Is artistic quality meaningful in any objective sense?

[Spectrum]

We all talk about the "quality" books. (And other works of art, such as music or films, but let us just use the word "books" in the following.) We all like "good" books and dislike "bad" books. Myself, when I describe a book as "good" or "bad", I am judging completely by my own subjective experience: "How much did/do I enjoy this book?" Many people do the same.

But I also hear people talking about "true art" and "true quality", which are allegedly objective phenomena. I have never been able to understand what this is supposed to refer to. People also tend to wildly disagree on what is "true quality". The consensus seems to be that true quality exists and is objective, but no one agrees on what it is. Which is, of course, a contradiction in terms.

Some people read for enjoyment or escapism. Others like works that make them think or learn new things (see, for example, this thread). That is all fine, of course, but how is this more than just another personal preference? Moreover, how is this objective? Being made to think or learning new things is something that varies from person to person, and hence just as subjective as enjoyment.

So, my question to you is: Do you use the term "quality" of art in some objective sense? If so, how? And if such a "quality" measurement is independent of the reader's subjective experience, why is it a worthwhile measurement for anyone?

 

[Peter Graham]

A splendid question, Spectrum.

I'll start the ball rolling.

If one wishes to see art (which for the purposes of the argument includes books) in purely subjective terms, then art as a concept is virtually incapable of definition. The best you can manage is:-

"Art: Something which has no obvious pratical application but which I like"

That is fair enough as far as it goes, but it doesn't go very far. Worse still, the definition is twisted. We live in a fashion-conscious world where a small number of self appointed style gurus see it is their job or calling to tell us what they think we should see as being art. The subjective definition then becomes:-

"Art: Whatever the nice people at Tate Modern and the Sunday papers tell us it is"

The problem here is obvious. If a fashionable "conceptual" artist sticks a wash basin and a dripping tap in Tate Modern (as one did a couple of years ago), it magically becomes art. If I do the same thing in my bathroom, it becomes plumbing. If I pitched up to Tate Modern and tried to erect a tap and basin there, I'd be thrown out. And it still wouldn't have been art, because I am not an artist. And I am not an artist because I don't produce art. Catch 22 anyone?

Luckily, I think that we can define good art objectively. In fact, we can define it in much the same way that we define another other talent or skill objectively - someone doing something better than most other people could do it. Jensen Button is a good racing driver because he can drive faster than nearly everyone else and beats other very good drivers in races. Michael Mansfield is a good lawyer because he can identify and run arguments which few other people can spot or express with the same skill and because he wins lots of cases as a result.

By the same argument, Thomas Hardy is a good author because he understood characterisation, plot, story, dramatic tension and pace and because he had a masterful command of the language which enabled him to express himself through rich vocabulary and imagery.

Other authors are objectively much less good because their work is derivative, badly executed or just badly written.

Where my argument teeters is when we get into the realms of abstract or conceptual art. Nearly anyone with enough front can throw a few coloured dots on a piece of paper and then write several thousand words of text about what the coloured dots mean and how they are a pictoral representation of the perpetual juxtaposition of middle class values and working class aspirations as judged against the post-modern, post industrial zeitgist. To which my answer is "no they aren't - they are just a load of dots."

This isn't to say that there isn't good conceptual art. If, without reading the reams of written effluent that accompany so many of these pieces, you can look at something and find entertainment in it and if lots of other people can also draw entertainment from it for the same reasons as you, then odds on you are looking at an objectively good piece of modern art.

And this is the nub. I believe that the role of art is to entertain. Not to teach (that's what teachers are for) or to challenge (that's what boxers are for), but to entertain. "A thing of beauty is a joy forever" and all that.

So my suggested definition of art would be:-

Art: Something original which has as its primary purpose the entertainment of a significant number of people and which achieves that purpose as a result of the application of an extraordinary or uncommon creative mental or physical skill on the part of the creator.

As a final point, I think one must distinguish between individual taste and objective quality. Personally, I think that the music of Prince is a load of rubbish. However, I can see that objectively it's actually very good. I just don't like it. By the same token, I like the Ramones, although I fully appreciate that they are perhaps not the greatest purveyors of musical art.

Regards,

Peter

(Standing by to get shot down in flames...)

 

[Fried Egg]

I think that we cannot say objectively whether or not something is good or bad art. It is strictly a matter of subjective preference.

Now of course, there are particular qualities or attributes of art that we can objectively measure and then use to compare but the degree to which these qualities are important to the judgement of whether it is good or bad is itself strictly subjective.

