12 ms·

That's the sort of nihilistic relativism that gives postmodernism a bad name. While taste plays a role in art, and can famously not be judged, art also has asp

That's the sort of nihilistic relativism that gives postmodernism a bad name. While taste plays a role in art, and can famously not be judged, art also has aspects that define a ranking, from "good" art to "bad". These qualities are harder to define than it is for judging the long jump olympics, because they cannot be quantified. But it suffice to observe that when people spend a lot of time studying art, they tend to value similar things. One quality I have als noticed with good critics is a tendency to appreciate a far broader range of art (form and era) than "normal" people.

z3ncyberpunk 5y ago
postmodernism never had a good name or leg to stand on in the first place
deregulateMed 5y ago
I'll take the opposite approach. Children are the best judges of Art. They don't care about historical baggage, they only see beauty. A pile of dead bodies and a naked person crying isn't beautiful, even if it's realistic and has an interesting style. Maybe this view of art is too narrow. Wine supposedly tastes better than juice, despite the strong taste of ethanol. I side with the child on that topic too. Do rules need to be learned to observe art?
- IfOnlyYouKnew 5y ago
  yeah, "beauty" isn't the only quality of good art. What you're thinking of "art" is just interior decorating.
jfengel 5y ago
I believe that the assertion of absolute artistic merit is more dangerous than nihilistic relativism. A critic can be relativist and still be informative. Their goal is not to assign a score to the art, but to communicate about it in an informed, meaningful way. Even if you have a completely different set of values from the critic, you can still appreciate criticism that informs you of what they saw and what it meant to them. Roger Ebert famously hated having to give stars to films, because he was afraid you'd be misled. He could give a move five stars for being a very good slasher film, or action movie, or anything else in a genre he might dislike. Film critics see that aspect in spades, since they have often seen so many movies that even a "good" example will bore them simply because they've seen it all before. But that just gives them a reputation for only being interested in the obscure and outrageous, which appeal only because they're at least different. A good critic can communicate what they see, without having to put an absolute judgment on it, because their judgment is unimportant to your decision to go view that piece of art. What you want is a preview of what that piece might mean to you, a thing established by your relationship to the critic. Some critics write for the audience of people who may go see a piece, and others write for posterity -- the first draft of art history. Either is fine, though they're different modes. This is a postmodernist view of what criticism means, and my point is to show that it doesn't have to be nihilistic. Art still has meaning to you, or not. But the art critic's job isn't to rank it, but to talk about that meaning -- and there's a lot to say. A nihilist just wouldn't say anything at all.

z3ncyberpunk 5y ago

postmodernism never had a good name or leg to stand on in the first place

deregulateMed 5y ago

I'll take the opposite approach. Children are the best judges of Art. They don't care about historical baggage, they only see beauty. A pile of dead bodies and a naked person crying isn't beautiful, even if it's realistic and has an interesting style. Maybe this view of art is too narrow. Wine supposedly tastes better than juice, despite the strong taste of ethanol. I side with the child on that topic too. Do rules need to be learned to observe art?

IfOnlyYouKnew 5y ago
yeah, "beauty" isn't the only quality of good art. What you're thinking of "art" is just interior decorating.

jfengel 5y ago

I believe that the assertion of absolute artistic merit is more dangerous than nihilistic relativism. A critic can be relativist and still be informative. Their goal is not to assign a score to the art, but to communicate about it in an informed, meaningful way. Even if you have a completely different set of values from the critic, you can still appreciate criticism that informs you of what they saw and what it meant to them. Roger Ebert famously hated having to give stars to films, because he was afraid you'd be misled. He could give a move five stars for being a very good slasher film, or action movie, or anything else in a genre he might dislike. Film critics see that aspect in spades, since they have often seen so many movies that even a "good" example will bore them simply because they've seen it all before. But that just gives them a reputation for only being interested in the obscure and outrageous, which appeal only because they're at least different. A good critic can communicate what they see, without having to put an absolute judgment on it, because their judgment is unimportant to your decision to go view that piece of art. What you want is a preview of what that piece might mean to you, a thing established by your relationship to the critic. Some critics write for the audience of people who may go see a piece, and others write for posterity -- the first draft of art history. Either is fine, though they're different modes. This is a postmodernist view of what criticism means, and my point is to show that it doesn't have to be nihilistic. Art still has meaning to you, or not. But the art critic's job isn't to rank it, but to talk about that meaning -- and there's a lot to say. A nihilist just wouldn't say anything at all.