My heart wants to believe that quality really exists in art. Reading John Ashbery, I just can’t help but say to myself “this is terrible.” But try as I might, I have not been able to think of an argument that it exists.
I’ve argued over this with some arty friends, and they generally say that some works of art show greater complexity than others. That’s quite right, but what we call complexity doesn’t really seem to match up with what we call goodness in art. Most people will say, after all, that the Ramones were good. But just how complex was their music? Power chords and simple singing. (and no, I’m not knocking on the Ramones, I’m just making a point about terms.) So I think this way of arguing for quality realism is just equivocation.
A slightly different, and more substantial remark, is that some pieces of art show better craftsmanship. But I think this runs foul when we think of what craftsmanship is supposed to be for. After all, craftsmanship in any field–like guitarmaking–is a means to an end. But without agreed-upon ends for art, the craftsmanship of any given artist can always be said to serve an unworthy end. I, for example, could say that all of Steve Vai’s technique is irrelevant because his end–the overall sound he’s going for–is bad. Craftsmanship can’t be the same as quality because it is just a means to an end–and the ends are in full dispute.
Another point is simply the pleasure an artist creates. While there’s a lot of overlap in what people take pleasure in (see: The Beatles), there’s also a lot of difference in taste. If two people take pleasure in different things, how can one taste by objectively “incorrect”? Pleasure isn’t even a belief, it’s an experience.
There are other ways of arguing that artistic quality exists, but these are the ones I’ve heard. I haven’t found them very adequate.
Question: do you think people can be factually right or wrong about whether certain artists are good or not?