4 ms·

And you, of course, are able to perfectly identify which art is bad. You can look at a piece of art and determine that nobody anywhere will ever gain anything

by mos1b 16y ago

And you, of course, are able to perfectly identify which art is bad. You can look at a piece of art and determine that nobody anywhere will ever gain anything from it's existence. <sigh>

philwelch 16y ago
I can't determine with perfect certainty, no. But there are truly very few rare things in this world we can determine with perfect certainty. The alternate position--which you seem to espouse--is that it's fundamentally impossible to judge art, hence we have to accept all purported attempts at art as "good art". I'm arguing that we can make imperfect judgments; you're arguing we can make no judgments. The very notion of "good art" loses its meaning if the term "good" can no longer distinguish some art from other art, hence your position is completely nihilistic and far more denigrating of art than mine is, because you condemn all art to an indistinguishable morass.
- mos1b1 16y ago
  Don't put words in my mouth. My original point, long ago, was that criticizing art is separate from criticizing the artist personally, and that it's absurd to "look down on" the artist simply because you don't like some or all of their art. Even if you hate their art, you're not necessarily better than the artist. As for the critiquing of art, I don't say that nobody should say their thoughts on it. But your thoughts are not the final word on anything. If you say 'that is horrible' and I say 'it moves me', then it has value to me and none to you. For one of us it is bad art, for the other it is important. From a society standpoint, we tend to value works of art that have some sort of influence. This is exceptionally hard to measure real-time, and is the reason so many great artists made little money during their lifetime. As such, I don't say that all art is "good art", even though you dishonestly put those words into my mouth. I simply say that criticism is personal, and that real-time, societal criticism has large error (particularly when done by people who aren't familiar with what else has been tried before), because you're predicting the results of the art rather than waiting and observing the effects. But mostly, my point has always been that it's absurd to "look down on" the artist because you don't like a particular piece of work.
  - philwelch 16y ago
    "My original point, long ago, was that ... it's absurd to "look down on" the artist" Fine, granted. In the general case, judging personalities is boring. That's not the point I've been arguing. "As for the critiquing of art, I don't say that nobody should say their thoughts on it. But your thoughts are not the final word on anything. If you say 'that is horrible' and I say 'it moves me', then it has value to me and none to you. For one of us it is bad art, for the other it is important." So you think it's impossible to make objective judgments of art. I disagree. "As such, I don't say that all art is "good art", even though you dishonestly put those words into my mouth." Like art, your comments are difficult to correctly interpret. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
    - mos1b3 16y ago
      Fine, granted. In the general case, judging personalities is boring. That's not the point I've been arguing. It's exactly what you said. If it's not what you meant to say, please kindly learn ENGLISH. So you think it's impossible to make objective judgments of art. I disagree. I NEVER SAID THIS. I've made clear I never said this. STOP SAYING I SAID IT. I said that you are not capable of making an absolutist determination of the value of an ARTIST by looking at his art. If you were literate or intelligent this would've been really obvious to you. Sadly, you are neither. You're just some fucking moron who thinks he's better than other people, based on their art.

by mos1b 16y ago

And you, of course, are able to perfectly identify which art is bad. You can look at a piece of art and determine that nobody anywhere will ever gain anything from it's existence. <sigh>

philwelch 16y ago

I can't determine with perfect certainty, no. But there are truly very few rare things in this world we can determine with perfect certainty. The alternate position--which you seem to espouse--is that it's fundamentally impossible to judge art, hence we have to accept all purported attempts at art as "good art". I'm arguing that we can make imperfect judgments; you're arguing we can make no judgments. The very notion of "good art" loses its meaning if the term "good" can no longer distinguish some art from other art, hence your position is completely nihilistic and far more denigrating of art than mine is, because you condemn all art to an indistinguishable morass.

mos1b1 16y ago
Don't put words in my mouth. My original point, long ago, was that criticizing art is separate from criticizing the artist personally, and that it's absurd to "look down on" the artist simply because you don't like some or all of their art. Even if you hate their art, you're not necessarily better than the artist. As for the critiquing of art, I don't say that nobody should say their thoughts on it. But your thoughts are not the final word on anything. If you say 'that is horrible' and I say 'it moves me', then it has value to me and none to you. For one of us it is bad art, for the other it is important. From a society standpoint, we tend to value works of art that have some sort of influence. This is exceptionally hard to measure real-time, and is the reason so many great artists made little money during their lifetime. As such, I don't say that all art is "good art", even though you dishonestly put those words into my mouth. I simply say that criticism is personal, and that real-time, societal criticism has large error (particularly when done by people who aren't familiar with what else has been tried before), because you're predicting the results of the art rather than waiting and observing the effects. But mostly, my point has always been that it's absurd to "look down on" the artist because you don't like a particular piece of work.
- philwelch 16y ago
  "My original point, long ago, was that ... it's absurd to "look down on" the artist" Fine, granted. In the general case, judging personalities is boring. That's not the point I've been arguing. "As for the critiquing of art, I don't say that nobody should say their thoughts on it. But your thoughts are not the final word on anything. If you say 'that is horrible' and I say 'it moves me', then it has value to me and none to you. For one of us it is bad art, for the other it is important." So you think it's impossible to make objective judgments of art. I disagree. "As such, I don't say that all art is "good art", even though you dishonestly put those words into my mouth." Like art, your comments are difficult to correctly interpret. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
  - mos1b3 16y ago
    Fine, granted. In the general case, judging personalities is boring. That's not the point I've been arguing. It's exactly what you said. If it's not what you meant to say, please kindly learn ENGLISH. So you think it's impossible to make objective judgments of art. I disagree. I NEVER SAID THIS. I've made clear I never said this. STOP SAYING I SAID IT. I said that you are not capable of making an absolutist determination of the value of an ARTIST by looking at his art. If you were literate or intelligent this would've been really obvious to you. Sadly, you are neither. You're just some fucking moron who thinks he's better than other people, based on their art.