This is why I believe that Peter Graham's analogy breaks down. Yes, we can objectively judge which is the fastest driver because speed is objectively measureable. By definition, the fastest is he who travels at the highest average speed. We cannot extend this concept to include art because exactly what we need to measure in order to determine whether the art is good or bad is itself a subjective judgement.

I have heard many abook criticised for poor characterisation and this criticism may well be an objective judgement (debateable, but anyway) but to what extent is this objective measure relevent? For me it is of minor importance in the books I read, to others it is paramount. It is all subjective.

I have always thought that one cannot speak objectively of bad art. One can only fail to engage with it. One cannot speak of the objective badness of art, only objectively of one's subjective failure to engage.

 

[Sparrow]

Certainly, we all view art in slightly different ways, with our own distortions and interpretations, but I think we can at least come to some agreement on a mean level of quality and craftsmanship.

Even if something doesn't appeal to you in an artistic sense, it can still be appreciated as a work of art and being of a high quality. Most of what we read isn't art by any stretch of the imagination, nor does it pretend to be.

I think we can all differentiate between good and poor quality free of how much we enjoy (or hate) the work of art. So yes, judging art is purely subjective, but considerations of quality can be appraised on a much more objective bases.

 

[Spectrum]

Most of what we read isn't art by any stretch of the imagination, nor does it pretend to be.

By which definition? Wiktionary has several definitions of "art", and everything I read counts as examples of at least some of those definitions:

art
1. (uncountable) Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.
2. (uncountable) The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colours, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
3. (uncountable) Activity intended to make something special.

I think we can all differentiate between good and poor quality free of how much we enjoy (or hate) the work of art. So yes, judging art is purely subjective, but considerations of quality can be appraised on a much more objective bases.

I notice that of the three questions I posed in the last paragraph of my opening post, you only answered one. You claim there exist objective criteria. In that case:

1. What are they, or at least some of them? And how are they objective? Peter mentioned characterization and plot. How are those objectively determinable?
2. Why are these criteria interesting? If they do not affect our enjoyment, why should we care? It is often implied that an artist who produces "bad" art (especially if commercially successful) is doing something morally wrong and should be disrespected. Why is that?

@ Peter:

Likewise, I feel that you cheat by defining artistic quality in terms of good characterization and "command of language" and whatnot. It is not a given that any of these criteria are objective nor intrinsically interesting.

Moreover, as far as I understand you claim that art is good if and only if it is popular. Do I understand you correctly? Because that strikes me as a controversial definition. Many people like to differentiate between "real art" that the enlightened can appreciate and "popular art" which the mindless masses gobble up.

 

[HareBrain]

I would define art as anything which attempts to increase "meaning" (a nebulous concept in itself, admittedly) to the reader/viewer.

This can be different from "teaching" or "challenging". I suppose I'd say it changes the way one views the world afterwards, even if only a little. (This would most likely come about because its creation has changed the way the artist views the world.)

I don't think entertainment has any necessary place in art. But it does in a quality novel, mostly because a novel takes a long time to read and unless it's entertaining in some way, only a masochist would struggle through it.

For me, a quality novel would be one that was well-crafted (characterisation etc) and stuck with me afterwards. I found the da Vinci Code entertaining enough while I was reading it, but my brain flushed it out straight afterwards because there was nothing worth digesting.

 

[Spectrum]

I would define art as anything which attempts to increase "meaning" (a nebulous concept in itself, admittedly) to the reader/viewer.

This can be different from "teaching" or "challenging". I suppose I'd say it changes the way one views the world afterwards, even if only a little. (This would most likely come about because its creation has changed the way the artist views the world.)

I don't think entertainment has any necessary place in art. But it does in a quality novel, mostly because a novel takes a long time to read and unless it's entertaining in some way, only a masochist would struggle through it.

For me, a quality novel would be one that was well-crafted (characterisation etc) and stuck with me afterwards. I found the da Vinci Code entertaining enough while I was reading it, but my brain flushed it out straight afterwards because there was nothing worth digesting.

This makes perfect sense. But would you say that this is just your personal taste, or something universal? And if the latter, why?

 

[HareBrain]

Uh, well I wouldn't make any claims of universality. But i think people in general do engage more deeply with something that reflects their own attempts to understand the world better, and I think this is usually because the artist has made such an attempt themselves. I find my own response (or lack of) to a lot of modern art is because of the associations I make with it, and that is purely personal. What I would call "pure entertainment" is stuff where I can't detect any attempt at exploring "meaning" - that doesn't mean someone else wouldn't.

I just realised that I disagree with all of Peter's three definitions, and that saddens me deeply.

I don't think you could ever claim that "true quality" and "true art" are objective definitions, though. It depends too much on the three-way relationship between the artist, the work, and the viewer/reader.

