[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

The Saucepan Man wrote:
Quote:
... what is "good art"?

Who cares?

What I mean is: is a working definition of "good art" really necessary for the discussion in this thread to make sense? Of course it's an interesting question in its own right . . .

And I thought that you were the master of quantification.

The reason that I asked is that assumptions are being made on this thread as to what is "good art" or "bad art". Who decides what is "good" and what is "bad" at any given time? Is it some cultural elite? Is it the majority of consumers (the popularity argument)? Or is it simply down to personal taste? I have a lot of time for the works mentioned in my previous post, and yet they certainly don't have mass appeal and there are many (probably the majority) who find them pointless and entirely devoid of merit.

And must "good art" necessarily reveal some truth as to the human condition (customarily, I avoid the dreaded capital 'T' )? And, if so, who is to say what those truths are? In any event, surely the individual can simply enjoy art without having to feel that they have learned some basic truth. Or can simple enjoyment be classified as a basic truth of human experience?

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

More specifically, I mean that a work of art becomes 'good' when sufficient of the right kind of critics have judged it to be so. It does not become 'good' when mere mortals say so, otherwise the overwhelming popularity of Tolkien would mean that he was judged 'good' by even more people. Until the right kind of critics judge Tolkien to be 'good', his work will remain excluded.

But who are these "right kind of critics", and why should they determine what is good and bad for the rest of us?

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Perhaps a more pertinent question is whether there is such a thing as "good art". I recall having a long debate about that in another old thread - perhaps I'll go and see if I can unearth it.

Precisely the point that I was driving at. Isn't it all, ultimately, subjective? Of course, in communities such as this forum, where one's very presence is driven by a particular interest (the works of Tolkien in our case), there will be a broad (though not exclusive) consensus on many areas of artistic endeavour. But there will always be disagreement on the fringes (if not the central ground).

Originally Posted by Rimbaud

Indeed, perhaps that’s the point; that it’s choice rather than a form of objective qualitative analysis for which we should be striving. I rather agree with Aiwendil above with a distaste for classifying ‘good art’; it is moreover in my opinion a phrase to be avoided.

Since the merits of an individual work of art are entirely subjective, I would agree that there can be no such thing as “good art”. A piece of art cannot, objectively, be classified as “good” simply because a certain group of academics regard it as having academic merit, although it is certainly “good” to them. Neither can it be classified as “bad” because others regard it as having little merit (by reference to their own criteria). Similarly, with the works of authors such as Danielle Steele, or Jeffrey Archer, or Terry Brooks. Like tar-ancalime, I would not exclude works such as these from the general definition of "art" simply because they are regarded as “mere entertainment” for the masses. They are popular with, and therefore regarded as “good”, by a large section of society, while others regard them as drivel and therefore “bad”. Objectively, they are neither.

Of course, works of art can come to be regarded as good by a sufficiently large or influential section of society, such as they become generally regarded within that society as “good” (and this will change over time). That is not to say that only art which is popular is to regarded as “good”, but it is surely one determinant of quality. If the works of a particular author or artist or director are popular, then they must be doing something right.

I would agree with Rimbaud concerning the desirability of choice. And I would say that there is a sufficiently wide range of shared tastes within our society to prompt the "producers" and those who market their "products" to give us a sufficiently tolerable choice. There may be those within society whose particular tastes are not catered for, but such tastes would surely be very eclectic indeed. Otherwise, while those who have less “popularist” tastes may need to search a little harder (whether that be by surfing the net, tuning into the right radio station, going to the right bookshop and so forth), that which they find to be “good” will generally still be there somewhere.