• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Can we judge art?

Can we judge/grade art?

  • Yes, I think there are objective principles we can use to evaluate art

    Votes: 5 20.0%
  • No, the value of art is subjective and determined by the individual viewer

    Votes: 5 20.0%
  • It's a combination.

    Votes: 13 52.0%
  • I have some strong objections thread's premise/wording and I am going to write a long post about it.

    Votes: 2 8.0%

  • Total voters
    25

En Gallop

New member
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
192
Subjective. Personal expression has no boundaries.
Objective "standards" are antithetical to the very essence of such.

Great art generally challenges personal interpretation, in my opinion.
It is designed to reveal more about the audience than the work itself.

By that definition, do you think psychology/biology non-fiction books are perhaps the "greatest" form of art?

I agree that it's all purely subjective. It comes down to arguments like this:

PERSON ONE: I really love The Tempest, by William Shakespeare. It's just so imaginative and the characters are amazing.

PERSON TWO: Nah, I prefer Eclipse, the third book of Stephenie Meyer's Twilight saga. I mean, it has vampires!

PERSON ONE: But The Tempest has got wizards - and magic too!

PERSON TWO: I prefer vampires...


The fact that their emotional opinions basically mean the same thing ("I like this, but not this") means they cancel each other out. It's impossible to say which is REALLY better: "The Tempest" or "Eclipse". :D
 

Siúil a Rúin

when the colors fade
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
14,037
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
496
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
There are different important levels of aesthetics and meaning by which to judge a work of art.

There are mathematical principles that underly expression that can also be seen in the natural world. These deal with issues of proportion, balance, pattern, symmetry, etc. The presence or absence of these can be addressed, whether or not a value statement accompanies these.

There is always a cultural and philosophical context in which a creative work has been generated. These include all the unconscious assumptions of value and meaning within a specific cultural and historical context. How a specific creative work relates to these can also be addressed.

Then there is also a personal, subjective response, which can also be interesting. This level can reveal a great deal about the individual cognitive processing of both the viewer and the creator of a work.

Even if a specific culture has dismissed placing value on meaning, aesthetics, proportion, etc., it should still be addressed that those assumptions are beholden to one context and are not universal by nature. It is still possible to analyze a work of art and how it relates to these different hierarchies of context, even if no final value judgment is placed on it. There isn't a reason that the individual level would be objectively more universal than any other level. Also, more levels of analysis could certainly be introduced, and I just used those three because they are especially obvious.

Edit: One of the greatest difficulties the post-modern world has faced is dealing with multiple systems of thought which are fundamentally in conflict. When first introduced with different philosophical systems of aesthetics, there is a dismissal of universal standards because our contextual standards have been shown to not be objective. The response is to dismiss universal standards altogether and look only to the individual level. I suspect this is just a first stage of integrating these larger systems of thought. We see in the creative world the beginnings of integration of systems, although many instances approach this on a superficial level of novelty. There is a way to integrate on a deeper level by extracting principles instead of "rules" which are applications of principles within a specific context. Once we become more skilled at understanding the more abstract underlying principles of different systems of aesthetics, we can work towards integrating these ideas at their core. At that point our thinking will not be so polarized as to value only the completely subjective individual responses, and to hope only for some sort of purely objective form of evaluation. Context is meaningful on larger scales and creative works need to be evaluated on each level so that we understand not only our individual selves, but also how we integrate our thinking as human beings within a specific culture and within a blending of cultural ideals.
 

En Gallop

New member
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
192
There are different important levels of aesthetics and meaning by which to judge a work of art.

There are mathematical principles that underly expression that can also be seen in the natural world. These deal with issues of proportion, balance, pattern, symmetry, etc. The presence or absence of these can be addressed, whether or not a value statement accompanies these.

There is always a cultural and philosophical context in which a creative work has been generated. These include all the unconscious assumptions of value and meaning within a specific cultural and historical context. How a specific creative work relates to these can also be addressed.

Then there is also a personal, subjective response, which can also be interesting. This level can reveal a great deal about the individual cognitive processing of both the viewer and the creator of a work.

Even if a specific culture has dismissed placing value on meaning, aesthetics, proportion, etc., it should still be addressed that those assumptions are beholden to one context and are not universal by nature. It is still possible to analyze a work of art and how it relates to these different hierarchies of context, even if no final value judgment is placed on it. There isn't a reason that the individual level would be objectively more universal than any other level. Also, more levels of analysis could certainly be introduced, and I just used those three because they are especially obvious.

