Thinking about the play we saw...

[madbaker]

Disclaimer: the positions mentioned here are not necessarily those held by me or my art-school-attending wife.

Point: Art must be judged within its own context.

Counter-point: Just because it's "art" doesn't mean it's not crap.

Discuss.

Comments

[fionnbharro.livejournal.com]

Um.... Usually Point/Counterpoint situations involve mutually antagonistic positions.

These aren't.

You can judge crappy art for what it is 'within its own context.'


But what do *I* know -- *I* liked Ishtar.


Current Music: Rogers & Clarke -- Dangerous Business

Mutually antagonistic positions

[madbaker.livejournal.com]

'kay, let's reframe the sentences. Note that I'm not endorsing either one - just trying to spawn a bit of debate.

"Art can only be judged within its own context. Comparing it to other works is irrelevant to the value of the piece."

"Psycho-babble. Everyone can make a good/bad value judgment."

[cvirtue.livejournal.com]

"Art can only be judged within its own context"

Is this axiomatic in this exercise? If so, that's your problem; the axiom is not true; basing any conclusions on it will not advance the argument.

Okay, fine.

[madbaker.livejournal.com]

I was trying to prompt some discussion on this topic, rather than my wordsmithing. Never mind.
(BTW, this isn't meant as a grump.)

[cvirtue.livejournal.com]

Sorry! Maybe you need more people who don't agree with you!

[madbaker.livejournal.com]

The only problem my with nit-pickiness is when my friends return the favor. 8)

[wingedcorset.livejournal.com]

Another point: Just because you think it's crap doesn't mean it's crap to everyone.

That sounds rather antagonistic. It isn't meant to.

Now another question: What is the purpose of art? Why art?

No answers, just more questions.

[farmount.livejournal.com]

To quote caprine from way back in our college days:

"Art is whatever you can get away with."

I think that what people consider "art" to be a judgment, just as is "good" or "bad." Is a rose good or bad, or is it even considered "art" because it is formed by nature rather than by man? If it is useful, is it then no longer art? Is there no art in a beautifully carved table, or a gorgeous car? How are they different from the Mona Lisa, other than the obvious "one you eat off, one you drive, and one you hang on the wall?" If you hung the table off the wall, would it then become art?

Just my own comments...

[aastg.livejournal.com]

Okay, "art" is a subjective judgement, likewise "crap" is also a subjective judgement. Since a subjective judgement requires no objective proof to be valid, "art" can be "crap" and contrariwise.

Note: I tried this argument with a dear friend (and known hater of Abstract Expressionism) recently, and it didn't work on HER, either. I believe her response was, "Yeah, I can barf on a canvas too -- that doesn't make me an artist!"

Re:

[farmount.livejournal.com]

Depends if someone was willing to pay for the barf on a canvas. If so, then she COULD be an artist... :)

In general, "art" seems to be something that requires at least some sort of consesus to designate the label. If an insufficient number decide that something is art, then it is indeed crap.

Now, what is the number? 42?