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.

Fortunately we do not have to come up with criteria for good art, bad art, art at all. Culture, I hear, is a collective process, a cooperative product. — Bitter Crank

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. Or are you suggesting with your term 'collective process' that there is an intersubjective agreement about what art can be considered good? If so, then we might still need to work out how we arrive at good or bad if we are going to communicate about art.

The quality of porn is not easy to measure. Not by a long shot.
— john27

That hasn't been my experience. — Bitter Crank

Goodness we do keep going around in circles - even when it comes to porn. I'm not sure personal experience matters. The fact that you can measure it (that sounds wrong in this context :gasp: ) doesn't mean anyone else shares your view of good or bad. Orson Welles once quipped that it is possible for there to be a masterpiece of pornography but it will only be a masterpiece in that genre. A masterpiece of porn. Sounds like a good tile for a bad novel.

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. — Raymond

So you are laying down some rules for what constitutes art. How did you arrive at those rules?

I say Art for arts sake.

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.

I don't really care what others think. — Tom Storm

Really? Not at all?

Or are you suggesting with your term 'collective process' that there is an intersubjective agreement about what art can be considered good? — Tom Storm

Some important 'decisions' are made socially, collectively. For instance, how does a worker in a plant know he is working "hard enough"? The workers collectively define what "working hard enough" is, and discourage fellow workers from not working hard enough, or working too hard. Workers define what "good performance" is. Collectively, they define quality performance, and sub par performance, too.

We observe each other; observe many cues; look for positive and negative responses; adjust our behavior to fit what others are doing. The effort to fit is made more or less automatically -- because we are social animals.

Within our social milieus we determine what a proper cocktail party is; we determine what kind of public religious activity (including speech) is acceptable, and not. We determine what attractive landscaping is; what a nice house looks like; what 'well dressed' means; what kind of car is acceptable, and not.

We determine what music is popular among us (our milieu) and what is not; what novelists are 'good;, which are not. [Ayn Rand has been judged bad by many of the TPF milieu.]. We learn what kind of art is acceptable and what kind is not. There are certain films that won't be discussed at a proper dinner party. Certain jokes can be told, others can not.

There is nothing mysterious about how this process works: we are social animals and we do look for clues among our people, our milieu, about what is considered good and not good.

We may be inclined to consider WHY what our crowd, our milieu likes what we do, and why it is defined as good or not good. We'll remember that in a college class we used a text on criticism; [that class is now 55 years in the past. Sorry, don't remember.] some of the authors had ideas about what constituted "high quality art". We might do google searches, look for criticism books on Amazon. We might find exactly what we were looking for: a cookbook for thinking about art.

In the cookbook we would find chapters on the history of art forms and the value they were given. We would learn how to look at the structure of a painting, a piece of music, or a novel. We would be directed to evaluate the content, the symbols, the sources, the interplay of characters, and so on. Through reading the book, and applying it to paintings we look at, music we listen to, novels we read, and so forth we would find ways of supporting our preferences. Preference (personal opinion) might stay the same, but we would be better grounded.

My view that, "The quality of porn is easy to measure", was more of a joke than a major plank in art theory. It either does it or it doesn't. From what I can tell, the porn industry has solved the problem of matching content to customer.

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.

Of the two questions, I think I can offer one answer is uninteresting but pretty serviceable:

What qualifies as art?

I think it is generally of more social value to have a more inclusive conception of what qualifies as art rather than a less inclusive one. In this light, @T Clark's definition, something along the lines of "whatever is presented (solely?) for the purpose of being judged aesthetically is art" is a decent one. There just isn't much value added to the world in creating a society that says definitively "This is not art! It doesn't meet the criteria", but there are certainly cautionary tales from history about being overly authoritarian on such matters.

The next question is far more interesting to me, and partly because I don't have a fully satisfying answer, but do have some thoughts on the matter.