Edit: One of the greatest difficulties the post-modern world has faced is dealing with multiple systems of thought which are fundamentally in conflict. When first introduced with different philosophical systems of aesthetics, there is a dismissal of universal standards because our contextual standards have been shown to not be objective. The response is to dismiss universal standards altogether and look only to the individual level. I suspect this is just a first stage of integrating these larger systems of thought. We see in the creative world the beginnings of integration of systems, although many instances approach this on a superficial level of novelty. There is a way to integrate on a deeper level by extracting principles instead of "rules" which are applications of principles within a specific context. Once we become more skilled at understanding the more abstract underlying principles of different systems of aesthetics, we can work towards integrating these ideas at their core. At that point our thinking will not be so polarized as to value only the completely subjective individual responses, and to hope only for some sort of purely objective form of evaluation. Context is meaningful on larger scales and creative works need to be evaluated on each level so that we understand not only our individual selves, but also how we integrate our thinking as human beings within a specific culture and within a blending of cultural ideals.

I liked your post, and completely agree that there are many different ways of analysing art. :) But I don't think that's the question the OP was asking. They said: "Judging means evaluating a piece of art as either good/bad or evaluating it in comparison to other works of art as better or worse." By that definition, you seem to agree that there aren't any real ways to judge the Worth/Goodness of a work of art? But you can certainly compare artworks by different criteria, such as symmetry and use of colour, philosophical perspective etc.
 

Pseudo

New member
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
2,051
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Subjective. Personal expression has no boundaries.
Objective "standards" are antithetical to the very essence of such.

Great art generally challenges personal interpretation, in my opinion.
It is designed to reveal more about the audience than the work itself.


Doesn't your reference to "great art" imply some judgement, and the idea that art does a certain thing sets up an standard by which to judge it (how successfully it does x).
 

Pseudo

New member
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
2,051
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
By that definition, do you think psychology/biology non-fiction books are perhaps the "greatest" form of art?

I agree that it's all purely subjective. It comes down to arguments like this:

PERSON ONE: I really love The Tempest, by William Shakespeare. It's just so imaginative and the characters are amazing.

PERSON TWO: Nah, I prefer Eclipse, the third book of Stephenie Meyer's Twilight saga. I mean, it has vampires!

PERSON ONE: But The Tempest has got wizards - and magic too!

PERSON TWO: I prefer vampires...


The fact that their emotional opinions basically mean the same thing ("I like this, but not this") means they cancel each other out. It's impossible to say which is REALLY better: "The Tempest" or "Eclipse". :D

A good point. But generally a true critique will go beyond (and even avoid) referring to personal preferences. For instance instead of saying "I like the colors in this picture" you might say this work uses color in a way that creates harmony rather than discomfort, how does that relate to the subject matter and compositin ----> what affect does that have on the viewer.
 

ayoitsStepho

Twerking & Lurking
Joined
Sep 20, 2009
Messages
4,838
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
4w3
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
I think the only judging factor in art is the technical part. As an art student, I'm taught about composition, depth, how well you reveal your intentions, being intentional about your work and being able to do it well enough that a common passerby could get at least a basic idea of what is going on or at least be able to think about it enough to find connections and symbols. After that everything else is just a persons preference. I love abstract realism! I also can appreciate other types of styles but if they don't have the technicalities down then one can lose what they're trying to attain. Of course, this is only really aimed at the professional artist. A child could create art and not have any of the technicalities involved and it can be amazing. I think, for the most part, it's all about preference.
 

Poindexter Arachnid

Permabanned
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
1,232
MBTI Type
ISTP
Doesn't your reference to "great art" imply some judgement, and the idea that art does a certain thing sets up an standard by which to judge it (how successfully it does x).

My point was that "art" is designed to evoke analysis.
If it does not, it cannot be truly designated as such.

My personal opinion.
 

En Gallop

New member
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
192
A good point. But generally a true critique will go beyond (and even avoid) referring to personal preferences. For instance instead of saying "I like the colors in this picture" you might say this work uses color in a way that creates harmony rather than discomfort, how does that relate to the subject matter and compositin ----> what affect does that have on the viewer.

I agree, you can analyse how harmonic or chaotic a work of art is, and things like that. But that's not what we're asking (or at least not what was written in the OP). "Judging means evaluating a piece of art as either good/bad or evaluating it in comparison to other works of art as better or worse." What makes a harmonic painting "good"? Where's the link between harmony and quality?

If you change to "Can we compare how much harmony is in an artwork compared to other artworks?" then yes, I agree with you. :)
 

Pseudo

New member
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
2,051
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
I agree, you can analyse how harmonic or chaotic a work of art is, and things like that. But that's not what we're asking (or at least not what was written in the OP). "Judging means evaluating a piece of art as either good/bad or evaluating it in comparison to other works of art as better or worse." What makes a harmonic painting "good"? Where's the link between harmony and quality?

