No smilies, no avatars, no flashing gifs. Just discuss the issues of the day, from last night's telly via football to science or philosophy.
Started by uranrising on Sep 23, 2016 9:42:29 AM
the ability to recognise that something is crap

Following the series this week on contemporary art in Beeb 4, a poster here said that being open to c.a. is a good idea, " but it has to be tempered with the ability to recognise that something is crap and not worth wasting time on."

I suggested that such a recognition isn't that straightforward.

Well is it?

Previous
|
Next
|
Top
|
Bottom
InternationalVicar - 23 Sep 2016 09:52:27 (#1 of 52)

Nobody has posted on this thread yet

InternationalVicar - 23 Sep 2016 09:52:30 (#2 of 52)

Nobody has posted on this thread yet

InternationalVicar - 23 Sep 2016 09:52:34 (#3 of 52)

Nobody has posted on this thread yet

InternationalVicar - 23 Sep 2016 09:52:44 (#4 of 52)

Art council grant please

Agaliarept - 23 Sep 2016 09:54:22 (#5 of 52)

I suggested that such a recognition isn't that straightforward.

Real recognise real yo.

browserbutton - 23 Sep 2016 09:55:30 (#6 of 52)

Crap is in the eye of the beholder.

InternationalVicar - 23 Sep 2016 09:55:35 (#7 of 52)

I know what I like

uranrising - 23 Sep 2016 09:57:45 (#8 of 52)

Crap is in the eye of the beholder.



ability to recognise seems to suggest otherwise - implying that not everyone has the ability.

popstar7 - 23 Sep 2016 10:00:41 (#9 of 52)

This is not a thread

popstar7 - 23 Sep 2016 10:01:54 (#10 of 52)

Ceci n'est pas un thread

cozzer - 23 Sep 2016 10:02:09 (#11 of 52)

ability to recognise seems to suggest otherwise - implying that not everyone has the ability.



You do talk nonsense sometimes.

popstar7 - 23 Sep 2016 10:02:26 (#12 of 52)

Diese ist kein thread

ThreeFlewOver - 23 Sep 2016 10:02:49 (#13 of 52)

Well, it's not straightforward. But, I'd argue that something is crap and not worth spending time on as art if it meets all the following criteria:

1. Didn't require any technical ability to produce;

2. Is clearly derivative of previous works of art;

3. Is neither functional nor beautiful.



That's not to say there isn't totally crap art that doesn't meet all of those criteria too. Just that they're harder to identify as crap.

randomer - 23 Sep 2016 10:04:31 (#14 of 52)

Both of the programmes which I saw helpfully had Martin Creed on to demonstrate what crap art looks like.

uranrising - 23 Sep 2016 10:10:35 (#15 of 52)

Three

Assuming that you criteria are correct, would you say that everyone has the ability to tell if works of art do or don't fulfil your criteria?

Agaliarept - 23 Sep 2016 10:15:55 (#16 of 52)

But, I'd argue that something is crap and not worth spending time on as art if it meets all the following criteria:

Art is performance. It requires only an audience to validate it.

Any arguments about whether something has validity is pointless. It is solely up to the viewer to decide if a piece of art is 'good'.

ThreeFlewOver - 23 Sep 2016 10:15:56 (#17 of 52)

would you say that everyone has the ability to tell if works of art do or don't fulfil your criteria?

No

1. Didn't require any technical ability to produce;

I'm sure you could argue subjectivity about that, but anyone over, say, twelve should be able to tell where skill/training is required, IMO

2. Is clearly derivative of previous works of art;

To do this requires some knowledge of art history. Not to the level of being an art historian/artist themselves, but some awareness of movements as an informed layperson would suffice. That would still rule out the majority of the population.

3. Is neither functional nor beautiful.

The first I think has only a small amount of subjectivity, while the latter has lots. So maybe I've only deferred the problem! In any case, I don't think you need special skills/training to make a decision on these.

In short, it's the "derivative" criteria that makes it that only some people have the ability to automatically identify "crap" art without needing to spend more time on it.

ThreeFlewOver - 23 Sep 2016 10:17:50 (#18 of 52)

It is solely up to the viewer to decide if a piece of art is 'good'.

Well, sure. But I'd argue that if a piece of art met all my criteria, pretty much any audience would consider it crap. If you ran a gallery, and were presented with such a work, you'd consider it crap, and so clearly crap, that you could reasonably expect all your audience would also consider it crap.

Agaliarept - 23 Sep 2016 10:19:29 (#19 of 52)

Well, sure. But I'd argue that if a piece of art met all my criteria, pretty much any audience would consider it crap.

You're talking about a status quo though. I agree there will generally be a majority view that is subscribed to but you can always find someone somewhere who goes against the view.

I don't think (especially in art) that just because there is a majority view that it becomes a fact.

uranrising - 23 Sep 2016 10:22:51 (#20 of 52)

I think I'd distinguish between, very crudely, two majority views.

One is of people generally, the public.

The other is of viewers who have a great deal of experience in the field or those with expertise in the field or both.

Three's criterion 2 points to that distinction.

Previous
|
Next
|
Top
|
Bottom
Check Subscriptions
|
Home » Arts