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.

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.

[...]

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. [...] — Bitter Crank

Didn't know who to pick on so I chose a quote form the thread's creator. But this proposal is freely given for anyone to rip to shreds ... if warranted:

As to what is and is not art, I propose an equation for it consisting of three variables in multiplicative relation to each other, each of which could take on the values of either 0 or 1.

A = the creator’s intent in expressing X
B = creator’s skill in expressing X so that (A) is understood by audience (where “audience” minimally includes the creator)
C = audience’s capacity to understand (A) via (B) (where “audience” minimally includes the creator)

If any variable is assigned the value of 0, the result necessarily is 0 artworks. If the product of these three variables is 1, the result necessarily is 1 artwork.

For quality of an artwork, use the same three variables and prefix “the quality of” to each, then assign some value between 0 and 10 to each variable.

If any variable is assigned the value of 0, the result again necessarily is 0 artwork; otherwise, the product of the three variables can range between 1 and 1,000, thereby quantifying the overall quality of the artwork – within what is a respectable spectrum.

Yes, quantifying of quality with any semblance of precision is, and has always been, problematic. But then I would think that this is what comparative degrees of quality in regard to artwork entail. And yes, it's still all subjective, but these tentatively proposed equations intend to define the parameters of the subjectivity involved.

Also, I figure this can apply from everything like “rhetoric being a form of art” to the Mona Lisa … or whatever one happens to most exalt in terms of artistic manifestation.

… for emphasis: criticisms are welcomed, if not blatantly expected

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.

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. — T Clark

:grin: 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". At any rate, I have a suspicion that there's something wrong with my three variables, but I can't figure out what. Just saying.

Art is.

Some people like to make art things so they make art things.
Some people like to look at art things, so they look at art things.
The art things have to be in the right place, usually where other art things are..
Some of the people like some of the art things, and some don't.
People have been buying and selling art things ever since there was some extra money laying around.

One of the earliest art things was a white sea shell with a hole and some ochre coloring added. Found object, modified. Sorry, Marcel Duchamp: somebody beat you to the idea by 40,000 years.

There may be a consensus among 5% of the population about what the best art thing is, on down to art garbage. 50% of the population will follow the lead of the 5%. 45% don't give a rat's ass one way or the other.

When it comes to buying art, one either has to like it, or one has to think it will be worth more money in the future. Both schemes (art I like is good / art that will appreciate is good) are in operation.

My partner bought a painting of Hereford cows standing in snow on the prairie; there are a couple of dead cottonwood trunks in the foreground. So there is blue sky, white snow, a few mostly brown cows, and grey tree trunks. He liked it a lot; the artist was a neighbor in Worthington MN. I like it because he liked it. It doesn't matter what it is worth, or who who thinks it is good. It isn't highly realistic, but it manages to communicate the feel of the cold open space of SW Minnesota in winter.

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.

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. — T Clark

Even so, I liked the general idea to them. :up:

Agree for the most part. Let's take:

[1] Art is anything offered by someone for evaluation on the basis of aesthetic standards. — T Clark

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?

Does your number 2 cover off on this?

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.

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. 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. — T Clark

Just because something is aesthetically pleasing does not entail that it is art. A nice enough sunset, for one example, is not deemed by anyone to be an artwork. (Leaving possible monotheistic perspectives - where God is the creator the the sunset, kind of thing - out of this).

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).

Or does it? In which case, anything aesthetic - like a gorgeous tree - is discerned as artwork by you ... But then, where would the intent part fit in? (And I won't be satisfied by God-did-it like answers, personally at least.)

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 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. — T Clark

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?

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.

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. — T Clark

Don’t know if this will humor you but it humors me. 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.

Might as well have been some pile of bricks that was momentarily left behind by some visitor ...

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. Saying this in relation to the overall theme of the thread, or of the OP at least … rather than being a reply to what you wrote.

But sure, I agree with the quote.

It fascinates me how often people feel the need to criticize a given work of art as being so bad it is not art, or a case of the emperor's new clothes, or a con job, or something my 6 year-old could do better. I have heard these sorts of comments made by people when describing everything from the works of van Gogh and Gauguin to Tracey Emin. This I believe is the nub of my interest in aesthetics. What is it we are prepared to countenance as art and therefore assess as an aesthetic work or statement and how do we make an assessment of its relative merits?

