The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight. Discuss The Unbound Soul Now

The May Philosophy Book of the Month is Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler.

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.
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2276
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: good art and bad art?

Post by Hereandnow » October 12th, 2018, 1:49 pm

But, cavacava, the proof is in the pudding: Some things are inherently superior to others just by virtue of their aesthetic affect. Hard to argue such a thing, just as it is hard to argue about the objectivity of ethics and value, but once apprehended, the quality is simply apparent in the experience itself. I have gone different ways on this, sometimes just to be contrary, but in the end, I think some aesthetic experiences are simply better than others IFF the issue is MUSIC and about beauty and not complicated by other content (making a political statement, culturally significant, and the like).
But when it comes to the complex examples you mention, Casablanca, Warhol, Rockwell, these are examples of VISUAL art, and as such are embedded in a broad range of representational possibilities (unlike music which is representationally weak) that thrust art into the world at large, and here, among images and ideas of living and breathing, it gets cluttered with non artistic content. This is exactly why art appreciation in the visual arts is so complicated: The eye is so much more cognitive than the ear (that is, auditory aesthetic, not language, of course), you might say. And the formal aesthetic properties cannot be isolated. What is Warhol without the postmodern crisis of the trivialization of the individual; what is Casablanca without WWII contexts? Not at all like Bach, is it? Bach may take orientation, but it is not so much ideational orientation.

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2276
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: good art and bad art?

Post by Hereandnow » October 12th, 2018, 2:18 pm

Greta:
If we remove our "goggles of judgement" and don our "David Attenborough lenses" then we observe that psychopaths are just predators and parasites. We live in a competitive concrete jungle and the apex predators naturally found their niches. People looking up to their psychopath leaders are largely akin to smaller African species fearing and respecting lions.
Keep in mind that there has been recent speculation that being a psychopath or sociopath is the hallmark of being a good surgeon, or whatever requires explicit control in otherwise stressful conditions: Without the sensitivity of humanity and empathy, the psychopath is well suited to things other would have a hard time with. Also, I think conservatives thinking is mostly like this, trying to make things great at the cost of the least advantaged. They think nothing of using others as means rather than as ends. the scary part is, this actually does produce results. It is much, much easier to make money if you don't have to worry about the tired, poor, huddled masses.

China does this with the environment and has been a long time; just take a trip to Beijing and see... oh, wait, the US does this too, now that we have a moron in office.

User avatar
cavacava
Posts: 55
Joined: October 12th, 2018, 11:10 am

Re: good art and bad art?

Post by cavacava » October 12th, 2018, 7:36 pm

Some things are inherently superior to others just by virtue of their aesthetic affect.
So then the intensity of the affect of a work of art determines its value in relative to a listener, a reader, or a viewer. You suggest that these intensities
... are inherently superior to others just by virtue of their aesthetic affect.
and you go on to suggest that in music the value of a works intensity is easier to discern. How does one sort out these intensities? And how does intensity of feeling entail objective reality.
People have intense feelings for all kinds of art. Are people who swoon at the sight of a Thomas Kincade 'inherently superior' to a person nonplussed by Picasso's Guernica? Does Schonberg's 12 tone have inherently less value because its aesthetic affect is more theoretic and is intensively less felt?

What is Warhol without the postmodern crisis of the trivialization of the individual; what is Casablanca without WWII contexts? Not at all like Bach, is it?
I don't think the ideal state you suggest is real or possible
IFF the issue is MUSIC and about beauty and not complicated by other content
. Works of art always have precedents, which are always presented in some context, regardless of age, content, medium and so on. Even John Cage's silence had a context and a history.

Post Reply