Students left a pineapple in the middle of an exhibition and people mistook it for art - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=sgman91;52213162]Yes, I'm trying to present a coherent argument to why there are real existent standards and that it makes sense to say that some art is more effective, and therefore better, than other art.[/QUOTE] Why? Why not leave this up to the individual? What purpose does this serve if not to make you feel superior?

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;52213165]Why? Why not leave this up to the individual? What purpose does this serve if not to make you feel superior?[/QUOTE] It serves a few purposes: 1) Space to show art is scarce. We don't have unlimited space or time to look at all art. So it makes sense to figure out which pieces are the best and show those the most. 2) It allows real discussion about the art that doesn't just come down to, "My totally subjective opinion is different than your totally subjective opinion." 3) It allows us to give more praise to better artists.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52213163]If the goal is to express something through the art, then what other people think of it is inherently important.[/QUOTE] Is appealing to the lowest common denominator the highest form of art, then? Is Adam Sandler a living genius?

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;52213175]Is appealing to the lowest common denominator the highest form of art, then? Is Adam Sandler a living genius?[/QUOTE] If the goal of your art is to make people laugh with dumb humor, then sure, Adam Sandler would be pretty high up there. If the goal is to move someone at their deepest level, then no, Adam Sandler wouldn't be very good.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52213176]If the goal of your art is to make people laugh with dumb humor, then sure, Adam Sandler would be pretty high up there. If the goal is to move someone at their deepest level, then no, Adam Sandler wouldn't be very good.[/QUOTE] How do these goals work in your bad art scale, then? How do you decide which goal is better than the other?

Art galleries and shows generally choose art on either technical merit or whichever the judges/curator think fits their theme or personal/company tastes. I see a lot of art in galleries that I don't like or don't get, so it's really not that they're "better" at conveying a meaning unless, like I said, you're looking at them from a technical standpoint. It's that they manage to appeal to the person or persons who is curating the show or gallery. Those people may have found a meaning in it but that doesn't mean everyone will or even should.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;52213187]How do these goals work in your bad art scale, then? How do you decide which goal is better than the other?[/QUOTE] That's a harder question. It would have to have something to do with what topics are most meaningful to the common human experience, maybe which pieces truly move its viewers with a lasting impact. The most obvious use of the method I presented is in getting rid of bad art. If you have a piece that does not effectively communicate any goal, or communicates a goal different than what was intended, then we can clearly state that it isn't very good.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52213202]That's a harder question. It would have to have something to do with what topics are most meaningful to the common human experience, maybe which pieces truly move its viewers with a lasting impact. The most obvious use of the method I presented is in getting rid of bad art. If you have a piece that does not effectively communicate any goal, or communicates a goal different than what was intended, then we can clearly state that it isn't very good.[/QUOTE] I disagree with "getting rid of bad art". I think all art deserves some form of exposure. Now, if you want to let the ticket sales decide which type of art gets the big events, and which gets a display on Tuesday, that's fine by me. But negating exposure [I]entirely[/I] just because something is experimental doesn't sit well with me. Because it means that, eventually, you might deny something that could end up connecting with people more deeply than anything before it, simply because it hasn't been proven to do it yet.