[Lalwendë]

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

I should have answered this sooner which was rude of me. By these comments I was referring to the fact that judgements on whether art is good or bad are made by those 'professionally qualified' to do so, not by the consumers. I was being a bit sarcastic, as I see that this is indeed the case, but I do not want it to be like that! And when I say 'professionally qualified' I am again being a little sarcastic, as it is clear to me that there is a certain amount of elitism involved in judgements about 'art' and culture.

A work, then, could be aesthetically beautiful but, for one reason or another, not liked.

I think this is entirely possible. I understand that the artist Raphael, who produced perfectly rendered paintings, fell out of favour with the contemporary cultural elite (Rossetti, Burne-Jones et al) some time in the 1800s. It is only now that his art is in favour once again. The reaction against his style of art gave rise to the term pre-raphaelite. Nobody could deny that Raphael's art is aesthetically beautiful, but it certainly was not liked for some time.

To take a contemporary example, (so I can't be accused of being elitist ) let's look at music, and just because it was the first thing to come to mind, look at Gareth Gates. He has the right looks and image for a pop star, he sings beautifully, and he has been supplied with well crafted songs. All very aesthetically pleasing. Yet I would not say he is liked by music fans. What are they buying instead? A good comparison is the success of The Darkness, four fairly ugly blokes dressed like something from the early 70s and churning out old fashioned rock music. Not aesthetically pleasing at all, but a wider range of people like them.

for a surprisingly large segment of the population, I think, musical taste is dictated by "image" rather than by the aesthetics of the music itself.

Definitely true. And at both ends of the spectrum from pop to alternative. I happen to like quite a lot of 'alternative' music (amongst other things), and I have no doubts that this grew from my teens when I shuddered at the very thought of being seen dead buying anything by Wham. So when I saw characters like Morrissey or Bob Smith in my copy of Smash Hits I went and bought their records.

I think there are a great many popular works of art that are not good, but are liked for non-aesthetic reasons

I like a lot of music that really winds other people up, and it's definitely not aesthetically pleasing, but it's me-pleasing, and I would say that this is a non-aesthetic reason by choice. I like to hear cathartic or discordant music as much as I like to hear Vaughan Williams.

Before I start on a long essay about why some of my favourite bands are so ace, I'll round off by saying that what we like is strongly related to the shifts in our personal truth, and that our taste is not always, in my opinion, related to any concrete definition of good or bad art, but to what the influences of the world around us (media, friends, even people we want to irritate) thinks is good or bad. This is a good thing, as those who only consume the things in culture which they have been told are 'good' are rapidly going to become insular, locked in their high or low brow mindsets. Those who are willing to explore are going to find more enrichment. I hope this makes sense!