To me, they are the same thing. I guess you’re defining value differently. So I ask – how do you define it, within the current context?
To you, value = enjoyment? blink Okay… I’m personally going with value = worth. Don’t worry about that question now, though - I put it out there as a litmus test - basically, to see if you held that an “informed” opinion was objectively worth more than an “uninformed” opinion. I, as recently stated, operate with the thesis that nothing has “objective” value - because value is a subjective quality. Answering in the affirmative, then, would just have made me think you inescapably arrogant and wrong-headed, whereas answering in the negative would’ve brought on more questions. I opted instead for the position summary.
Now, see, I was actually going to grant you a lot of your statements. I like the new non-smartalecky tone & wish we’d gone there earlier, it would have saved me wanting to cause you physical harm.
I agree with you about the ambiguity of art, and I see it as a positive. If art had a singluar concrete, immutable, inflexible meaning, then it wouldn’t be art it would be ordinary life. Where’s the fun in that?
And I liked the fact that you granted the value of an aesthetic experience regardless of the artist’s intentions. You’re correct to say that just because the artist includes a specific intent doesn’t mean you see it. I believe you when you say you don’t see it.
If you wanted to talk about artists mechanically following guidelines, that would make me think of Elton John or Stevie Wonder, or any other musician whose early work was awesome and whose later work sounds hollow and, frankly, boring. The instrumentation is the same, it’s reminiscent of earlier work on a superficial level, but the “heart” is missing.
You need to change the context of the argument, though; what’s more likely to happen is that an artist receives some acclaim for early work and it sells, and then their gallery demands more work just like the previous because that’s what buyers want. That’s called being a “Johnny one note” and it’s not considered a good thing. The mechanical nature of the process isn’t in following aesthetic guidelines, however; those are like grammar. They’re second nature. It’s in winding up with a predictable, superficially consistent result. Like the musicians I named. Being an artist means growing and learning while making the pieces. Painting something is a process of learning. No, that doesn’t mean no one ever plans out a piece beforehand; it’s when you look at their body of work that you see the growth over time. Or not.
Money and economics are really not the issue with art. The monetary value assigned to specific paintings is historically out of whack; van Gogh sold two pieces his whole life. We artists don’t even think about it. Well, maybe some do, but I can’t even imagine how to frame the market value into a discussion of art.
You have an undertow of assumption yourself, however - not every piece of artwork is assumed to be a work of genius, and we’re not all busy trying to trick you into thinking that it is. Sometimes it’s just competent art. And that’s okay, it’s not a footrace where someone “wins”; some people make a lot of money, but most barely get by and that’s fine. You do realize that there are thousands of members of the Screen Actors Guild, but only a couple hundred in Hollywood. Same thing. Plus being an artist and being a genius are hardly the same - I am the former, but not the latter. And some of the work now celebrated will surely be sold for cheap in a hundred years. Or just allowed to decay and dissolve.
Now I have a suggestion for you. Try studying color. You don’t have to go to a museum or a gallery. Just look around you at the color in your world. In the grocery store, what colors are the products and why? Maybe just start out with one color, red. What does something being red say to you? How do you experience it? There was a thread recently on how teachers are switching to purple when they grade papers, because red is perceived as being too angry. You could find yourself beginning to enjoy art, or at least experience it fully.
Blink? Whyfore you blinken? For art, they’re pretty much the same think. If you enjoy it, then it has value to you. Of course, by enjoy, I don’t necessarily mean it makes you happy – it could make you sad, or angry, or… Well, you get the picture. (No pun intended.)
That still doesn’t answer the question. You mean like a dollar value? Family values? Super value meal? I’m honestly confused here – by what metric are you measuring art?
But I did answer in the affirmative. Care to comment on it?
“Nell,” the Constable continued, indicating through his tone of voice that the lesson was concluding, “the difference between ignorant and educated people is that the latter know more facts. But that has nothing to do with whether they are stupid or intelligent. The difference between stupid and intelligent people — and this is true whether or not they are well-educated — is that intelligent people can handle subtlety. They are not baffled by ambiguous or even contradictory situations — in fact, they expect them and are apt to become suspicious when things seem overly straightforward.”
— The Diamond Age by Neal Stephenson (p. 283)
Speaking for myself, I’m a big fan of ambiguity.
I think we have our answer.
Well said. Many critics argue that an abstract painting is really more realistic than a representational one, because it isn’t purporting to be anything other than what it is. A good abstract painting isn’t any easier to produce, except by chance, than a good piece of music or written work. I think the girl’s paintings are stunning, and no, a typical four year old making a mess with paints could not do that.
Now Cervaise that was a foul shot, to disslike something is not the same as to be baffled by it or to not understand it.
Of course not all pieces are hailed as works of ‘genius’. However, when someone pays $100,000 for a painting - I suspect that either they have too much money on their hands, they regard the painting as a work of genius, or there’s some special individual significance. (Historically important painting, for example, or the first painting they ever saw, something like that.) I suspect that because based on a purely aesthetic judgment - there’s no painting in the world I’d pay $100,000 for.
And see, you almost got through the post without being condescending. Almost.
With regard to red - I like red. It’s my favorite color. It’s bright.
With regard to the pen-color issue - I think it’s the silliest thing I’ve ever heard of.
I’m not. There’s no objective metric to measure it by. That’s kinda the point.
I’m disregarding your affirmative answer until I’m sure you understood the question as I meant it.
Well, except for altering my quote to misspell ‘dislike’, thank you. 
And quite right, too.
Then why do you ask it?
Let me make sure I’ve got this straight: You’re asking me if art has more value under certain circumstances, while simultaneously acknowledging that art has no inherent value? What is this, a trick question?