 

[Peter Graham]

Likewise, I feel that you cheat by defining artistic quality in terms of good characterization and "command of language" and whatnot. It is not a given that any of these criteria are objective nor intrinsically interesting.

Nothing is intrinsically interesting. But that doesn't mean that things cannot be intrinsically well made, or demonstrate skill and creativity. Look at lacemaking. I don't find it at all interesting, but there is no doubt that some of it requires a level of skill, dexterity and creativity that I can only dream of.

The problem with a totally subjective approach is that one risks drifting into the realms of relativism. The likely consequence of that approach is that art becomes something virtually incapable of definition, because there will be as many subjective viewpoints as there are people.

My approach may be a little hamfisted, but what I am really trying to say is that understanding or recognising the inherent quality of a piece is not the same thing as determining whether you like it or not. Anyone's opinion is subjective, but that doesn't take away from the fact that a piece of scuplture, or a painting, or a good book is a physical object and can therefore at some level be measured by reference to the skills of the creator. And in that sense, it has to be capable of some objective definition. And that is where I feel the only useful definiton of art can be found.

Moreover, as far as I understand you claim that art is good if and only if it is popular. Do I understand you correctly? Because that strikes me as a controversial definition. Many people like to differentiate between "real art" that the enlightened can appreciate and "popular art" which the mindless masses gobble up.

Absolutely not - perhaps I didn't make my point very clear. When I spoke about lots of other people liking something, I wasn't referring to popular culture, although I don't necessarily accept that mass culture cannot ever be art. I meant "lots" as in a significant proportion of the people exposed to the work, not millions. I meant was that there should be some consensus, especially when it comes to abstract or conceptual work where the meaning can often be rather more opaque. My rule of thumb when looking at modern art is that a picture should tell a thousand words. So it follows that if you need a thousand words of empty hyperbole to explain what you are looking at, the painting has failed and is therefore not art, any more than my doodlings on telephone pads are art.

I just realised that I disagree with all of Peter's three definitions, and that saddens me deeply.

Sorry HB! But why saddened?

Anyhow, Spectrum, now you tell us what you think art is.

Regards,

Peter

PS: Another thought comes to mind. Perhaps time is the best judge of art. If we are still talking about the Young British Artists in 100 years, maybe they really were artists all along. But if we aren't, perhaps it really was all just "conceptual bull****" as it was once so elegantly termed.

 

[HareBrain]

Nothing is intrinsically interesting. But that doesn't mean that things cannot be intrinsically well made, or demonstrate skill and creativity. Look at lacemaking. I don't find it at all interesting, but there is no doubt that some of it requires a level of skill, dexterity and creativity that I can only dream of.

I'd make a distinction, though, between "art" and "craft" (they can't be the same, otherwise the phrase "arts and crafts" would be tautological, and late-Victorians would have descended on Downing Street waving placards pointing this out).

I recently went to a wildlife art exhibition where there were several paintings that had been obviously copied from photographs, and very well done they were. I'd call that craft, but not art, because it makes no attempt to interpret nature, only to reproduce its appearance.

Sorry HB! But why saddened?

Because I nearly always agree with you, but to disagree over something as fundamental as the definition of art ... either my golden idol has feet of clay, or I'm capable of being wrong. Either way, it's grim news for my world-view.



(I usually leave out the smilies, but in this case it's probably safer to put one in: )

 

[Peter Graham]

I'd make a distinction, though, between "art" and "craft" (they can't be the same, otherwise the phrase "arts and crafts" would be tautological, and late-Victorians would have descended on Downing Street waving placards pointing this out).

I think this is a very fair point, HB. I'm no architectural historian, but the arts and crafts movement always seemed to me to be a deliberate fusion of high aesthetics (the art bit) with a sort of idyllic view of rustic simplicity (the crafts bit) - an extension of what that dreary old bore Wordsworth called "plain living but high thinking". That said, I love the arts and crafts style - hurrah for William Morris!

But on your main point, I agree - that's why I included a requirement for originality in my third clumsy definition. I absolutely agree that copying or repro can show skill without necessarily showing creativity and I think you need both before something qualifies as art.

either my golden idol has feet of clay, or I'm capable of being wrong. Either way, it's grim news for my world-view.

Don't worry, old chap! With a bit of quick thinking and the odd verbal somersault, I feel sure that we can both come out of this being utterly vindicated! Equilibrium will be restored!

Regards,

Peter

 

[biodroid]

To me it's all about how it should make you feel in the end. Good on you for having the best command of the English language and displaying your skills, but have you captured my imagination? I personally prefer authors who can pull me in to the story and show me this new world, you don't have to be the best wordsmith.

