6 ms·

To speak meaningfully about art you only need to expand your understanding of what constitutes art. "Thoughtful" conversations on art have nothing to do with br

To speak meaningfully about art you only need to expand your understanding of what constitutes art. "Thoughtful" conversations on art have nothing to do with brush strokes or color palettes or even taste. Qualifying art as "good" or "bad" is a subjective measure you probably should've left in middle school. And realistically, you'll never really know what is "good" or "bad" art without years of exposure to the ideas and thoughts that go into the work.

abrokenpipe 4y ago
I don't agree, and I suppose this is just my opinion but I just tend to dislike the idea that art is in the eye of the beholder. I think we've extended the use of the word art too far. In my opinion art is really just paintings and sculptures. Good art involves a lot of skill, eg: years of practice, attention to detail, sophisticated processes, careful choice of mediums, tasteful composition, and choice of subject matter. While a lot of this stuff is opinionated there are definitely rules to a lot of these things. There are essentially guidelines that have log existed for measuring an artists ability to capture color, shapes, light, and movement. Even with more modern styles like van Gogh and Monet these rules applied. At some point we threw this out the window with the post modern movement and said art can be anything, becoming more focused on the cleverness and profound underlying message that this new "art" contained rather than the skill, dedication, and aesthetics that went into it.
- User23 4y ago
  I remember the first time I walked into a gallery and saw that someone had stenciled "FUCK" on the wall and the docent was smugly explaining about how artistically creative it was. Nah, sometimes a "FUCK" is just a "FUCK." So-called modern art is, at best, a money laundering scheme, and other applications go downhill from there. That's not to say there aren't tons of gifted and talented artists making art today, they just aren't who you're going to see in the galleries.
  - tayo42 4y ago
    Modern art includes a bunch of amazing artists like Picasso
    - abrokenpipe 4y ago
      I think he's referring to the more "out there" postmodern stuff
    - the_only_law 4y ago
      You should have seen the HN thread in some Picasso some months back. Turns out many were displeased with his works and styles.
- austinjp 4y ago
  Let's say you see tens or hundreds of works by artists who qualify ("years of practice, attention to detail, sophisticated processes, careful choice of mediums, tasteful composition, and choice of subject matter"). Do you think you'd describe all the works as "good"? Seems doubtful. Or maybe you would say they are indeed all "good", but not equally good. Or maybe each night be "good and...." some other quality, varying between the works. So what are those qualities that might distinguish between all those "good" works? And might you see if they apply to other forms of visual art? Perhaps those qualities might find a fuller or more varied expression in other media? > At some point we threw this out the window with the post modern movement and said art can be anything Check out Marcel Duchamp.
- the_only_law 4y ago
  > In my opinion art is really just paintings and sculptures Can’t agree with this one, two people I know that are the epitome of an “artist” are musicians.
  - abrokenpipe 4y ago
    I get where you are coming from, but to me it's like saying a painting is "visual music" or to call a painter who doesn't make music a musician, those are just two totally different things. My main criticism here is the overextension of the word "art". It's often used to describe something as "creative", "tasteful", "well made", "pretty", or even just "really good". But that doesn't mean something is actually art. In my opinion real art is like a good view, it's a carefully crafted physical object that's only purpose is to be nice to look at, nothing else. And a real artist must make real art to truly be one. If you want to call something art as an expression then that's totally fine, I just think it's ridiculous to say music is literally art.
    - the_only_law 4y ago
      What do you base this idea that “art” should only include sculptures and painting. Some cursory googling into the etymology and history of the word suggest it was often used in even more broad senses, describing things probably neither of us would consider “art”.
      - abrokenpipe 4y ago
        It's just my opinion
- myownpetard 4y ago
  > In my opinion art is really just paintings and sculptures. You don't count film or photography? What about art that targets other senses besides vision like music or culinary arts?
  - abrokenpipe 4y ago
    In my opinion photography is close but still distinct enough that I would call it separate from art, film takes this even furthur. Cooking is way different from art, sure you can add the word "arts" after anything, but all it's really saying is that the thing is being done in a creative manner...
    - myownpetard 4y ago
      I don't think I've ever heard such a circumscribed definition of art before. Did you get this conception of art from somewhere or is it just a personal redefinition of the word?
