4 ms·

What other considerations are there other than skill? Isn’t everything a skill? Graham lists a few other extraneous concerns that people judge art by. He assert

by rp1 5y ago

What other considerations are there other than skill? Isn’t everything a skill? Graham lists a few other extraneous concerns that people judge art by. He asserts these are unrelated to the art itself, like which museum the art is hanging in. I agree with Graham’s premise. My theory is that people don’t believe good taste exists because most people have bad taste and that’s too big of a pill to swallow. Would you rather admit to having bad taste, or posit that taste doesn’t exist? This is supported by Graham’s observation that contemporary art critics are nearly always disproven a generation or two later, meaning most critics have flawed taste.

nickelpro 5y ago
The conflation of skill with taste demonstrates exactly why Graham is wrong. There's many widely recognized works of art, by critics of similarly recognized taste, that are far less skillful than what a competent art student can put out today and yet held in higher acclaim. Post-modernism, Dada, and surrealism drove the stake through this point, The Treachery of Images or Fountain (Duchamp) aren't extremely skillful, but they're world class art from a certain point of view.
- rp1 5y ago
  I think you’re taking too narrow a definition of skill. True, drawing a straight line is a skill, but the vision to draw a particular line in an innovative way is also a skill.
  - nickelpro 5y ago
    And what counts as visionary and what counts as nonsense is entirely subjective. We can judge how straight a line is objectively, but we can't judge "vision" objectively, and thus "taste" is inherently subjective. That Graham wrote an entire essay rubbing up against this point without once encountering any literature that explains this (seminally Bourdieu, but there are many others) is surprising.
    - rp1 5y ago
      But subjectiveness applies to everything. For instance, whether or not something is moral is subjective, and yet there is a collective notion of morality.
- havermeyer 5y ago
  There's even a subreddit dedicated to awful taste but great execution :) https://old.reddit.com/r/ATBGE/ https://old.reddit.com/r/ATBGE/
beaconstudios 5y ago
Skill is used to produce, but the product of skill isn't necessarily good if it doesn't fulfil a useful purpose. Good taste beyond pure aesthetic appreciation is related to interpretation/analysis, understanding what the artist accomplished and what can be read from the work. Good art says something new. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images is a good example - it has very little aesthetic value but a lot of meaning, especially for the era is was made in. Compare that to e.g. Vermeer (one of my favourite artists), whose work is full of skill and aesthetic beauty but doesn't have anything to say because it's a figurative work.
GoblinSlayer 5y ago
I'd say many people have not much interest in art in the first place. It's not a matter of taste, but whether art is a thing at all.
bitcurious 5y ago
> What other considerations are there other than skill? Narrative is critical, and often external, coming from the curator, dealer, critic, etc. Humans love stories. “Death and Transfiguration” by Strauss is a beautiful, skillfully written piece of music. A story I heard is that Strauss on his deathbed exclaimed “it’s just like I wrote it!” Is it true? Did he say this? I have no idea, and in a sense it doesn’t matter. The piece is made better by the story I remember when I listen to it. It’s not in the music, it’s with the music.
Igelau 5y ago
> My theory is that people don’t believe good taste exists because most people have bad taste This breaks down pretty quickly outside of fine art criticism. If I put 20 people in a room and only one of them has dressed "in good taste", they'll stick out badly enough that the consensus of the group will be that the one is in "bad taste". The problem is that "taste" is vague, depends on ephemeral context and may be subject to popular whims and ignorance.
- rp1 5y ago
  I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Graham is not saying that taste is quantifiable or identifiable via public opinion or consensus, so I'm not sure how the situation of 20 people in a room evaluating taste is relevant.

by rp1 5y ago

nickelpro 5y ago

The conflation of skill with taste demonstrates exactly why Graham is wrong. There's many widely recognized works of art, by critics of similarly recognized taste, that are far less skillful than what a competent art student can put out today and yet held in higher acclaim. Post-modernism, Dada, and surrealism drove the stake through this point, The Treachery of Images or Fountain (Duchamp) aren't extremely skillful, but they're world class art from a certain point of view.

rp1 5y ago
I think you’re taking too narrow a definition of skill. True, drawing a straight line is a skill, but the vision to draw a particular line in an innovative way is also a skill.
- nickelpro 5y ago
  And what counts as visionary and what counts as nonsense is entirely subjective. We can judge how straight a line is objectively, but we can't judge "vision" objectively, and thus "taste" is inherently subjective. That Graham wrote an entire essay rubbing up against this point without once encountering any literature that explains this (seminally Bourdieu, but there are many others) is surprising.
  - rp1 5y ago
    But subjectiveness applies to everything. For instance, whether or not something is moral is subjective, and yet there is a collective notion of morality.
havermeyer 5y ago
There's even a subreddit dedicated to awful taste but great execution :) https://old.reddit.com/r/ATBGE/ https://old.reddit.com/r/ATBGE/

beaconstudios 5y ago

Skill is used to produce, but the product of skill isn't necessarily good if it doesn't fulfil a useful purpose. Good taste beyond pure aesthetic appreciation is related to interpretation/analysis, understanding what the artist accomplished and what can be read from the work. Good art says something new. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images is a good example - it has very little aesthetic value but a lot of meaning, especially for the era is was made in. Compare that to e.g. Vermeer (one of my favourite artists), whose work is full of skill and aesthetic beauty but doesn't have anything to say because it's a figurative work.

GoblinSlayer 5y ago

I'd say many people have not much interest in art in the first place. It's not a matter of taste, but whether art is a thing at all.

bitcurious 5y ago

> What other considerations are there other than skill? Narrative is critical, and often external, coming from the curator, dealer, critic, etc. Humans love stories. “Death and Transfiguration” by Strauss is a beautiful, skillfully written piece of music. A story I heard is that Strauss on his deathbed exclaimed “it’s just like I wrote it!” Is it true? Did he say this? I have no idea, and in a sense it doesn’t matter. The piece is made better by the story I remember when I listen to it. It’s not in the music, it’s with the music.

Igelau 5y ago

> My theory is that people don’t believe good taste exists because most people have bad taste This breaks down pretty quickly outside of fine art criticism. If I put 20 people in a room and only one of them has dressed "in good taste", they'll stick out badly enough that the consensus of the group will be that the one is in "bad taste". The problem is that "taste" is vague, depends on ephemeral context and may be subject to popular whims and ignorance.

rp1 5y ago
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Graham is not saying that taste is quantifiable or identifiable via public opinion or consensus, so I'm not sure how the situation of 20 people in a room evaluating taste is relevant.