Leghorn

I’d say that things can be nourishing to a greater or lesser degree, so some things can be better or worse as sources of nourishment go. Something that’s not very nourishing, or negatively nourishing, is not very good, or actively bad, for use as food. — Pfhorrest

So we have a continuum of nourishment here where some food is more nourishing than other food. Not only that, we also have some food that is “negatively nourishing”, that is “actively bad”. Can you explain more fully what you mean by “negatively nourishing” and “actively bad”?

Tom Storm

Being a true Scotsman. — baker

Nice - you beat me to it.

Tom Storm

I think anything can be called art and that framing something this way is merely an invitation to view it aesthetically, which is a beautiful thing really. — praxis

No question. For me the act of curating something and hanging it up in a space for art makes it art. The question of merit is separate. This was the view of my favorite common man's art critic, Robert Hughes.

But here is something I find interesting. A statue by Rodin, found in a building site is still art. But Carl Andre's Equivalent VIII found in a building site is just a pile of bricks.

Pfhorrest

Can you explain more fully what you mean by “negatively nourishing” and “actively bad”? — Leghorn

Like something poisonous, something that reduces your health rather than preserving it.

baker

↪Tom Storm

It seems to apply to any concept denoting identity that is ideologically laden somehow: national identity, religious, political, racial, gender, class identity.

In such cases, people will sometimes put forward the charge of the No True Scotsman fallacy, when in fact what is going is an equivocation, given that terms for national, religious, political, racial, gender, class identity are typically complex, multilayered.

Tom Storm

↪baker

Yes, it's not straight forward. You can end up with the no true Scotsman, no true Scotsman fallacy...

praxis

But here is something I find interesting. A statue by Rodin, found in a building site is still art. But Carl Andre's Equivalent VIII found in a building site is just a pile of bricks. — Tom Storm

Not necessarily, many may not take much notice of a Rodin, disregarding it as mere decoration or whatever. Others may, for whatever reason, experience a shift in their mental state and see the sublime beauty of bricks.

Pfhorrest

the act of curating something and hanging it up in a space for art makes it art. The question of merit is separate. — Tom Storm

:up: Although the way I would phrase more or less the same idea is that “framing” something makes it art: presenting it to an audience for their consideration, making it the content of a communicative act. It’s not so much it being in any particular place that makes it art, except inasmuch as being somewhere indicates that it is being used as art, and it’s being used as art that makes something art, just like being used as a chair makes something a chair.

Tom Storm

↪praxis

:gasp:

Tom Storm

Although the way I would phrase more or less the same idea is that “framing” something makes it art: presenting it to an audience for their consideration, making it the content of a communicative act. — Pfhorrest

That's much better - I was too hasty.

Leghorn

Can you explain more fully what you mean by “negatively nourishing” and “actively bad”?
— Leghorn

Like something poisonous, something that reduces your health rather than preserving it. — Pfhorrest

So do you say then that subsumed under the general category “food” is a scale much like that of the integers, where the positive numbers represent “nourishing” food, “poisonous” food is represented by the negative ones, and zero quantifies food that is neither nourishing nor poisonous?

Pfhorrest

↪Leghorn

More or less yes.

baker

Although the way I would phrase more or less the same idea is that “framing” something makes it art: presenting it to an audience for their consideration, making it the content of a communicative act. It’s not so much it being in any particular place that makes it art, except inasmuch as being somewhere indicates that it is being used as art, and it’s being used as art that makes something art, just like being used as a chair makes something a chair. — Pfhorrest

Provided it's used by the right people, the ones who are in the position to determine whether something is art or not, and whether it's good art or not.

You could frame a painting done by a naive artist, put it into a fancy gallery, and it still wouldn't be art proper.

Leghorn

More or less yes. — Pfhorrest

I don’t want you to be equivocal here. We’re talking about an important thing; what is good and bad for the body. So let me ask you again: do you or do you not agree that good food nourishes the body, and that bad food poisons it? and that food that neither nourishes nor poisons it does it neither good nor ill?

Pfhorrest

Provided it's used by the right people, the ones who are in the position to determine whether something is art or not, and whether it's good art or not. — baker

What makes whom the right person or not?

You could frame a painting done by a naive artist, put it into a fancy gallery, and it still wouldn't be art proper. — baker

I disagree completely. It could even just be pinned to their mother’s refrigerator and it would still be art. That says nothing, however, above the quality of it as art, whether it is good art, good at doing what art is to do. Even if it fails miserably at doing what art should do, it’s still art; it’s just bad art.

↪Leghorn

Yes I agree with that, I was only avoiding a straight “yes” before because I was unsure if you meant to imply more with the integers analogy.

baker

I disagree completely. It could even just be pinned to their mother’s refrigerator and it would still be art. That says nothing, however, above the quality of it as art, whether it is good art, good at doing what art is to do. Even if it fails miserably at doing what art should do, it’s still art; it’s just bad art. — Pfhorrest

You're an American, aren't you? If you were raised in Europe, you'd learn early on to distinguish between art and mere craft (and kitsch).

Pfhorrest

↪baker

Do you think that there is no such thing as bad art?

praxis

You're an American, aren't you? If you were raised in Europe, you'd learn early on to distinguish between art and mere craft (and kitsch). — baker

Before you seemed to be saying that only the art elite is capable of making such distinctions when you wrote, "Provided it's used by the right people, the ones who are in the position to determine whether something is art or not, and whether it's good art or not." Now you're saying that any school child (provided they're schooled in Europe) knows the difference.

Can you resolve this apparent contradition?

Being a whatever vs being a good whatever

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions