Roger Eberts opinion of a movie is inherently superior to white-trash Joe Shmoe’s opinion. Ignorance is a poor excuse for an opinion.
What if someone was arguing that The Daily World News (or whatever it’s called) is a better newspaper than the New York Times? They both have words. What’s the difference?
I’m telling you that there are reasons why Kinkade’s work is awful. I’m trying to educate you in how to look at art. I may not be doing it well, I’m not the best art teacher in the world and it IS kinda tough to discuss art within the constraints of this medium. Typically you’d be standing in front of the piece, with plenty of space for gesturing, and there’d be some different work nearby that could be used to corroborate specific points.
If you want to ignore me, that’s your choice; but don’t pretend that I’m mute or you’re blind. What you’re doing is insisting on remaining ignorant.
It makes me want put a page of chemistry formulas and programming instructions on canvas and talk about their properties as visual art (someone, somewhere, has probably already done this). If you’re in that field, you’ll say “No, THIS is what they mean.” And I’ll say “I don’t know anything about that, it’s meaningless to me – HERE is what I see, I can’t learn anything more. No one should have to learn anything more than what is immediately apparent in order to understand what’s here.”
Which is the better one depends on the criteria used, that is to say what constitutes a good newspaper. What constitutes a good piece of art is very clear: what I like is good for me, what you like is good for you. Like I asked someone else earlier, why do you feel this strange urge to insist that your subjective opinion is somehow superior to mine? An absurd concept.
Mine isn’t just a subjective opinion. It’s an educated one. I’m not saying that my preferences are superior, merely that I know more about looking at art than some of you do.
And I’ve also demonstrated that I think anyone can learn more about looking at art, if they want to; I’m trying to share what I’ve learned. If you’re satisfied with your ignorance, that’s your choice.
What I don’t understand is why visual art, of all human endeavors, is judged in this way. Baseball, basketball, football – fans of these sports know MUCH more about what’s going on than someone who’s never seen it before. “Guy hits ball with bat, runs.” I’ve spent enough time with baseball fans to know that there’s more going on than simply meets the untrained eye. Criminy, guys in suits are paid big bucks to discuss a bunch of peripheral information that’s somehow essential to enjoying the sport.
Why can’t that be true of visual art as well?
It’s not just visual art, it’s any art. In sports, there is a way to measure success (and even then there are wild debates about who is the best soccer player of all time, to take an example). In arts (any art), there isn’t.
If we’d agree on a set of criteria by which to judge art, then it would be the same case. There is no such set of criteria. And while education may change one’s opinions, it does not make them better. I don’t care that you don’t like Thomas Kinkade or love Edward Hopper. It has no relevance to me, or to anyone else who isn’t you.
What if there was a set of criteria, but you just didn’t happen to know anything about it?
Don’t you think people who audition for musical or theatrical roles are rejected for solid reasons, or do you think it’s all about whims?
Those early rounds of auditions on American Idol - you didn’t see incompetent singers there?
Shoot, I was just getting ready to delve into that Picasso (as promised) and my daughter’s woken up. Here’s a quick summary, with what look to be some useful links at the bottom. As much as has been written about him, I figured it wouldn’t be hard to find a good analysis online (better than I’d come up with).
Nonsensical concept. What would make those criteria objectively valid?
No, it’s based on the tastes and opinions of the people receiving the auditions.
Sure, but if someone prefers hearing those singers to hearing what I consider to be good singers, it is emphatically not the case that I am right and they are wrong.
This is getting tiresome. Allow me to sum up the argument so far:
“But there *are * objective criteria by which we judge art. They are as follows:
painstakingly explained”
“Lalala I can’t heeeeaaaar you!!! All that booklearnin’ done fried yer brain, and now you can’t appreciate the simple beauty and eloquence of that velvet Elvis!!! It’s all about taste, and there’s no such thing as BAD taste (and so I cannot possibly be in possession of it)!!! Kincade is just as good as Picasso and William Hung is just as good as Frank Sinatra IF I SAY SO!!!”
Which is what, exactly? If someone enjoys the Enquirer more than the Times specifically because the Times makes them work too hard to read all those big words and fold all those big pages, and the Enquirer demands less of them, and all they REALLY want is to read about Batboy anyway, are we all to agree that their laziness validates the quality of the Enquirer?
What gives these criteria objective validity?
I know what it is for me. What it is for you, I couldn’t say.
It makes the Enquirer a better suited newspaper for them, yes.
Anything at all by Lowry…anything!!
What a load of fucking garbage
“Objectively valid”? So, what, you want a reference point to “prove” that “straight lines should be straight”? That reflected light should reflect, that shadows should be in shadow?
I have to give you credit, Priceguy - your argument does have internal consistency. If criteria for the arts did not exist (if nothing was taught in school, if art could not be analyzed and critiqued), then yes, all opinions would be meaningless subjective whims. A big popularity contest.
But criteria do exist, and art is analyzed. People learn to paint.
You’re saying “the world consists only of X, art doesn’t make sense, it’s just opinions.”
I’m saying, the world is larger than your X, art does make sense, and it’s not just opinions.
Hmmm, I think you’re also saying that “anything is art”? Because there are no meaningful criteria? Proof that the “reductionists” (there’s got to be a better term) have succeeded, I suppose. So, shit on a stick, that’s art? The one guy who smeared himself in his feces and went around hugging his friends at his opening that’s art? If you can convince people to think of it as art, then it’s art?
By that argument, Kinkade ought to have his own room at the MOMA.
It would be the ultimate irony. tee-hee. Rothstein should host.
Definitely art criticism has taken a wrong turn, I’m not sure exactly where, but now I have one more reason to think they’re responsible for this debacle.
I stand by what I wrote before, Kinkade’s paintings are very, very bad. Soft light from an evening sky does not result in a uniformly bright blue roof and bright pink bushes on the shadowed side of a house. An angled house would never give a uniform color anyway, light wouldn’t hit all of the building with the same intensity. Stepping stones on a path several yards long do not all reflect light in exactly the same way - although it can work if the whole piece is supposed to be flat; if that were the case, the house wouldn’t be 3 dimensional. Some areas of his paintings are very representational, and others are nonsensical.
Internal consistency is the essential ingredient of competent painting, because that is how competency is defined. We’re talking Painting 101 here (although it takes most people a lot more than a year to achieve it).
You may not agree with that, you may choose to say paintings do not have to be competent - actually, you would kind of have to, if you want to like Kinkade’s work. You can like incompetent painters, sure, lots of people do.
You might also be able to find a Critic’s Darling somewhere who breaks the consistency rule – I’d need to see the work, but there’s a reasonable chance I’d be willing to argue that that critic is full of shit.
And, BTW, if sports consisted entirely of measured success (i.e., who won the game), then why would there be any debate over who’s the best player?
A whole lot of text, a couple of strawmen, a few arguments already addressed… and still not even an attempt to answer the central question. Telling.
Yes, but that doesn’t make the Enquirer a good paper, it makes the person a drooling idiot.
I feel as though there’s a fundamental question that you haven’t been asked, and it’s important: do you believe in objective reality at all? I’m not being snarky, I’m honestly wondering if you are willing to consider that *anyone’s * opinion about *anything * might be incorrect.
Absolutely.
I actually like Lobster Telephone, I think it’s funny- mainly because of this quote on display with it:
I’m confused by that Wiki article, though. It says there are 4, and lists the museums they’re in, but I personally saw it in the Dali Museum here in town… 
I’m not a particular fan of Dali, though, I just think some of his art is pretty funny. There’s actually no art I really hate, just some work I’m decidedly “meh” about. Don’t really like Picasso though.
Not a big Pollock fan. And it’s not that I have anything against non-representational art in general-- because I don’t. It’s just that Pollock-- and I have seen a painting or two of his in person-- tends to leave me cold.
I resent your suggestion that I’m not posting in good faith, Priceguy.
I’d like an example of something that does have “objective validity”, because I don’t understand how I’ve failed to provide this. You made an argument in another thread (or this one?) that if something is not universally experienced, then it doesn’t exist. Is that what you mean? Because, AFAIK, the only things that are truly universally experienced are birth and death.
I gave you some means (objective, clear techniques) with which to judge internal consistency in paintings.
I told you that is how basic competence is defined.
Does football have “objective validity”?
Is a touchdown really a touchdown, or did human beings just decide to call it one?
It’s pretty simple: explain how these criteria you talk about matter to me.
Huh? I don’t recognize this at all.
I’m not interested in judging internal consistency. That’s not how I judge art. Why should I?
The two are, in this case, the same. A touchdown is a touchdown because humans define it as a touchdown.
Kid’s back up, keeping this brief.
OK - well then if you see football as mere background noise that provides you with an excuse to consume beer and chips, there’s no point in explaining the rules. If you want to learn about the game, then you can. And you might enjoy it. But you don’t “have” to.
You can have the same view of art.
When you’re ready to get more out of it, then you will.
That’s what learning art gives you, an opportunity to get more out of it.
Nothing more.
But don’t be surprised when your opinions about the background noise don’t mean much to people who understand that something more is going on.