What makes art good?
Posted by: roscivs, in UncategorizedYesterday I talked about “What is art?” Today I intend to tackle the slightly trickier topic, “What makes art good?” Let’s take an overview of some of the possibilities.
Lack of Utility: some argue that lack of a utilitarian purpose distinguishes art from non-art. A cup that is used for drinking is not art; an ornamental cup that sits on a shelf is art. I disagree; in my estimation, the best pieces of art are those which mingle utility with aesthetics. It’s true that a cup that is used for drinking may not necessarily be art—but this is because as an item of daily use, we don’t even notice it, and thus it is not aesthetically interesting. But an ornamental cup doesn’t lose its status as art simply by being used as a cup. (It may, however, lose its status as art if its utilitarian purpose becomes so prominent that its aesthetic qualities are completely passed over. Note that on this point there may be some argument about whether it loses some intrinsic “art”-nature, or whether the individuals observing it merely fail to realize that it’s art, but I don’t consider this debate to be any more meaningful than that of the tree falling in the forest.)
Skill: there is a prevalent idea that the more skill required to create some piece, the higher-quality the resulting work of art. I have some respect for this perspective, although it seems almost a bit backwards. When we take a look at some high-quality piece of art, we remark at how skilled the creator must have been. Likewise if we see some poorly-made piece, we comment that the creator must not have been very skilled. (Note that skill here does not equal time spent—a master might be able to create a complex and beautiful work in but a few moments, whereas a beginner would require hours to make something quite unimpressive.) We judge the skill based on the quality of the piece, not vice-versa. It would be odd to look at a piece of art and ask, “How much skill was required to make this piece?” before making a judgment as to its artistic worth.
Rarity: I spoke on this topic at some length in my previous post, with a bit of a harsh tone. If the Mona Lisa could be perfectly and exactly replicated, I see no intrinsic reason why the piece of art would be any more valuable (in an artistic, not a monetary sense) if only one copy were made as opposed to a thousand. However, I recognize that if millions of copies were made and plastered on every wall, that could certainly make a difference. Art isn’t art because it is rare, but it might lose some of its aesthetic value if it is extraordinarily common. (Of course, it may very well still be aestically valuable while being common or easy to reproduce, and be no less artistically valuable for it.)
Communication: another school of thought maintains that high-quality art is effective at communication emotion, or arousing aesthetic or moral feelings. The more potent the triggered response, the better the art. Alternatively, the more universal the triggered response, the better the art. This idea is definitely one that has some merit in my eyes. As I’ve mentioned before, I like the idea of aesthetic response as a way of determining artistic worth. “Communicating emotion” is a good way of phrasing the same sort of idea. I’m not sure how universal the triggered response needs to be, however, when determining quality. If artwork A communicates a powerful message to 10% of its audience, whereas artwork B communicates an identical message to 90% of its audience, I’d say the latter piece of art is qualitatively better. But if artwork C communicates a relatively mild message to 90% of its audience and artwork D communicates a strong message to 10% of its audience, which is the “better” piece of art? It’s hard to say. As a great fan of “niche” art, and as one who finds art with massive appeal rather blasé, I must admit that I lean towards D as superior.
What is art? What makes art good? When it comes right down to it, art is valuable because we like it. Why do we like it? I don’t think anybody can ever really know. It’s different for every person. But when you get to the core of the issue, it doesn’t have to do with rarity, skill, or lack of utility—it all boils down to the communication of some ethereal concept. You can call it emotion, aesthetics, moral feeling, or whatever you like. But it is the transmission of that creative urge that is the heart of what makes art good.
Entries (RSS)
March 2nd, 2007 at 4:36 pm
I think I would add the concept of depth–both depth of execution and depth of culture. If something is well-crafted enough to repay attention to its fine details, I think the result is much “better art”. (This is a part of the “skill” category, above, which I think you shortchange somewhat; if anyone can do it, we are unlikely to find something nearly as impressive or interesting. Come to think of it, that speaks to the “rarity” issue as well.)
Depth of culture is the number of other things referenced by the work; something with a great number of symbols which reference other touchstones of the culture that produced it (I have in mind the Renaissance paintings of classical or Biblical themes) can have more interest than something without such references, because the artist can draw on those other works and ideas with allusions that he/she need not make explicit.