- oldstrangers 4y ago
  What you appreciate is the "craft" of art. Which is great, the work of talented artists that are able to craft amazing scenes and stories is truly beautiful. Eventually though, you need something more than just the aesthetics of it all. I think its safe to argue that after thousands of years of art, we (the viewer) evolved to want more from it all, and the art world responded in kind. A really subversive piece of art work (Ai Weiwei) is a lot more stimulating than a beautiful portrait (Rembrandt).
causality0 4y ago
And realistically, you'll never really know what is "good" or "bad" art without years of exposure to the ideas and thoughts that go into the work. Good art makes the world a better place by existing and bad art makes it a worse place. True, that does mean it's contextual and can change over time.
- oldstrangers 4y ago
  If there's a piece of art out there that can demonstrably make the world a worse place, than that's a pretty compelling piece of art.
trgn 4y ago
> Qualifying art as "good" or "bad" is a subjective measure you probably should've left in middle school Judging good from bad requires hubris, and a strong internalized belief in some kind of inalienable order. The inability to distinguish good from bad is an inability to distinguish between virtue and vice, wholesome and depraved, worthwhile and worthless. In other words, someone who distinguishes between good and bad takes on the role of judge and all the responsibilities that entails. The one who doesn't, abdicates this responsibility, and thus frees themselves from accountability. Which is cool. But lame. Judging art is harmless. So dare be a judge in the presence of art. It is strangely liberating. > And realistically, you'll never really know what is "good" or "bad" art without years of exposure to the ideas and thoughts that go into the work. That's a premise, which is relatively modern. With art, you can just known in your bones when something is good, and when something is bad. When in the presence of "good" art, there's a gravity you can physically not escape. That feeling can be intellectualized, of course, it makes for fun dinner conversations. Nonetheless, it is absolute. All that said, the article is actually pretty good (although it is not to my taste).
- austinjp 4y ago
  > someone who distinguishes between good and bad takes on the role of judge and all the responsibilities that entails. The one who doesn't, abdicates this responsibility, and thus frees themselves from accountability. Nah :) Someone can judge a work as "good" or "bad" then shrug off any "responsibility" e.g. by dismissing further discussion. Equally someone might judge a work to be neither good not bad but something else -- disruptive, satirical, insightful, humble, obsequious -- and willingly take "responsibility" for their judgement, i.e. defend, debate, discuss, modify it. > Judging art is harmless. This is strongly dependent on context. To someone's face? As a politician? > So dare be a judge in the presence of art. It is strangely liberating. Fully agree :)
danielam 4y ago
> Qualifying art as "good" or "bad" is a subjective measure you probably should've left in middle school. And this notion is precisely one I reject. The author himself makes the distinction between art one likes and good art, though he doesn't offer an explicit metaphysical explanation and I wish to stay clear of any kind of relativism that may be implied. (My initial reading allows for competing interpretations of the article.) For instance, if we take the example of the fine arts, we must distinguish between beauty and taste. Beauty is objective (and as a transcendental, is to be identified with the transcendentals of the good and the true). It concerns a thing's perfection in relation to some telos, some form. Taste, on the other hand, concerns one's subjective experience of pleasure experienced in the reception of a thing. This is why we can, in principle, speak of someone having poor taste or refined taste. Poor taste is undiscerning and lacking in sensitivity, even going so far as to prefer vulgarity to refinement. If beauty were a mere matter of taste, then we could not speak of good or bad taste, or of garishness and the sublime, except as a glorified way of saying "I like this, but not that; this pleases me, that does not". I do not accept this view, though it is the received and conventional view today. A shabby and nihilistic view rooted, no doubt, in our Cartesian inheritance. Now, this doesn't automatically mean that there can be no debate about the beauty of an art piece. Indeed, the very possibility of debate presupposes a distinction between beauty and taste, between the objective and the subjective reception of a thing. What it does mean is that aesthetic judgement is, like moral discernment and logical reasoning, something that requires not just capacity, but something that must be refined and perfected. If we debate such things—the good, the true and the beautiful—we do so with a view of conforming ourselves to the truth, and in the case of beauty, our tastes with the beautiful, just as through ethics we seek to conform ourselves to the good.