For example just because a guitarist is the fastest doesn't mean he is the best. It's all about how it makes you feel.

 

[Spectrum]

The problem with a totally subjective approach is that one risks drifting into the realms of relativism. The likely consequence of that approach is that art becomes something virtually incapable of definition, because there will be as many subjective viewpoints as there are people.

But why is that a problem? That was my point. Why do we need an objective definition of what constitutes art? It seems to me that setting up such criteria just encourages snobbery and does not help anyone.

Your suggestion that (roughly paraphrased) "art is good if it is hard to make" makes sense as a definition, but why do we need it?

Anyhow, Spectrum, now you tell us what you think art is.

I do not have any particularly good definition, because I don't have any great need to distinguish art from non-art. The rough working definition I tend to use is that "art" is any product of human creativity. This includes your maligned doodling on telephone pads, because I see no good reason to exclude them. To some people such doodles might be of interest and thus value.

PS: Another thought comes to mind. Perhaps time is the best judge of art. If we are still talking about the Young British Artists in 100 years, maybe they really were artists all along. But if we aren't, perhaps it really was all just "conceptual bull****" as it was once so elegantly termed.

Again, this is a coherent definition, but why is it interesting? Why should any of us care whether or not the books we like will be remembered in 100 years? Once more this seems like pure snobbery that does not help anyone.

My problem is that many people obviously believe that artistic quality is not only objective but also Serious Business. These people tend to want to push their opinion on others and judge others by their standards. This bothers me. Since I cannot make them stop, I want to at least understand what they are thinking. But I still don't understand what the purpose is. As far as I can see the motivation is that "we want to have a definition of artistic quality so we know whom we should praise and whom we should hate, because we need to praise some people and hate others". Which, again, seems pointless form anything but a subjective POV.

 

[HareBrain]

I don't think artistic judgement could ever be objective. However, you can get a consensus view among people whose critical faculties have matured through thousands of comparisons and many hours of thought, and I would *tend* to give the value judgements of this group more weight than someone who, say, reads a couple of books a year.

I know that the way I look at art has changed quite a lot in the last twenty years. Partly this came about through going to galleries and exhibitions where I was forced to look at the pieces much longer than I would have normally done, because I was there with someone and there was nothing else to do. A lot of it had no effect on me at all, but some pieces ended up having a surprising impact I would never have guessed from a first glance - and I think I'm now much better at spotting those ones straight off rather than dismissing them.

So I guess the question isn't, is there an objective definition, but, is there a consensus definition, and do we have reason to trust the judgement of those who arrived at it?

 

[Interference]

Art enriches. Without it we might as well all just close our eyes and ears, stop smelling things, forget about eating anything but protein pills and never fall in love.

The creative basis for existence is, to my mind, the only reason for existing as sentient conscious beings. And those who deliberately debase art in pursuit of ego-satisfaction need to be reminded of that from time to time.

I think.

 

[Spectrum]

I don't think artistic judgement could ever be objective. However, you can get a consensus view among people whose critical faculties have matured through thousands of comparisons and many hours of thought, and I would *tend* to give the value judgements of this group more weight than someone who, say, reads a couple of books a year.

I know that the way I look at art has changed quite a lot in the last twenty years. Partly this came about through going to galleries and exhibitions where I was forced to look at the pieces much longer than I would have normally done, because I was there with someone and there was nothing else to do. A lot of it had no effect on me at all, but some pieces ended up having a surprising impact I would never have guessed from a first glance - and I think I'm now much better at spotting those ones straight off rather than dismissing them.

So I guess the question isn't, is there an objective definition, but, is there a consensus definition, and do we have reason to trust the judgement of those who arrived at it?

So... as far as I understand it, you want a "consensus definition" because you can then use it as a statistical indication of whether you are likely to enjoy the work or not. If the experts say work X is good, then there is a reasonably high probability that you will find X to be enjoyable. Am I understanding you right?

Art enriches.

I would tend to agree. As far as I understand, you are saying that art is valuable insofar as it "enriches" the reader, i.e., brings enjoyment to the reader. Ergo artistic quality is subjective, and you agree with my first post. Am I understanding you right?

And those who deliberately debase art in pursuit of ego-satisfaction...

What does that mean?

 

[HareBrain]

So... as far as I understand it, you want a "consensus definition" because you can then use it as a statistical indication of whether you are likely to enjoy the work or not. If the experts say work X is good, then there is a reasonably high probability that you will find X to be enjoyable. Am I understanding you right?