The only meaningful answer I can give is “Pelican.” Makes as much sense as the question.
Oh, man, it’s a bit of a sidetrack, but the first or second google hit for “emotion facial expressions innate” yields this:
http://face-and-emotion.com/dataface/misctext/inner_outer.html
It was Ekman’s work that I was remembering from my Psych major days. Anyhow, take that as you will. From the evidence and studies I’ve read ages ago, there is strong evidence to support the link between biology and emotional response to facial expressions.
I also think there are some fairly universal reactions to color, as well…some instilled culturally and some innate.
Don’t change the subject to something interesting! I’m not reading this thread any more! Damn it!
looks around at everyone staring at me
Oops.
It’s like pointing up and asking someone if the sky is blue. I know it’s blue. I’m just making sure you’re on the same wavelength. (Pun intended.)
Interesting … and very long. I suppose if humans can evolve towards language, they can evolve towards expressive faces as well. It’s curious, then that facial expressions differ from gestures, which are wholly manufactured. (Unless there’s some evidence that babies know their middle finger can be raised in expression of contempt?)
Ah, OK.
Let’s turn it around, just for fun. Let’s now define value as the amount that a painting is worth either owning or looking at. Thus, a Picasso has more value than a random bug splatter. Granted, this is subjective, but for now let’s pretend that aesthetic value is quantifiable. Do you think that someone educated in art would get more or less value from a work of art than a layperson? Why?
I wouldn’t get too hung up on the monetary values assigned to artwork – it’s got nothing to do with artistic worth, and it’s never going to make sense in any kind of rational way.
It’s basically a personality cult thing. People often get indignant when something by Barnett Newman trades for a coupla cool million, largely because his work is abstract and minimalist. I would agree, in that his canvases are really not “two million dollars worth of art.” But then, a Picasso sketch typically sells for far beyond what you might rationally expect, too. Hell, the Giaconda is evaluated at well beyond what you might rationally expect even the best example of portraiture to be “worth.” The prices that artworks trade for have absolutely nothing to do with their worth as art, and there’s no way to quantify something so subtle, anyway. These values are assigned in the same way that Barry Bonds’ 700[sup]th[/sup] home run ball is “worth” a half-million dollars. It’s clearly not “a half-million dollars worth of baseball,” as any trip to the sports section at Wal*Mart will confirm.
“Special individual significance” is probably as close as you’re going to get. I once spent a couple of weeks debating whether or not to spend my life’s savings (a little over a year’s salary, at the time) on the manuscript for Philip K. Dick’s Valis, and what did more to persuade me against it than any practical concern was thinking about how terrible I’d feel if it were damaged while under my care. This makes even less sense than spending huge sums on a canvas, because there’s no artistic value in the manuscript that isn’t present in printed copies. (Except insight into editorial changes, etc.) but mainly it’s monetary value is simply from its personal connection to the artist. (An artist who at one time evaluated himself as a “crap artist,” for what it’s worth.) It’s how much someone might be willing to pay to have something connected with the artist, and people become willing to part with these sums because they become basically worshipful about people who have the power to move them or inspire them – whether it’s by putting paint on canvas or by hitting a ball with a stick.
Nothing to do with objective artistic value, though, except tangentially. A total red herring – don’t worry about it!
Oh, and some visuals are hard-wired into us. Babies instinctively seek out faces. The “happy face” that was popular in the 70s is instantly recognizeable by infants. Two dots (for eyes) and a line (for a mouth) are all that’s needed. Likewise, the shadow of a chickenhawk is instantly recognizeable by chickens. They see it and know to hide.
So I guess it’s very possible that expressions are hard-wired into us.
There was nothing the least bit condescending about my suggestion. I am absolutely sincere. If you start out with your immediate surroundings, you may surprise yourself with what you are sensitive to. One of your assertions is that you’re not reached by art, and while I’m sure that’s often true (because there’s a lot of mediocre art out there, some of it fetching high prices for reasons I can only guess), I can’t imagine that it’s always true. The only people I know of who pretty much always make a lot of money are marketers. They know how to reach people. They use every trick in the book, including the visual ones. And they’re behind the designs of all the packages in your grocery store. Look at what they’re doing and why.
The other thing to keep in mind if you want to learn to look at things artistically is that an artist painting realistically has to paint what she sees, not what she knows. There is a huge gap between the two. You could ask yourself that about your surroundings - such as when you’re driving on the highway. You know those trees are in the distance, that some buildings are behind others - but how does what you see give you that information?
Re: monetary value - still don’t know why it matters. Some artists are lucky, some work hard to sell themselves, some do exceptional work. Some don’t. Pretty much the same as the general population, wouldn’t you say?
Re: faces (also a sidetrack) those and hands are historically the most difficult things to learn to draw. I always figured it’s because faces are the first thing we learn to associate with a specific meaning. When you’re drawing something, you have to dissociate it from its functional meaning in order to see it abstractly.
Sure, I’ll play, under those assumptions.
I think the less-educated person would have more wildly varying values, and the more educated person would have more consistent values - but not necessarily higher ones. Why? Well, the uneducated one might just be thrilled by a painting that the more educated one notices flaws in, aesthetically speaking. Plus, having a broader experience means that the value for the more-educated person would even out… basically : “This is a really good painting, but I’ve seen a lot of paintings. Is it really that much better than all the ones I’ve seen before? Hmm…” whereas the less educated one might say "Wow, this is the best painting ever! "
This is based on my observations of people over the course of my 26 years - while familiarity doesn’t always breed contempt, it often averages out the emotional rollercoaster.