The novel is dying. — Noble Dust

People have been saying this since the 1940's. I doubt it is true. In fact it's sometimes argued that there really ought to be an important literary prize for the person who doesn't write a novel.

Shows (TV shows) are in their prime — Noble Dust

Could be. I have yet to discover any I can sit though even when they are well done.

sn't Dan Brown loved now? — Noble Dust

Maybe he got close a few years ago but was never loved by people who like fiction. :razz:

art forms are born, they live, and they die. — Noble Dust

As does everything else. But can't we still make a case for who is the greatest ancient Greek writer and why, even though their civilisation and tradition is extinct?

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: — Tom Storm

Yet there's the actual philosophical problem: we try in philosophy to give an objective answer... even when the matter is obviously subjective. As if we can somehow avoid the subjectivity, for example by observing people as a whole and their various subjective views as a collection of different opinions.

People have been saying this since the 1940's. I doubt it is true. In fact it's sometimes argued that there really ought to be an important literary prize for the person who doesn't write a novel. — Tom Storm

I love novels, so I hope you're right...but what you're referring to is a glut of novelists, which is what we have in the music industry; a glut of musical artists. This spells doom. When every other person is a novelist or a musical artist, we don't have any good novels or good songs. Or rather, the good is drowned out by the noise. And we start to lose the sense of the standards we had. So...yes, the novel is dying. And so is music. It's just the cycle of artistic forms, as much as I don't want to admit it, as a musician.

Could be. I have yet to discover any I can sit though even when they are well done. — Tom Storm

But millions of people can and love to. Are seemingly addicted, even.

As does everything else. But can't we still make a case for who is the greatest ancient Greek writer and why, even though their civilisation and tradition is extinct? — Tom Storm

Sure, why not? That doesn't take away from the fact that these artistic forms have lifespans, and that the artistic forms we love and hold dear in the here and now are often already going through their death throws, or will in a certain number of years. I'm not trying to be a defeatist, but I think there's levity in this realization. At least for me. Realizing that art forms are transitory is important, in my mind. I feel like it's something that isn't discussed much.

Yet there's the actual philosophical problem: we try in philosophy to give an objective answer... even when the matter is obviously subjective. — ssu

Not sure about that. We can and do establish communities of value which hold intersubjective agreements about matters assessed as important and key indicators can be established. We then have objective criteria we can understand and rate. But no one except religions and idealists are talking about transcendent truths.

But millions of people can and love to. — Noble Dust

Argumentum ad populum. It is not enough to be loved, one must be loved by the right people (and no, that is not one of Wilde's).

Realizing that art forms are transitory is important, in my mind. — Noble Dust

Yes, but this doesn't change how good they are (or not). Or which ones survive the ravages of fashion and time.

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.

@Tom Storm @T Clark @pile of bricks

This work is clearly MUCH better than Pile of Bricks.



The lighted sign on the wall is apt: You have nothing.

Argumentum ad populum. — Tom Storm

argumentum unius.

Yes, but this doesn't change how good they are (or not). Or which ones survive the ravages of fashion and time. — Tom Storm

I fully agree.

We can and do establish communities of value which hold intersubjective agreements about matters assessed as important and key indicators can be established. We then have objective criteria we can understand and rate. But no one except religions and idealists are talking about transcendent truths. — Tom Storm

Most understandable way to put it, Tom?

But again, when we have "objective criteria". And yet only religions and idealists assume transcendent truths.

Now I'm not trying to be here a sophist (hopefully), but I guess my point is just what lengths we go to force the matter into an objective viewpoint. Or perhaps to put in another way, just why did your philosophy tutor had that kind of dismissing attitude in the subject and say "Aesthetics is a non-subject, it doesn't matter - it's just personal taste. Next."?

What I think the problem isn't that Aesthetics is a non-subject, it's just that we don't have the similar methods to study it as let's say question in logic. And when we don't have an easy objective answer, then the whole thing is deemed unimportant.

It's like the economist who lost his key during the night looks for them only under the streetlight (as there he only can see clearly the ground).

I love in the picture that there is a museum guard watching that this art masterpiece isn't vandalized (or tried to be stolen).

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.

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

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

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.

t doesn't mean that good poetry can't be written — T Clark

It can be, but it's not in the zeitgeist any longer.

or that old poetry doesn't still have the vision, passion, and power it had in the past — T Clark

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.

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

It definitely, absolutely, irrevocably, seriously, and objectively is a worse pain(t)ing than the projection of Warhol. The Nachtwacht is a dull 2d fixation of blown up egos and Rembrandt was the robot faithfully reproducing their outer appearance on a 2d plane. Vermeer used the camera obscura in producing his almost photo realistic images. Perspective drawing, the enlightenment technique used to render "reality" as faithfully as possible, was well applied by R. It's pretty easy to put on linen what you see from a fixed angle, but exactly this is given great value in assessing artistry. "It is exactly how it is in reality!" is so often heard. R. just made it a bit more dramatically, dark and locally enlightened. Big deal. He got too much credit for it. The people he froze alive belonged to an elite group of people only interested in propagating their own image in time, just like R himself. R sold his skills to the elite who used him as a camera only. R was rich and asked for. History made him famous because history needs famous figures. People need them. Put them in a museum or at Madame Tussauds. Big deal. Warhol just projected, and ironized this whole shebang of iconization. Thereby parking himself in the same lot but he at least told a story (and promised everyone 15 minutes of it).

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

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. Humor and community I can find at all places but art these days seems the last place to find it. Though the balloon dog of Koons is a funny "little" pisser!

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

The qualities you mention don't constitute a basis for the quality of art. They say if your qualities can be found in it. Or are they a base for good art?

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.

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

Says you.

Off course. But you say also. Why should a work with humor be bad (or good)?

That's fine. The difference here, that I feel should be made, is that you're interfacing with the Tao Te Ching in a religious sense. No need to get defensive or carried away. I'm a student of different religious texts, to various degrees, and for various reasons. But I think we're moving away from the OP topic. In this context, we were talking about whether poetry is still an art form that is part of the (western) zeitgeist. I was saying it isn't.

What I think the problem isn't that Aesthetics is a non-subject, it's just that we don't have the similar methods to study it as let's say question in logic. And when we don't have an easy objective answer, then the whole thing is deemed unimportant. — ssu

That's a significant point. I agree. :up:

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.

Gotta go but I'll be back. :up: