Are There Any Valid Criticisms? (aka Kalessin's Rant) - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

littlemanpoet · 10-28-2004, 02:25 PM

I dare say "good art" is not nearly as subjective as has been asserted; certainly not completely subjective. Standards have always applied throughout the history of art. Cultures that have done art (which is probably all of them) have conformed to styles and standards. What kinds of standards? At least those of skill and beauty; or, when beauty was precisely that which was being rebelled against (such as early 20th century), then a vigor in ugliness was a kind of standard - because of the skill with which it was achieved.

The word "good" implies standards. If there is "good", there has to be "better" and "best". It's only in our own culturally and philosophically relativist era that standards of "good art" have become subjective. Tolkien found the relativistic tendencies in modern art and literature to be quite repulsive. He, being perhaps an extreme example, considered any literature in the English language that had been produced after 1800 (I think), not to be worthy of the term.

Back to my main point. There are necessarily objective standards for art, precisely because humans cannot avoid thinking and behaving in terms of standards of good, better, and best.

If one really believe that art is subjective, one cannot refer to any art as "good", etc. - it just is. .... which is untenable.

10-28-2004, 02:25 PM	#23
littlemanpoet Itinerant Songster Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: The Edge of Faerie Posts: 7,066	I dare say "good art" is not nearly as subjective as has been asserted; certainly not completely subjective. Standards have always applied throughout the history of art. Cultures that have done art (which is probably all of them) have conformed to styles and standards. What kinds of standards? At least those of skill and beauty; or, when beauty was precisely that which was being rebelled against (such as early 20th century), then a vigor in ugliness was a kind of standard - because of the skill with which it was achieved. The word "good" implies standards. If there is "good", there has to be "better" and "best". It's only in our own culturally and philosophically relativist era that standards of "good art" have become subjective. Tolkien found the relativistic tendencies in modern art and literature to be quite repulsive. He, being perhaps an extreme example, considered any literature in the English language that had been produced after 1800 (I think), not to be worthy of the term. Back to my main point. There are necessarily objective standards for art, precisely because humans cannot avoid thinking and behaving in terms of standards of good, better, and best. If one really believe that art is subjective, one cannot refer to any art as "good", etc. - it just is. .... which is untenable.