Kind of, in the same way that I might pick up a book in a shop to read the first few pages because there was a favourable review in the newspaper - there just isn't time to skip through all of them. Also, the experts' impressions give me some idea of what to be aware of when I read the book or look at the piece of art myself. That doesn't mean I won't form my own opinion, or disagree with them.

But to be honest, despite the posts I've made here, the question of whether something is really art or of high quality isn't one that crosses my mind much - it either does something for me or it doesn't. And that is often a matter of "craft" as much as "art".

 

[Interference]

So... as far as I understand it, you want a "consensus definition" because you can then use it as a statistical indication of whether you are likely to enjoy the work or not. If the experts say work X is good, then there is a reasonably high probability that you will find X to be enjoyable. Am I understanding you right?


I would tend to agree. As far as I understand, you are saying that art is valuable insofar as it "enriches" the reader, i.e., brings enjoyment to the reader. Ergo artistic quality is subjective, and you agree with my first post. Am I understanding you right?


What does that mean?

I think it's a little more than enjoyment. Art adds to life when it resonates with the appreciator, whatever form it comes in. We are creatures of creativity, we have an ability to invent realities which can (at its best) make others consider something in a new way or for the first time. The point is, appreciating art is as creative as making it. No one looks at the Eiffel tower, for example, for the first time without feeling something new. Anything that makes another person go away thinking "meh" is probably not art, but is certainly not art for them.

What I meant about people who satisfy only their own egos is that they create something solely for themselves and the promotion of their material welfare. Art is then relegated to a supporting role in the pursuit of, perhaps, ratings or sales or the creation of a monolithic empire. The greater good may be served, but it is as likely to be by accident as through any noble intent.

Artists themselves undertake their various projects to fulfill themselves, agreed, usually out of an acknowledgement of the effect that others' arts have had on them and soon the need to share their work becomes the driving force. The income that the highest regarded artist receives is almost certainly a pleasant by-product for most people. To know that your work has affected the growth of other humans in a positive way is surely the greatest of all possible tributes.

The next paragraph is utter waffle, so I'll skip to the chase ...

Quality is entirely subjective. Art reaches those who need to be reached. Artists have the capacity to be the world's greatest collection of healers. The rest is up to the individual.

 

[Peter Graham]

Your suggestion that (roughly paraphrased) "art is good if it is hard to make" makes sense as a definition, but why do we need it?

Who said we needed it? I'm just trying to answer the question you raised in your original post. Personally, I like having a definition, but that's just me.

The rough working definition I tend to use is that "art" is any product of human creativity. This includes your maligned doodling on telephone pads, because I see no good reason to exclude them. To some people such doodles might be of interest and thus value.

With respect, you're still conflating what you like with what is good. You might be right - someone might see value in my doodles. I don't myself, which makes it difficult to see how anyone else could, but there's nowt as queer as folk. But that's not the point. The question of whether you like something is different to the question of whether it is objectively of any real quality.

Once more this seems like pure snobbery that does not help anyone.

Well, it helps me. It allows me to have respect for things which I don't like whilst also accepting that some of the things I do like are perhaps not imbued with any great artistic merit. I am, I hope, able to look at a David Hockney painting and see it for what it is - a good piece of work which I personally cannot stand. Is it snobbery to say that I can appreciate things which I don't like? Is it snobbery to say that some things are better than others? Is it snobbery not to judge art solely in the context of ones own reaction to it? Surely not!

My problem is that many people obviously believe that artistic quality is not only objective but also Serious Business.

To which I ask you one question. Do you regard the book you are writing as a serious business?

These people tend to want to push their opinion on others and judge others by their standards.

But that's just life. You don't have to agree with them,

As far as I can see the motivation is that "we want to have a definition of artistic quality so we know whom we should praise and whom we should hate, because we need to praise some people and hate others".

For some people that might be right. I agree that would be sad. But for most of us, it ain't that dark. As Interference says, the appreciation of beauty is one of the great things about life. The more we discuss it the better. The more we strive for beauty, the better.

Regards,

Peter

 

[Fried Egg]

Peter Graham

With respect, you're still conflating what you like with what is good. You might be right - someone might see value in my doodles. I don't myself, which makes it difficult to see how anyone else could, but there's nowt as queer as folk. But that's not the point. The question of whether you like something is different to the question of whether it is objectively of any real quality.

Can anything even be objectively good or of high quality? Aren't the measures of quality simply a matter of convention, those attributes that it has come into general agreement to regard as important? These are just particular standards that people agree to use.

What does it mean to say that a book is objectively poor quality but that millions of people love it? It is a book that according to the criteria of many is of good quality. Surely saying a popular piece of art is of low quality is elitism, plain and simple? One group believing they know better than everyone else and attempting to impose their notion of quality.