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: 2638
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: good art and bad art?

Post by Hereandnow »

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: 2638
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: good art and bad art?

Post by Hereandnow »

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 »

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

Return to “Philosophy of the Arts and Philosophy in the Arts”

Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021