Evaluating Artistic Merit.

[Dario]

An issue brought to the fore by Toast's 'art or vandalism?' thread.
The question I want to ask is this: with regards to evaluating the artistic merit of a work, should it be judged entirely on its own artistic presentation, on its own merit as a single work, or do you really need to have background on who the artist is and what mindset and approach influenced the creative process before making an accurate judgement on it?

Should an artwork be able to stand on its own? Or do you need a certain amount of context to provide enough of an insight into what it aims to achieve? Does it make a difference whether Beethoven was deaf when he composed the Ninth Symphony, or is it sufficient enough to appreciate it for what it is, for example?

[MarkMono]

It makes a difference to the audience member evaluating it certainly.

I don't think it actually makes a difference to any intrinsic artistic merit it may possess.

[Woolies]

My answer is going to be "both".

I think most art can be appreciated (whether enjoyed or not) by anyone, simply because it looks, sounds or feels pleasant. Good accessible art is a fine thing, often doing it's job without even being noticed as art, eg. the MacDonalds logo.

While other stuff requires some insider info, specialist knowledge or a background context to enable us to appreciate a piece, it's a niche market.


The best art I'd say has both levels.
A painting that looks nice & interesting but when we find out it's by an elephant can raise our interest and makes us engage more than if we didn't have that insider info.
Knowing the intentions (or indeed simply stature) of the artist can make us think more about a piece that may not have held any interest without that insight.


Knowing Beethoven was deaf makes the Ninth have a wee bit more "cool" but it stands as enjoyable or not on it's own.
Toast once posted about how anyone may like a certain photograph but as a photographer we can also add our specialist knowledge and be amazed because we know the lengths required to capture the picture.

Good art should be attractive to the ignorant and capable of holding the interest of the, well, of the interested...

[fallen_nemesis]

I think it depends a lot on context and type of artwork in question. For a piece of public art per se I'd expect Mr Joe Bloggs and art critic alike to be able to take something away from it whether it be aesthetic value or the statement (if any) the piece is trying to make. If almost everybody can't take SOMETHING away from it then I'd say it fails as a piece of public art

A canvas however is different, as is anything that is not a piece of public art. I'd say they can get away with needing to be explained and possibly explore more complex or abstract themes or demand the viewer first understands certain things be it previous work or artist background

[Woolies]

Originally Posted by MarkMono

intrinsic artistic merit

It's a strange concept that one.

How does an entity gain more or less intrinsic artistic merit than any other?

[MarkMono]

It doesn't, on that level its merit exists solely within the perception of the person experiencing it.

So we have to find other ways to qualify as "Either everythings art or nothing is." is a thoroughly unhelpful truth.

[fallen_nemesis]

Originally Posted by Woolies

My answer is going to be "both".

I think most art can be appreciated (whether enjoyed or not) by anyone, simply because it looks, sounds or feels pleasant. Good accessible art is a fine thing, often doing it's job without even being noticed as art, eg. the MacDonalds logo.

While other stuff requires some insider info, specialist knowledge or a background context to enable us to appreciate a piece, it's a niche market.


The best art I'd say has both levels.
A painting that looks nice & interesting but when we find out it's by an elephant can raise our interest and makes us engage more than if we didn't have that insider info.
Knowing the intentions (or indeed simply stature) of the artist can make us think more about a piece that may not have held any interest without that insight.


Knowing Beethoven was deaf makes the Ninth have a wee bit more "cool" but it stands as enjoyable or not on it's own.
Toast once posted about how anyone may like a certain photograph but as a photographer we can also add our specialist knowledge and be amazed because we know the lengths required to capture the picture.

Good art should be attractive to the ignorant and capable of holding the interest of the, well, of the interested...

I would argue though that say a piece of sculpture commisioned for let's say Buchanan Street wouldn't be a successful piece of public art if no one understood it and they found it ugly. it shouldn't need say explaining in a big sign / spiel about how it's purpose is to be ugly.

The exact same piece however could be hugely successful in a private gallery or something similar though because it's not aimed at the same audience or a piece of public art.

It's all about context and audience really.

I do however feel that a lot of poor pieces of art get away with being on display because they're by recognised artists. It annoys me when they've quite obviously made up what it's about "after" they've created it

[MarkMono]

Tracey Emins comment on the KLF: Thats not art, arts made by artists who have been to art school and stuff.

[Dario]

Originally Posted by Woolies

My answer is going to be "both".

I think most art can be appreciated (whether enjoyed or not) by anyone, simply because it looks, sounds or feels pleasant. Good accessible art is a fine thing, often doing it's job without even being noticed as art, eg. the MacDonalds logo.

While other stuff requires some insider info, specialist knowledge or a background context to enable us to appreciate a piece, it's a niche market.


The best art I'd say has both levels.
A painting that looks nice & interesting but when we find out it's by an elephant can raise our interest and makes us engage more than if we didn't have that insider info.
Knowing the intentions (or indeed simply stature) of the artist can make us think more about a piece that may not have held any interest without that insight.


Knowing Beethoven was deaf makes the Ninth have a wee bit more "cool" but it stands as enjoyable or not on it's own.
Toast once posted about how anyone may like a certain photograph but as a photographer we can also add our specialist knowledge and be amazed because we know the lengths required to capture the picture.

Good art should be attractive to the ignorant and capable of holding the interest of the, well, of the interested...

That's certainly what I would consider the most helpful approach towards it. The aesthetic value of the work should serve as a starting point to lure in the viewer and appeal to their basic instinctive notions of artistic standards, and yet have enough layers to it so that, the more insight is gained into the background of the work itself, the more it seems to say and enrich your enjoyment of it. It's typical of the kind of painting that instantly catches your interest, and afterwards, seems to grow in impact each time you look at it.

I'd say that the problem most people have with the modern art world today would have to do with the fact that a lot of it seems geared so specifically towards the interpretation of what the artist is 'trying to convey' that emphasis on the actual execution of the work itself is greatly diminished. What a lot of them have is a concept, and a way in which they think the concept ought to be looked at, but not enough substance to ultimately base it on.

I do take heed of the fact that art can ultimately only be judged subjectively, so this is a pretty hazy issue to discuss, but I'm trying to limit the discussion strictly to the question of the most useful attitude to take on board, rather than getting into the old "what is and isn't art?" argument people get sucked into.