What makes art Good

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.
Jklint
Posts: 1199
Joined: February 23rd, 2012, 3:06 am

Re: What makes art Good

Post by Jklint » December 15th, 2015, 5:28 pm

Belinda wrote: But I chose this river music as an example of an imitation of natural sound and force and so I can listen to the music with meanings abstracted from it, so that it's sensory not conceptual.
There are many instances in music that attempt to conceptualize some natural event. The following for instance being purely programmatic meant specifically to invoke a kind of sensory fractal in oneself. Any such 'translation' requires abstraction. Those who can't respond and recreate that image in themselves only experience its outward manifestation without the inner effect.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmQ2o0xgDeY

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 2789
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: What makes art Good

Post by LuckyR » December 16th, 2015, 5:38 am

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Kind of like the tree falling in the forest, Art without an audience, is not art since there is no emotional connection.

Thus the positive opinion of the audience makes art "good". What makes it a classic is popularity (or appreciation) across eras.
"As usual... it depends."

Belinda
Contributor
Posts: 13760
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: What makes art Good

Post by Belinda » December 16th, 2015, 9:33 am

Jklint, and Greta,is music which appeals purely to the senses, but not to the intellect the same as onomatopoeia in language especially in poetry? In other words is language especially poetry like music with respect to pure sound effects?

Unconventional rythmic effects too, and also perhaps unconventional modulations in tempo, and adventures in media.

Greta wrote earlier:
In both art and music I look for form over content. I love Picasso's flow and design sensibilities, Dali's distorted realism, Roussou's and Gaugin's colours, shapes and forms. I usually don't have the slightest interest in "unpacking" the art. I mostly just absorb the forms and colours as one might enjoy a landscape or watch a sunset. I tend towards instrumental music and frequently ignore lyrics of songs too. IMO a lack of content is preferable to banal content, which pointlessly distracts from the form.
This is what I was taught is the Romantic as opposed to the Classical tradition. The Romantic poet Wordsworth wrote about how the "shades of the prison house" of culture "close upon the growing boy". So Greta's view of how for instance the animal face, and the abundance of nature, are evolutionary forerunners of aesthetic sense pertains to the Romantic movement. I doubt if jazz , its ethnic roots, and its derivatives could have survived before Romanticism got going.
Maybe jazz and other comparatively non-commercialised popular music aligns with the Romantic tradition of 'serious' music .
Socialist

Granth
Posts: 2084
Joined: July 20th, 2012, 11:56 pm

Re: What makes art Good

Post by Granth » December 30th, 2015, 6:07 pm

Subjectivity makes art good.

-- Updated January 4th, 2016, 8:03 pm to add the following --

Non censorship makes art good. Age appropriate ratings are ok however.

-- Updated January 4th, 2016, 8:12 pm to add the following --
LuckyR wrote:Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Kind of like the tree falling in the forest, Art without an audience, is not art since there is no emotional connection.

Thus the positive opinion of the audience makes art "good". What makes it a classic is popularity (or appreciation) across eras.
If, as you say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then so is whether opinion is positive or negative. Negative to one person could be positive for another. Art should not, for example, be censored if a particular group or person finds a piece inspires a negative opinion from them or from anyone else. Opinion is as subjective as art is and should be. We all, as individuals, are subjects within a world of varied experiences. Variety of experience makes the world.

User avatar
Push the Sky Away
New Trial Member
Posts: 6
Joined: August 21st, 2014, 6:22 pm

Re: What makes art Good

Post by Push the Sky Away » May 27th, 2016, 8:34 pm

I do appreciate your question, but how many times will people attempt to define art? You are more likely to reach a conclusion by reciting Zen Koans and speaking in tongues.

The problem I had your question is where you suggest that "with enough imagination, just about anything can be justified as art and interpreted to symbolize something". There are really two premises in this statement. The first is that art ought to be justified - or that some things are not art and some things are. This is like saying of any experience or observation - that you need to imagination to justify that it is a manifestation of truth - all things that are experienced are manifestations of reality. There is no "is" or "isn't" where observation and experience is concerned - other than what is determined by your arbitrary criteria (the burden of proof is not on me to prove this statement otherwise as I am only stating that categorizations do not prove or disprove observations other than what is determined by the criteria itself). In simpler terms - lets say that the art Gods agree with your criteria... so what? Things still are. Be a transparent observer.

The other premise in this statement is that art must "symbolize" something. This, similar to your listed criteria, implies an intention rather than spontaneity. As that which is unintended or spontaneous cannot symbolize anything (for example, acts of nature are not symbolic).

Regarding your listed criteria, it seems that both of your criteria are based upon this same premise that art must be intended.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the key description in your first criteria, "expression" implies a communication or atleast a self-reflection of an idea, feeling, experience, value, etc. Under this definition of "expression", an intention must be required. Unless you are talking about a more abstract "expression" like the expression of nature, the universe, God, etc.

In your second criteria you suggest that art can only be concerned with certain subject matter. If this is the case then it would seem that an inspired artist must consciously shape their inspiration to fit whatever subject matter that the art Gods have determined appropriate. This again implies a certain intention on the part of the artist.