What makes art good or bad

While it's easy to just say "It's all a matter of taste" and leave it at that, I think that's letting oneself off the hook a little too easily. 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. This is interesting both because both cultural pressures and individual psychology can strongly effect how one's expectations are created and manipulated by a piece of art. It makes the world of aesthetics recursive, in that what is considered good art creates expectations that can only be subverted by "breaking the rules" of what qualifies as good.

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. The "old folks" (not always by age, but often) are derisive of the new art and often descry it is as "not art", while the new generation might see the old works as tired cliches, lacking creativity and uninteresting. Eventually the Sex Pistols become Blink 182 which becomes elevator music. I think this gives us some direction when we look at art, rather than wandering the wilds directionless, but it still leaves a lot on the table, which is probably not a bad thing.

Sure. It was just a throw away line - partly meant, but not deeply. I care when others have good arguments.

more of a joke than a major plank — Bitter Crank

:up:

There is nothing mysterious about how this process works: we are social animals and we do look for clues among our people, our milieu, about what is considered good and not good. — Bitter Crank

Sure, you're not wrong, but in the context of a philosophy forum and arguments about a subject, we can do better, no? Our job here is to transcend the gravitational pull of enculturation and group mores.

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?

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

Ok. That might be the case. So how would we know when something was sufficient? Sufficient for what purpose, or to what end?

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? — T Clark

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.

There is something more than personal opinion and public acclaim that makes good art. — T Clark

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.

There's artistic vision, truth, technical mastery, surprise, emotional insight, playfulness, complexity, narrative, simplicity, clarity, depth, history, humor, community.... and on and on. I don't know how to put all that together. — T Clark

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.

BTW, 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.

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. .

Our job here is to transcend the gravitational pull of enculturation and group mores. — Tom Storm

Why should we do that? Is that really our job, or is that just one option among several others?

@Bitter Crank You're right. We do have a definition of art even though it isn't as good as we'd like it to be. Who knows, art may not be definable especially if it's got a subjective side to it (de gustibus non est disputandum). Art maybe both subjective (definition problematic) & objective (definition not problematic); hence our current predicament.

I think everybody here lays down rules for art. That's my impression at least. Is it an art to create an optically realistic image? By applying the rules of perspective, inventing projection methods, or whatever? The scene gets artificial indeed, but as abstract as never before at the same time. Art is not about imitating. Everybody can imitate. Nothing arty about that. Realist art is in fact the most abstract art there is. Abstract though is as real as it is. Is art about creating aesthetically pleasing stuff? Not for me.

Why should we do that? Is that really our job, or is that just one option among several others? — Bitter Crank

I'll put some precision on it. I think it behoves us to start by examining our uncultured views and the mores of our time. As per Socrates - 'The unexamined life is not worth living.' It's hard to imagine any life when so examined not changing or transcending some of its limitations.

I'm in favor of the examined life. What is difficult about it is doing it in time for it to make a difference. I have examined my life, and yes, it made a difference. It's just too bad I didn't have the insight at 25 that I have at 75. Shucks.

I'm in favor of the examined life. What is difficult about it is doing it in time for it to make a difference. — Bitter Crank

Correctamundo! Hindsight is 20/20 and youth is wasted on the young! There's nuthin' we can do about it I'm afraid.

Don't you smell a conspiracy? Why does nature "contrive" to perfect your motor skills (walking, eating, etc.) faster than your (critical) thinking skills? It's as if nature wants you to make (silly) mistakes and suffer (regret/remorse) later for it? Something not quite right about that!

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...

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.

Yes... well...that's what we're trying to figure out here. — T Clark

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?

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.

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: — T Clark

Ok, but why must these things be accounted for? Or why don't we just take your list and say "That's it, let's call it a day"?

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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. — T Clark

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. Think Hemingway's Old Man and the Sea. 'Idiosyncrasy' can be 'self-indulgent' depending on your point of view. Think movies directed by David Lynch. 'Mastery' can be 'empty technique' think the novels of John Barth.

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

For myself, I generally look for two attributes in any given work and many additional qualities can fan out from these. These are vitality and surprise. But the fact remains that what people find surprising or vital is still a matter of subjective experience.