… I think you’re in dire need of a reading primer. I have repeatedly asserted that modern art (which I don’t like) is art. The definition I put forth clearly includes modern art as art. “Random” is not a disqualifier for the definition. “Accidental” is, but I think the word art and its antecedents pretty clearly imply that intent is a part of the process. If you’re not going to bother to read my posts before responding to them, why should I engage you at all?
Sure. Now apply that perspective to non-representational art.
I wish I could. Since there’s no way to tell what the artist intended it to look like, there’s no way to measure how successful he or she was.
But you judge the “objective value of a work with the skill required to create it.” That’s a subjective judgment. You don’t really know the skill required to create it. I may look at your pewter painting and say “pfft, any monkey can do that, it’s just paint-by-numbers.” You, however, having a little more insight into the craft can see the skill involved.
Can you really objectively say this early Picasoo took more skill than this Picasso? I can’t. The first looks more like reality than the second, but I have no idea which is more difficult to make. I, personally, have much more difficulty making convincing abstract art than realist art so, skillwise, I’d say the second.
Just because you don’t know which required more skill doesn’t mean it can’t be objectively determined. I don’t know if it’s raining outside right now or not, but I can go find out.
Um. OK.
Of course. For example, if you discovered that Picasso had painted the first painting with his left hand on a dare, you’d have objective proof that it required more skill to produce.
The only “skill” in art is to create something that people appreciate. Trying to say otherwise is just misguided snobbery.
And I think that’s really the heart of the matter, here. I agree entirely that aesthetic value is almost completely subjective, but that’s what makes it such a more interesting field for discussion. The problem with objective value is that there isn’t really any room for debate (although I don’t think your standard really is entirely objective, but more on that in a minute). An objective value is just that - objective. It remains constant regardless of who views it. And as such, once an objective quality is identified, there’s nothing more to be said on the subject.
To my mind, what makes art interesting isn’t what can be shown objectively, but what can be inferred subjectively. The fact that two people can look at the same painting and come away with entirely different ideas as to what it means is what makes art interesting. It is the infinite elasticity of subjective meaning that makes it valuable. It is what makes it art in the first place. To me, art isn’t the paint on the canvas, or the process of putting the paint on the canvas. Art is when someone else looks at the canvas, and reacts to it. The fact that no two reactions to a single work will ever be precisely the same - that no work of art is ever the same when viewed by two different people - that is, I think, one of the most interesting things about the human species. That is what makes art - all art, which in one manner of speaking, is anything created by human hands - the source of the most profound insights into the human condition.
I’m not sure how one would objectively determine which of those paintings took more skill. I’m not sure that’s something that can be objectively determined. When you’re talking about the great artists, “skill” becomes a meaningless yardstick. Who was more skilled: Leonardo, or Michelangelo, and how do you support your position objectively? And is it more impressive to be naturally good at something, or to work hard to achieve success? Picasso was a genius. He worked extremely hard at his art, but he also was, through his natural talents, starting the race five or six laps ahead of the rest of the pack. Here’s an early Picasso work, First Communion. He was fourteen when he painted it. I’m not sure how long it took him to complete, exactly, but he began sometime in 1895, and finished in 1896, so no more than a year, at most. Now, if I dedicated myself to reproducing this painting, I might, after several years of effort, be able to create a reasonable facsimile. But it would take me an enormously larger amount of time and effort to create that work as an adult, than it took Picasso to do as a boy. So, under your definition, which painting is more valuable? Picasso, certainly, was more innately skilled. But I put a lot more effort into mine. Which is the more impressive achievement? And is the determination of value between effort and natural skill still an objective consideration, or a subjective one?
Also, I’m kind of amused that your answer here circles back around to one of the most common complaints about modern art: that you need to be an art major to properly appreciate it. I don’t know that you’ve specifically voiced that concern, so I don’t know if this counts as irony or not, but it is interesting that, in order to judge the relative qualities of those two paintings, you would have to engage in significantly deeper study of the works than is generally necessary to appreciate even the most abstract and abstruse modern works.
Exactly. Quoting Wolfgang Iser, another of my favorites on this topic:
“First, in discovering the hidden meaning, the critic has, as it were, solved a puzzle, and there is nothing left for him to do but to congratulate himself on this achievement. After all, what can one do with a meaning that has been formulated and put on display, having been stripped of all its mystery? So long as it WAS a mystery, one could search for it, but now there is nothing to arouse interest except for the skill of the searcher.”
And I have the exact opposite viewpoint. Glad we cleared that up.
Skill and effort are both measurable ‘value added’. As to which one you value more - well, that’d be back in the realm of subjectivity. Objectively, they’re apples and oranges.
I generally taken it as a given that, in any discussion about art or popular media, you and I are going to have opposite viewpoints.
Definitionally, they’re apples and oranges. Objectively, I’m not sure how one would determine the difference between the two when assessing a particular work of art or body of work by a particular artist.
It’s obviously easier if you have access to the artist - once they’re dead, the details are harder to substantiate. The time it takes to do the painting in man-hours would correspond to effort in most cases. The skill of a painting would be more evident in the precision of the brushstrokes, though it might actually inversely correspond to the time it took to do. A painter with more skill could often achieve results more quickly.
Personally, I favor skill over effort, but don’t entirely discount effort.