Is artistic quality meaningful in any objective sense?

[dreamhunter]

My 2 pence worth:

Maybe we could say artistic quality is like a woman's beauty. It lies in the eye of the beholder.

By the way, beauty is also, in a way, a form of artistic quality, isn't it? The beauty of a painting, a building, a car, a woman etc.

Guys say, for instance, that beauty, whatever the subject, is often about balance, symmetry, proportion etc.

 

[ghostofcorwin]

My 2 pence worth:

Maybe we could say artistic quality is like a woman's beauty. It lies in the eye of the beholder.

By the way, beauty is also, in a way, a form of artistic quality, isn't it? The beauty of a painting, a building, a car, a woman etc.

Guys say, for instance, that beauty, whatever the subject, is often about balance, symmetry, proportion etc.

In practical terms, I would certainly agree. In the end, for each individual spectator, something works or it doesn't -- for whatever payoff that spectator is seeking (beauty, deep truths, a thrill, etc.). But some art is nearly on the order of nature itself. Whether we credit the creator of that art with genius or merely as the fortunate vehicle, the creation is deep and holds the attention of great minds for generations, not to mention the average person. The work doesn't run dry through re-exposure... it becomes more interesting. Certainly, such depths will not be experienced by EVERY reader. Indeed, they may be experienced by only a few with highly sensitized gifts of appreciation. In this way, great art is much like a mathematical or scientific truth; its value is not contingent on acceptance by the masses but by the informed few. Sounds elitist, I know, and in saying it I am not suggesting that the informed few are always correct or will be sustained in their theories. But it's pretty apparent that the vast majority of art is low art that isn't worth the effort of intense critical scrutiny and passes into oblivion. Time is a ruthless thresher of mediocrity.