My philosophy tutor back in 1988 had a simple answer - "Aesthetics is a non-subject, it doesn't matter - it's just personal taste. Next." :groan:

What is it we are prepared to countenance as art and therefore assess as an aesthetic work or statement and how do we make an assessment of its relative merits? — Tom Storm

I don't have an exact answer to this, but one rubric in evaluating an aesthetic work is a relatively high level of familiarity with the specific art form, genre, and maybe sub-genre. I was sort of getting at that with the Godsmack song I posted awhile back (I was a little tipsy and didn't follow up). There are standards that can be organically drawn from the songwriting tradition of the past ~100 years or so, give or take, which someone with an understanding of them can use as a rubric when evaluating a work. For instance, as someone with a pretty good grasp of this, I can lay out some standards that would be pretty well accepted by my peers as to why that's not a well written song. Edit: so, of course, that's all well and good within the music world at large, but perhaps not satisfying here. But, I don't particularly care about that.

There’s the saying that beauty, aesthetics, is in the eye of the beholder. I find this to be true. But then what differentiates the aesthetic from the unaesthetic for the given individual? And, then, for all individuals that can differentiate between the two? - this irrespective of their unique preferences. A very difficult question, asked now for millennia. But my hunch is that in this question’s answer lies the resolution to what aesthetics is, to unraveling its capacity for power, and hence to it value for us. This rather than in focusing in on any particular object’s appraisal. This latter approach I imagine being akin to trying to define what intelligence is by focusing in on a given equation and asking other’s what they see in it. It doesn’t address the question.

As for my playful jab at the situation in modern art, truth is there is much bias in it, a bias primarily rooted in a personal indignation on behalf of artists I’ve known and known of. I can greatly admire artists whose works I personally find unaesthetic. Virginia Woolf quickly comes to mind. Or Kandinsky. Examples however don’t matter, for these too are in the eye of the beholder. What matters to my biased appraisal is the toil that these artists incurred in bringing forth something they themselves deeply believed in: aesthetic truths that spoke to their heart. This so that their efforts and accomplishments are nowadays considered on par in worth to realizations such as that of “Pile of Bricks” – which conveys what to you, personally, if I might ask? To me, at best, it conveys the sterility of an art piece devoid of anything sacred to the artist: the expression of the meaningless to be found in a meaningless world. If you do find beauty in it, explain it so that I might expand my horizons - even if I don’t share your tastes. But if not, and one professes it to be aesthetic, that to me it is a bit like affirming the naked emperor to be clothed.

Whose to say? If not I, not you, not even the artist has a voice in the matter - each of us as a unique beholder - then in my all too indignant bias I can well see how some can say that art and the esthetics its supposed to contain indeed does not matter. But this perspective is not my cup of tea.

There’s the saying that beauty, aesthetics, is in the eye of the beholder. I find this to be true. But then what differentiates the aesthetic from the unaesthetic for the given individual? And, then, for all individuals that can differentiate between the two? - this irrespective of their unique preferences. A very difficult question, asked now for millennia. But my hunch is that in this question’s answer lies the resolution to what aesthetics is, to unraveling its capacity for power, and hence to it value for us. This rather than in focusing in on any particular object’s appraisal. This latter approach I imagine being akin to trying to define what intelligence is by focusing in on a given equation and asking other’s what they see in it. It doesn’t address the question. — javra

I think it's equally true that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", and that there are aesthetic standards within disciplines. They're not mutually exclusive. Going back to the Godsmack song as an example, plenty of people enjoy the song, and there's no reason to attack that enjoyment with a philosophical, aesthetic metric of some sort. Let them enjoy it.

On the other hand, as I mentioned above in response to Tom, there are more or less communally accepted standards about songwriting that govern how works are received within the music community (artists, critics, etc). Culture plays a huge role in this too. I'm sure some percentage of the people that stormed the capital in the US last year listen to Godsmack. That doesn't automatically make them aesthetically bad, but the cultural situation of their music influences how it's received in the larger music world.

I don't understand the question. — T Clark

:grin: Can you please repeat the question!

Short on time for now. I agree in large. Still, defining these standards of becomes quite difficult, it at all possible. But I agree it's something one senses ... even when one's tastes are not in accord with the given artwork that is produced.

Yes, defining the standards is difficult (and it's not an actual concrete process of "defining"; see the "organically drawn" standards I mentioned). There is always disagreement even amongst those qualified to participate in this organic process. But inevitably, standards get set; some bits of milk rise to the top, and some get skimmed off. I'm of the believe that, in general, this process works pretty organically and well enough, but of course, some scum rises to the top, and some cream get's discarded.

This so that their efforts and accomplishments are nowadays considered on par in worth to realizations such as that of “Pile of Bricks” – which conveys what to you, personally, if I might ask? — javra

Thanks for your thoughtful response. In answer to your question - it conveys little and I don't care for it. But I am not all that keen on art as art, or stunt/statement based art in general. I like antiquities (Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Etruscan, Pre-Columbian) and I appreciate craft most of all. Personal taste. I dislike most contemporary art I have seen. Mainly because I find it dull. But it is art.