To me, it is extremely limiting to hold that art is determined by that which is intended. You are excluding improvised art, conceptual art, art that deals with the abject, religious ritual/art, performance art, and nature (there are infinitely more forms of art, born and unborn, that are not intended that you must exclude under this definition).

Again, what good does it do you to define art? People define art in a way that excludes the Holy Virgin Mary by Chris Ofili or the infamous Piss Christ or other postmodern art from their experience/observation, but so what? It is still observed or atleast has the potential to be! - Regardless of what value you place on it. This is not to say that value is necessarily arbitrary, but it is to say that experience and observations in art are possible outside of value (you must agree that truth exists outside of value/preference) - therefore choosing what to observe based upon value is limiting (although some limitations are of course preferential - this does not imply that art is unconcerned with them).

Oh dear God, I have made the same mistake as you...

User avatar
Push the Sky Away
New Trial Member
Posts: 6
Joined: August 21st, 2014, 6:22 pm

Re: What makes art Good

Post by Push the Sky Away » May 27th, 2016, 8:50 pm

Blazing Donkey wrote:
Drau wrote:With enough imagination, just about anything can be justified as art and interpreted to symbolize something.

I disagree. There are many kinds of art that are very simplistic in nature. For example this painting by famous minimalist Piet Mondrian:

How does your first example apply to this painting? Do you not consider it to be "art"?


I agree that this painting is "art", but I don't think you are presenting an argument here. The initial question included criteria for what art is. It is not an argument to pick an observation outside of a proposed criteria and say "although this observation lies outside of your criteria, it really is what your criteria is attempting to categorize".

This would be like if someone established the criteria for "Table" as 1) It is made out of Wood 2) It has four legs. And you respond by showing them a plastic table with three legs and say "but this is also a table" without pointing out that their criteria is an illogical way to categorize tables. Again, you are right - but I don't see an argument.

User avatar
Weight
Posts: 29
Joined: October 25th, 2011, 4:23 am

Re: What makes art Good

Post by Weight » September 27th, 2016, 5:36 pm

Hello, thought I would add my thoughts. Most arts are a discipline. Although good art or skilled art is subjective. I think the best way to judge art or music would be through technical aspects and how many people it can register an emotional effect or basically move. Judging something technically can be done like this, How much time was put into the craft or song and how well done it is.

User avatar
Rr6
Posts: 1034
Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller

Re: What makes art Good

Post by Rr6 » September 27th, 2016, 6:52 pm

Its art when 51%, or more of those viewing it, consider it art.

r6
"U"niverse > UniVerse > universe > I-verse < you-verse < we-verse < them-verse

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 2789
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: What makes art Good

Post by LuckyR » September 28th, 2016, 2:57 pm

Rr6 wrote:Its art when 51%, or more of those viewing it, consider it art.

r6
Actually it is 50% + 1...
"As usual... it depends."

User avatar
Rr6
Posts: 1034
Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller

Re: What makes art Good

Post by Rr6 » September 28th, 2016, 11:39 pm

LuckyR wrote:
Rr6 wrote:Its art when 51%, or more of those viewing it, consider it art.
Actually it is 50% + 1...
Synonyms? 100% - 49. Plenty of way to arrive at same value. imho I dunot as i'm well educated in mathematics.

r6
"U"niverse > UniVerse > universe > I-verse < you-verse < we-verse < them-verse

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 2789
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: What makes art Good

Post by LuckyR » September 29th, 2016, 1:34 am

Well, 51% of 1000 is 510, but 501 will win the election.
"As usual... it depends."

User avatar
Rr6
Posts: 1034
Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller

Re: What makes art Good

Post by Rr6 » September 29th, 2016, 11:12 am

I see now, 51% is 51 people, only if 100 people are viewing. My brain. My bad. Thx Lucky, r6
Rr6 wrote:
LuckyR wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Actually it is 50% + 1...
Synonyms? 100% - 49. Plenty of way to arrive at same value. imho I dunot as i'm well educated in mathematics.

r6
"U"niverse > UniVerse > universe > I-verse < you-verse < we-verse < them-verse

User avatar
Mark1955
Posts: 415
Joined: July 21st, 2015, 4:02 am
Favorite Philosopher: David Hume
Location: Nottingham, England.

Re: What makes art Good

Post by Mark1955 » October 8th, 2016, 7:15 am

If art is something, or a part of something, with no practical purpose but which engages our emotions then good art is what engages our positive emotions.
If you think you know the answer you probably don't understand the question.

User avatar
Rr6
Posts: 1034
Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller

Re: What makes art Good

Post by Rr6 » October 8th, 2016, 8:43 am

Mark1955 wrote:If art is something, or a part of something, with no practical purpose but which engages our emotions then good art is what engages our positive emotions.
Abstract art has least emotional effects?

Ex....' this piece of art is too abstract for my tastes, and invokes no emotion'.....i.e. leaves the viewer dumbfounded.

r6
"U"niverse > UniVerse > universe > I-verse < you-verse < we-verse < them-verse

Gertie
Posts: 534
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: What makes art Good

Post by Gertie » October 8th, 2016, 8:39 pm

Top of my head, I'd say it has to either be original in some way, or a very good execution of technical skills, and whichever, has to be able to communicate something which couldn't be done so well in another way.

Post Reply