What is “Good” Art?

[Martin Hash]

Why is the Mona Lisa considered one of the best paintings in the world? You’ve seen it: unattractive portrait with no expression in muted colors. It didn’t used to be considered exceptional, what happened? Turns out, At the beginning of the 20th Century, when newspapers were just getting color, it and some other undisplayed paintings were stolen. It was the only one that had features large enough for the low-resolution and limited palette, so it was printed over-and-over on the front pages of newspapers for multiple years, including when it was recovered. The Mono Lisa isn’t good, it’s famous, and fame is almost always confused for accomplished. Similarly for a melody you’ve heard a thousand times; it’s familiar, and it or another melody that subconsciously reminds you of it seems good to you. In the art world, it’s better to be famous than good.

The so-called Art critics know this better than anyone, and they decide what’s “good” art. Sometimes, they play with their power, promoting objectively bad art (a pigeon dropping for example) into seeming success. In a subjective, manipulative world like that, success has little or no reflection of the artist’s talent & skill. In that light, what they write, draw or sing only has to meet their own expectations to be good. Art is the very definition of “subjective.” Making the concept personal: I dislike 99% of all books, music & movies, so reversing that, I would expect only 1 in 100 people to like my art but it’s still good.

[Haumana]

Why is the Mona Lisa considered one of the best paintings in the world? You’ve seen it: unattractive portrait with no expression in muted colors. It didn’t used to be considered exceptional, what happened? Turns out, At the beginning of the 20th Century, when newspapers were just getting color, it and some other undisplayed paintings were stolen. It was the only one that had features large enough for the low-resolution print and limited palette, so it was featured over-and-over on the front pages of newspapers for multiple years, including when it was recovered. The Mono Lisa isn’t good, it’s famous, and fame is almost always confused for accomplished. Similarly for a melody you’ve heard a thousand times; it’s familiar, and it or another melody that subconsciously reminds you of it seems good to you. In the art world, it’s better to be famous than good.

The so-called Art critics know this better than anyone, and they decide what’s “good” art. Sometimes, they play with their power, promoting objectively bad art (a pigeon dropping for example) into seeming success. In a subjective, manipulative world like that, success has little or no reflection of the artist’s talent & skill. In that light, what they write, draw or sing only has to meet their own expectations to be good. Art is the very definition of “subjective.” Making the concept personal: I dislike 99% of all books, music & movies, so reversing that, I would expect only 1 in 100 people to like my art but it’s still good.

Same with fashion. A bunch of people smelling their own farts and trying to sell everyone else that it is the scent of roses.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Sounds like a woke talking-point.

Like claiming Beethoven was just a slightly above-average composer that is overrated because of 'white supremacy,' or something. How one responds to a piece of art is subjective, but that doesn't mean there aren't qualitative difference between pieces of art.

[Haumana]

Sounds like a woke talking-point.

Like claiming Beethoven was just a slightly above-average composer that is overrated because of 'white supremacy,' or something. How one responds to a piece of art is subjective, but that doesn't mean there aren't qualitative difference between pieces of art.

LOL! On cue. Stir that pot.

[Martin Hash]

Sounds like a woke talking-point.

Like claiming Beethoven was just a slightly above-average composer that is overrated because of 'white supremacy,' or something. How one responds to a piece of art is subjective, but that doesn't mean there aren't qualitative difference between pieces of art.

I don’t particularly like Beethoven; maybe you could tell me that my opinion is wrong and you know better? I dislike almost all classical music; could be my DNA is fucked up? What say you definer-of-good-art?

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Sounds like a woke talking-point.

Like claiming Beethoven was just a slightly above-average composer that is overrated because of 'white supremacy,' or something. How one responds to a piece of art is subjective, but that doesn't mean there aren't qualitative difference between pieces of art.

I don’t particularly like Beethoven; maybe you could tell me that my opinion is wrong and you know better. I dislike almost all classical music. Could be my DNA is fucked up? What day you definer-of-good-art?

Like I said, there is a difference between how you subjectively respond to a piece of art and the quality of a piece of art. I can explain why Beethoven is respected and why people who do like classical music consider him a genius, but that explanation won't make you enjoy listening to it.

One of the things that makes Beethoven's work interesting is that melody isn't the most important part of his music. Think about the 5th symphony. The main germ isn't anything we would consider a classical melody, just two notes. But, he takes that germ and builds increasing elaborate harmony and counterpoint, getting the pieces energy from the sturm und drang (which he also introduced into music) instead of melodic variation. The piece still impacts many listeners (though, of course, not every listener) even though it abandons such a seemingly essential component of music.

He also perfected the classical sonata form in his early years, reinvented it entirely during his middle period, and then completely took it apart and reinvented it again in his final period. Each time opening avenues of harmonic, rhythmic, and formal complexity.

Does this make you enjoy it? Probably not, but these are things that he did that set him above his contemporaries and made generations of composers after study his work and try to follow in his footsteps, often getting frustrated that they could never achieve Beethovenian greatness. "Good" is, frankly, too weak a word.

[Martin Hash]

Dude,Jesus walked on water, fed the multitude, and rose from the dead. There’s entire colleges dedicated to these precepts, and a billion people. Doesn’t make it science.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Maybe not, but just because it isn't science doesn't mean Jesus wasn't "good."

[Martin Hash]

Maybe not, but just because it isn't science doesn't mean Jesus wasn't "good."

Or “bad.” It’s not up to other people.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Maybe not, but just because it isn't science doesn't mean Jesus wasn't "good."

Or “bad.” It’s not up to other people.

More woke relativism.

Are you sure you aren't on the wrong team, brother?