I can greatly admire artists whose works I personally find unaesthetic. Virginia Woolf quickly comes to mind. Or Kandinsky. Examples however don’t matter, for these too are in the eye of the beholder. — javra

Agree with much you say. I have similar reactions. I think there are works of genius by many artists but I still don't like them. John Barth's fiction is genius but I find it too technical and contrived and as such uninvolving.

My philosophy tutor back in 1988 had a simple answer - "Aesthetics is a non-subject, it doesn't matter - it's just personal taste. Next." :groan: — Tom Storm

What's wrong with subjectivity, personal opinions and taste? Isn't it what makes us individuals?

As is everything important in life would have an objective answer. :shade:

here are standards that can be organically drawn from the songwriting tradition of the past ~100 years or so, give or take, which someone with an understanding of them can use as a rubric when evaluating a work. For instance, as someone with a pretty good grasp of this, I can lay out — Noble Dust

I think this has merit. And I think this is what a responsible, old school critic would do. Contextualise and assess work based on a tradition. But of course, we end up with canons and received wisdom that often rests on recursive value systems of infinite regress. If that makes sense.

When I briefly studied aesthetics at university, the school/approach was objectivism (Beardsley) and a critic's job was to determine what the artist was trying to convey (even if they were not sure what this was; the artist often being inarticulate, mistaken, silent, a drunk or dead). The goal was to assess to what extent the artist achieved their goals. Seems so old fashioned. In the post-modern world where the author's intention is moot, this approach is either long gone or awaiting a come back.

What's wrong with subjectivity, personal opinions and taste? Isn't it what makes us individuals?

As is everything important in life would have an objective answer. :shade: — ssu

Nothing wrong with subjectivity - that is the common man's approach to most things. Some of my best friends are subjectivists...

But, if you are trying to assess art, catalogue and contextualize it, then we need more than just 'It's cool'.

I never said everything in life requires an objective answer - that would be a real leap. :wink:

When I say "songwriting tradition", I'm not referring to a tradition in the sense of something that's perceived as unchanging, or that "should not" change. Granted, this is specific to pop songwriting, but a basic verse/chorus/verse/chorus/bridge/chorus structure has existed since at least The Beatles (so not 100 years), and this structure has been endlessly used/abused/played upon/explored since then. Godsmack uses it. That's specifically what I'm referring to as a "tradition" here. Maybe that was misleading.

But yes, I think I get what you mean about "recursive value systems of infinite regress". I think that probably applies more heavily to fine arts and classical music...even jazz. So maybe I'm getting a little specific here with the pop music stuff, and maybe going a bit off topic.

The goal was to assess to what extent the artist achieved their goals. Seems so old fashioned. In the post-modern world where the author's intention is moot, this approach is either long gone or awaiting a come back. — Tom Storm

I think that notion is old fashioned in the sense that it neglects the reality that the audience represents a portion of the work itself. This is, probably, a "post-modern" concept, but essentially, it's helpful to simply realize that each individual audience member brings a lifetime's worth of experience, biases, fears, loves, phobias, etc., to their experience of a work of art, whether a Godsmack song or Guernica. So, whatever Godsmack or Picasso was trying to convey will be colored by the color of the glasses the audience member is viewing the work through (metaphorically). This is where "there's no accounting for taste" comes into play. Artists statements and the like also come into play here, in order to "color" the audience's experience. I made a whole thread about that a few years ago, but I'll leave that be. But, this "personal" nature to the experience of works of art exists separately from the idea that standards of criticism can be set. They still can.

The thing is - is Rembrandt's Night Watch a better painting than a Warhol screen-printed Marilyn? If yes or no, why?

When we write about great works of Western fiction (Dickens, Tolstoy, Eliot, Conrad) can we defend their greatness outside the context of a value system? Is Conrad no better than Dan Brown? I'm sure there are people who prefer Brown but we also know there are people who have limitations...

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.

When we were cataloguing art for Sotheby's, we had to explain why a work is 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 an 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.

When we write about great works of Western fiction (Dickens, Tolstoy, Eliot, Conrad) can we defend their greatness outside the context of a value system? — Tom Storm

Can we defend their greatness outside the context of an educational system?

Can we defend their greatness outside the context of an educational system? — Noble Dust

I personally would. And when they were written, they were loved by readers before they reached academe. It could be argued that the ended up being taught because in the first instance, they were the best of their kind. But I would never say something so old fashioned and hoary.

And when they were written, they were loved by readers before they reached academe. — Tom Storm

Isn't Dan Brown loved now? Assuming he hasn't reached academe yet. He very well may have. The "best of their kind" in the fiction world now are probably not best sellers, no. 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. But not one that merits much acceptance in a world where we need the comfort of familiarity.