If you change to "Can we compare how much harmony is in an artwork compared to other artworks?" then yes, I agree with you. :)



I don't think those things would be how you would judge the work. They are ways to analysis e how effective the work is at communicating something. Harmony, disharmony anything
 

En Gallop

New member
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
192
I don't think those things would be how you would judge the work. They are ways to analysis e how effective the work is at communicating something. Harmony, disharmony anything

Analysing is not Judging. It's just thinking about stuff. :)
 

Pseudo

New member
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
2,051
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Analysing is not Judging. It's just thinking about stuff. :)

Well, the judging would come after analysis based on whether or not you deemed the work to be effective in it's communication. You could judge it as say....passable.....or good or great or Fantastic or RAD!
 

En Gallop

New member
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
192
Well, the judging would come after analysis based on whether or not you deemed the work to be effective in it's communication. You could judge it as say....passable.....or good or great or Fantastic or RAD!

So, in your view, the value of a work of art rests in the effectiveness of its communication? Do you just mean the ability of the artist to present his ideas? Surely the subject of the communication is the whole point of the thing though, not the technical aspect? (The thing being communicated, not the quality of the communication.)
 

Pseudo

New member
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
2,051
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
So, in your view, the value of a work of art rests in the effectiveness of its communication? Do you just mean the ability of the artist to present his ideas? Surely the subject of the communication is the whole point of the thing though, not the technical aspect? (The thing being communicated, not the quality of the communication.)


Basically I would judge it on two fronts. 1.) Is this work communicating effectively 2.)Is there any value in what it is communicating.

So my answered would probably be a combination of subjective and objective. I think we can objectively determine whether the choice of media is appropriate and well handled. If things like composition and design principles have been considered (even if that means they've been broken or disregard for some reason". And whether the idea is communicated. I think working on these lines we can label a work as successful or unsuccessful, masterful even. Even if I didn't personally enjoy a Monet or a John baldessari I could recognize it as successful art.

Deciding the value of the messages is more subjective, and i think that's where you get the idea of works resonating with people. Here you would bring in distinctions like, Great or offensive. A great work probably having an underlying idea that taps into some nearly universal value which results in out collective appreciation. Again here is probably where I would personally find the John Baldessari work "better" that the Monet because I find it's message to have more value.



That's just my take on it. I won't rehash oearlier post but my opinion generally is: I don't think anything can be art and I don't think anything can be good art. However I don't think I have to like something for it to be good and I don't think something has to be good to be labeled art.
 
R

RDF

Guest
First and foremost, I think art has to be entertaining. Anything above and beyond that (educational value, novelty, adherence to an artistic canon) is icing on the cake.

Hence, I hate it when some documentary movie is rated highly by critics because they think the general public needs exposure to this or that issue, but in fact the entertainment value is nil as a result of poor execution or amateurish handling.

First, art has to have entertainment value. That’s quite a wide target to hit, so I don’t think I’m being difficult here. Thus something like The Three Stooges can be both entertainment and kitsch art at the same time (Seinfeld thought of his sitcom as a rehash of the same principles that guided the comedy behind the The Three Stooges). To the extent that one can aspire to something more than mere entertainment, one begins to approach something akin to “great art.” But it’s always instructive to remember that Dostoyevsky drew his great novels from the “yellow sheets” of the day (tabloids, gossip columns, pulp crime fiction). Because that stuff was entertaining.

I think the only judging factor in art is the technical part. As an art student, I'm taught about composition, depth, how well you reveal your intentions, being intentional about your work and being able to do it well enough that a common passerby could get at least a basic idea of what is going on or at least be able to think about it enough to find connections and symbols. After that everything else is just a persons preference. I love abstract realism! I also can appreciate other types of styles but if they don't have the technicalities down then one can lose what they're trying to attain. Of course, this is only really aimed at the professional artist. A child could create art and not have any of the technicalities involved and it can be amazing. I think, for the most part, it's all about preference.
[MENTION=8046]ayoitsStepho[/MENTION]: Count on the art student to get it right. I love the part that I bolded: The best artists will walk you through their art. It’s both entertaining and it’s icing on the cake. I hate artists who are unwilling or unable to say or demonstrate why they’re artists. The best artists know exactly why they’re the best, and they don’t mind sharing it, assuming anyone has the patience to listen and delve with them.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Oh joy, oh joy! I'm in with the majority of the poll. The MAJORITY!
 
E

Epiphany

Guest
I haven't read the thread, but I voted that the value of art, like beauty, is entirely subjective. I don't hold anyone's opinion higher than my own when it comes to personal taste; no matter how much of an expert they believe themselves to be.
 

En Gallop

New member
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
192
Of course, my idea of appealing artwork tends toward 'realistic' depictions of women in chainmail bikinis fighting dragons in fantasy locales, so....yeah. :D

That uniform is not very well suited to the job. I doubt the girl would last long, purely because of her stupid choice of clothing. :)
 

lowtech redneck

New member
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
3,711
MBTI Type
INTP
Top