ZOMBIE FORUMS

Is art (including music) a matter of pure personal taste, or are there objective criteria that make one piece of art better than another? If there are criteria, what are they?

I'll share my opinions on this when I have more time to kill. Meanwhile, what do you guys think?

Music, yes. You can objectively state whether or not music is good or bad to a point using music theory and all that. But, visual art... no, you can't really make any objective statements (unless you remark on technique).

No objective criteria. Art is a part of culture, and cultures, of course, differ tremendously. The disparity between these cultures basically doesn't allow for any specific criteria for "art" to be set. For example, in late 1999, a controversy peaked over Chris Ofili's "Holy Virgin Mary", which depicted the Virgin covered in elephant dung, recieved a lot of critcism, however, Ofili is (I THINK) from Nigeria, a nation in which what seems to be grossly obscene to our western culture is actually an honor, and a way of showing homage and worship.

This was a perfect example of "what is art" and quite frankly, you can't put any criteria to it, because of the disparity between cultures, and of course because of the simple fact of different interpretations and perceptions. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and that lovely stuff.

edit: silly me, forgot about music. Music is not so much a matter of art nowadays, as it is freedom of speech. There is very little "art" in today's pop-rock-rap industries, and it disgusts me when they are referred to as "artists". Not all musicians, mind you, but "Eminem" and "Papa Roach" and millions of other tasteless names really don't factor into the "art" of music.

that's my .02

Depends. If it's intended to represent some concrete object or form, you can judge it by its resemblance to that form; this works primarily for realistic drawing, painting, sculpture and so on. As I think somebody mentioned, you can also evaluate a piece of art on technique.

On the other hand, if it's intended to represent or evoke an emotion, then there's no purely objective viewpoint you can take to determine its value. While truth is absolute, our reactions to it can be most subjective... and this branch of art is all about reactions, isn't it?

P-M

-><-

To claim Eminem and co isn't art is to claim that opera soundtracks (+ the voices, of course) arn't either. Simply not so. Telling a story has been an ancient use of song and poetry, rappers just tell stories you don't like to hear about. If you don't like it, fine, but please don't be as ignorant as to claim it is not art.

-MiB

I think art is anything that is intended to be interpreted as the beholder sees fit.

And as we know Beholders will eat anything on a roll of a 13 with a 1d20.

whoa. whoa whoa whoa. I'm the biggest Eminem fan out there, I have all his albums, I've been to all his concerts, I just think there is a very fine line between art as a culturally enriching asset and talking about how you very nearly shot your wife and then banged a prostitute on LSD. And I hate to say this, but Eminem and Co. flirts with that line. A lot. I don't consider it art. I consider it "entertainment."

Telling stories is one thing. Talking about your "bling bling" is totally another.

Wait, who said anything about a "culturally enriching asset"?

Anything is art. The question is whether or not it's GOOD art.

But, the whole point of this debate is, WHY is Eminem not high art, in your opinion? What makes art "good"?

Icy, you're linking "high" art and "good" art. Do you actively see things this way, or was that just a slip of the tongue?

Because, for me, how "high" a work of art is pretty much in direct relation to how much the artist spent thinking about what he wanted to express (or how much the viewer thought he did), and how "deep" the message is. That lets it qualify for high art, certainly. But good art? That is something almost purely in the mind of the beholder (unless it is an attempt to directly represent something, like PM said).

A good example of something controversial, but if viewed right a definite piece of art, is Urot.

I like the theory that art is anything beyond normal communicatiobn (as defined by the creator) intended to evoke a thought. This would include both emotions, such as an abstract piece, poem, or song, and concrete ideas, such as a realistic portrait, an Eminem song, etc.

I haven't really thought this post over too much, but still feel free to pick it apart (like I need to say anything).

Reminds me of a quote by Jorge Luis Borges (whom I should be writing a paper on right now):

"Music, states of happiness, mythology, faces belabored by time, certain twilights and certain places try to tell us something, or have said something we should not have missed, or are about to say something; this imminence of revelation which does not occur is, perhaps, the aesthetic phenomenon."

I kind of like Scott McCloud's definition on this (even if he does spell his name wrong, the Americanized little upstart): in his Understanding Comics (or possibly the sequel; I'm not sure which), he describes art as whatever falls outside the twin instincts of survival and reproduction. To illustrate (literally) the point, he draws a caveman running from a sabretooth tiger (survival). As the tiger leaps, the man dodges, and the predator goes hurtling off the cliff behind him. Now, the caveman could go tell a woman about it (reproduce), go down the cliff and get the meat (survival), or any number of other things. Instead, he looks over the side of the cliff, sticks his tounge out, and "BLEAH!"

That's art.

At the risk of an insult, good art would not be a category in which all the avatars on this page are included, my own as well. Art, in terms of visual art, has to be appeaing to the eye. It doens't have to be superbly realistic, but it never hurts. Beauty is really what you're shooting for. Patterns are often appealing, as is symmetry, but there are always exceptions. Tactful Assymetry is also nice looking. However, randomness is almost never appealing.

To give an example, a poorly drawn charatcer design is not drawn to the conformations that we already have predetermined in our minds of the human figure. So, it a character sketch is mispreportioned or misshapped, we tend to find it unnatractive and thus, not good art.

However, in anime, there are "Super Deformed" characters that seem to conform to a particular shape, thought completely unrealistic, that still fits into our minds as an appealing work of art. Also, computer animated artwork is also usually very attractive to the eye, and almost never truly realistic.

I've seen some paintings in a museum of a bowl of fruit on a kitchen table that seemed so stunningly real, I felt like I could reach out and grab the fruit as though it were real. This is also an example of attractive artwork.

So we can see that realism and surrealism do not dictate good art, but attractiveness and appeal. I'd do a short essay on music now, but that's not my forte.

I'm out.

....that comment makes me want to take a picture of something famous like the mona lisa and stick that as my avatar.

Art is subjective, and that is life. Everyone has their view of what constitutes art, and what comprises good art. Contour lines on a bathymetic map are art to me, as are the drawings of Mr. Poe. The arches of the coluseum in Rome are perfect art to some. and the works of Davinci, and Michealangelo are lame to others. Each person must pick and choose their own styles and choices of art. That is just life, choices.... Pick your own!

Good art is art that makes you say, "Damn, that's good," after you look at it.

*Kit is stabbed repeatedly and killed by the badness of the pun.*

well, here's my take on it. if the piece of art is exactly what its creator intended it to be, then it's good. if it isn't, it's bad. otherwise there's no real way to say that one art work is superior to another, as anything beyond whether or not it's what the creator intended it to be is subjective, at best.