abrokenpipe 4y ago

I don't agree, and I suppose this is just my opinion but I just tend to dislike the idea that art is in the eye of the beholder. I think we've extended the use of the word art too far. In my opinion art is really just paintings and sculptures. Good art involves a lot of skill, eg: years of practice, attention to detail, sophisticated processes, careful choice of mediums, tasteful composition, and choice of subject matter. While a lot of this stuff is opinionated there are definitely rules to a lot of these things. There are essentially guidelines that have log existed for measuring an artists ability to capture color, shapes, light, and movement. Even with more modern styles like van Gogh and Monet these rules applied. At some point we threw this out the window with the post modern movement and said art can be anything, becoming more focused on the cleverness and profound underlying message that this new "art" contained rather than the skill, dedication, and aesthetics that went into it.

User23 4y ago
I remember the first time I walked into a gallery and saw that someone had stenciled "FUCK" on the wall and the docent was smugly explaining about how artistically creative it was. Nah, sometimes a "FUCK" is just a "FUCK." So-called modern art is, at best, a money laundering scheme, and other applications go downhill from there. That's not to say there aren't tons of gifted and talented artists making art today, they just aren't who you're going to see in the galleries.
- tayo42 4y ago
  Modern art includes a bunch of amazing artists like Picasso
  - abrokenpipe 4y ago
    I think he's referring to the more "out there" postmodern stuff
  - the_only_law 4y ago
    You should have seen the HN thread in some Picasso some months back. Turns out many were displeased with his works and styles.
austinjp 4y ago
Let's say you see tens or hundreds of works by artists who qualify ("years of practice, attention to detail, sophisticated processes, careful choice of mediums, tasteful composition, and choice of subject matter"). Do you think you'd describe all the works as "good"? Seems doubtful. Or maybe you would say they are indeed all "good", but not equally good. Or maybe each night be "good and...." some other quality, varying between the works. So what are those qualities that might distinguish between all those "good" works? And might you see if they apply to other forms of visual art? Perhaps those qualities might find a fuller or more varied expression in other media? > At some point we threw this out the window with the post modern movement and said art can be anything Check out Marcel Duchamp.
the_only_law 4y ago
> In my opinion art is really just paintings and sculptures Can’t agree with this one, two people I know that are the epitome of an “artist” are musicians.
- abrokenpipe 4y ago
  I get where you are coming from, but to me it's like saying a painting is "visual music" or to call a painter who doesn't make music a musician, those are just two totally different things. My main criticism here is the overextension of the word "art". It's often used to describe something as "creative", "tasteful", "well made", "pretty", or even just "really good". But that doesn't mean something is actually art. In my opinion real art is like a good view, it's a carefully crafted physical object that's only purpose is to be nice to look at, nothing else. And a real artist must make real art to truly be one. If you want to call something art as an expression then that's totally fine, I just think it's ridiculous to say music is literally art.
  - the_only_law 4y ago
    What do you base this idea that “art” should only include sculptures and painting. Some cursory googling into the etymology and history of the word suggest it was often used in even more broad senses, describing things probably neither of us would consider “art”.
    - abrokenpipe 4y ago
      It's just my opinion
myownpetard 4y ago
> In my opinion art is really just paintings and sculptures. You don't count film or photography? What about art that targets other senses besides vision like music or culinary arts?
- abrokenpipe 4y ago
  In my opinion photography is close but still distinct enough that I would call it separate from art, film takes this even furthur. Cooking is way different from art, sure you can add the word "arts" after anything, but all it's really saying is that the thing is being done in a creative manner...
  - myownpetard 4y ago
    I don't think I've ever heard such a circumscribed definition of art before. Did you get this conception of art from somewhere or is it just a personal redefinition of the word?
oldstrangers 4y ago
What you appreciate is the "craft" of art. Which is great, the work of talented artists that are able to craft amazing scenes and stories is truly beautiful. Eventually though, you need something more than just the aesthetics of it all. I think its safe to argue that after thousands of years of art, we (the viewer) evolved to want more from it all, and the art world responded in kind. A really subversive piece of art work (Ai Weiwei) is a lot more stimulating than a beautiful portrait (Rembrandt).

causality0 4y ago

And realistically, you'll never really know what is "good" or "bad" art without years of exposure to the ideas and thoughts that go into the work. Good art makes the world a better place by existing and bad art makes it a worse place. True, that does mean it's contextual and can change over time.

oldstrangers 4y ago
If there's a piece of art out there that can demonstrably make the world a worse place, than that's a pretty compelling piece of art.

trgn 4y ago

> Qualifying art as "good" or "bad" is a subjective measure you probably should've left in middle school Judging good from bad requires hubris, and a strong internalized belief in some kind of inalienable order. The inability to distinguish good from bad is an inability to distinguish between virtue and vice, wholesome and depraved, worthwhile and worthless. In other words, someone who distinguishes between good and bad takes on the role of judge and all the responsibilities that entails. The one who doesn't, abdicates this responsibility, and thus frees themselves from accountability. Which is cool. But lame. Judging art is harmless. So dare be a judge in the presence of art. It is strangely liberating. > And realistically, you'll never really know what is "good" or "bad" art without years of exposure to the ideas and thoughts that go into the work. That's a premise, which is relatively modern. With art, you can just known in your bones when something is good, and when something is bad. When in the presence of "good" art, there's a gravity you can physically not escape. That feeling can be intellectualized, of course, it makes for fun dinner conversations. Nonetheless, it is absolute. All that said, the article is actually pretty good (although it is not to my taste).

austinjp 4y ago
> someone who distinguishes between good and bad takes on the role of judge and all the responsibilities that entails. The one who doesn't, abdicates this responsibility, and thus frees themselves from accountability. Nah :) Someone can judge a work as "good" or "bad" then shrug off any "responsibility" e.g. by dismissing further discussion. Equally someone might judge a work to be neither good not bad but something else -- disruptive, satirical, insightful, humble, obsequious -- and willingly take "responsibility" for their judgement, i.e. defend, debate, discuss, modify it. > Judging art is harmless. This is strongly dependent on context. To someone's face? As a politician? > So dare be a judge in the presence of art. It is strangely liberating. Fully agree :)

danielam 4y ago

> Qualifying art as "good" or "bad" is a subjective measure you probably should've left in middle school. And this notion is precisely one I reject. The author himself makes the distinction between art one likes and good art, though he doesn't offer an explicit metaphysical explanation and I wish to stay clear of any kind of relativism that may be implied. (My initial reading allows for competing interpretations of the article.) For instance, if we take the example of the fine arts, we must distinguish between beauty and taste. Beauty is objective (and as a transcendental, is to be identified with the transcendentals of the good and the true). It concerns a thing's perfection in relation to some telos, some form. Taste, on the other hand, concerns one's subjective experience of pleasure experienced in the reception of a thing. This is why we can, in principle, speak of someone having poor taste or refined taste. Poor taste is undiscerning and lacking in sensitivity, even going so far as to prefer vulgarity to refinement. If beauty were a mere matter of taste, then we could not speak of good or bad taste, or of garishness and the sublime, except as a glorified way of saying "I like this, but not that; this pleases me, that does not". I do not accept this view, though it is the received and conventional view today. A shabby and nihilistic view rooted, no doubt, in our Cartesian inheritance. Now, this doesn't automatically mean that there can be no debate about the beauty of an art piece. Indeed, the very possibility of debate presupposes a distinction between beauty and taste, between the objective and the subjective reception of a thing. What it does mean is that aesthetic judgement is, like moral discernment and logical reasoning, something that requires not just capacity, but something that must be refined and perfected. If we debate such things—the good, the true and the beautiful—we do so with a view of conforming ourselves to the truth, and in the case of beauty, our tastes with the beautiful, just as through ethics we seek to conform ourselves to the good.