madbaker: (Default)
[personal profile] 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.

Date: 2004-02-02 05:46 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] 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

Date: 2004-02-02 05:55 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] 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?

Mutually antagonistic positions

Date: 2004-02-02 07:18 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] 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."

Date: 2004-02-02 08:35 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] 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.

Date: 2004-02-02 08:56 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] 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.)

Date: 2004-02-02 09:26 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cvirtue.livejournal.com
Sorry! Maybe you need more people who don't agree with you!

No answers, just more questions.

Date: 2004-02-02 10:23 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] farmount.livejournal.com
To quote [livejournal.com profile] 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...

Date: 2004-02-03 03:57 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] 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:

Date: 2004-02-03 05:38 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] 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?

Date: 2004-02-03 05:52 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] madbaker.livejournal.com
The only problem my with nit-pickiness is when my friends return the favor. 8)

Profile

madbaker: (Default)
madbaker

February 2026

S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Feb. 9th, 2026 01:50 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios