good art and bad art?

Use this forum to have philosophical discussions about aesthetics and art. What is art? What is beauty? What makes art good? You can also use this forum to discuss philosophy in the arts, namely to discuss the philosophical points in any particular movie, TV show, book or story.
Post Reply
kordofany
Posts: 44
Joined: April 9th, 2018, 3:57 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Franz Kafka
Contact:

good art and bad art?

Post by kordofany » May 16th, 2018, 1:54 am

If artistic tasting is a purely personal matter, how do we divide art into bad art and good art?

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 2923
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: good art and bad art?

Post by LuckyR » May 16th, 2018, 2:52 am

kordofany wrote:
May 16th, 2018, 1:54 am
If artistic tasting is a purely personal matter, how do we divide art into bad art and good art?
Purely personally?
"As usual... it depends."

kordofany
Posts: 44
Joined: April 9th, 2018, 3:57 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Franz Kafka
Contact:

Re: good art and bad art?

Post by kordofany » May 16th, 2018, 8:49 am

I think so

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 1697
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: good art and bad art?

Post by Hereandnow » August 9th, 2018, 10:43 pm

A worthy question: for is there is nothing to the proposition that one is better than another in any possible judgment, then art criticism would be denied any validity beyond the arbitrariness of "taste". Trouble is, taste cannot be ignored, that is, the element of a standard driven assessment that may present itself is going to inevitably be made ambiguous by the arbitrary disposition that also drives judgment. I may have a powerful ratonalization in place for appreciating a certain movement a Beethoven symphony, but then, what makes Beethoven so well liked at all? Certainly had I not been exposed to classical music at all, the whole matter would be entirely moot.
The is only one way out of what appears to be the conclusion that there are no standards and anything is just as good as anything else as long as it is appreciated by some person. this would be a standard that is not objective in any descriptive way; it would be a standard grounded in aesthetics only. I cannot "convince" you that the Beethoven is great by describing the balance,the lyrical qualities, or any other descriptive features. There may be greatness in these, but in and of themselves, they are aesthetically irrelevant and do not make for an argument for superior music. Indeed, I cannot convince a person at all, if conviction lies with explanation removed from appreciation. But I can take what I recall to be Mill's take on this kind of thing: The judgment of one over the other can only be made by one who is appreciative of both. If I know and appreciate some popular idiom and I also appreciate classical, I am thereby qualified to judge one being better than another purely on the aesthetic merit, for both are accessible to me.
It is a difficult and highly debatable issue, but I think it right, and I use this to make judgments about art all the time, though cases have to be reviewed individually. But then, I do think Beethoven's ninth symphony, that movement right after the famous scherzo, is far superior to a great number of other pieces I can thing of, and I base this exclusively on the beauty of the music.

Post Reply