[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Thus, amusement was originally understood to be the opposite of creativity, hence, of the process of art. Of course, time has worn its typical ravages upon language, and now we talk about the art of amusement.

I can see no difficulty with regarding "the art of amusement" as an art form in itself. Of course, one cannot really compare different forms of art, save in very limited respects. So, one can little more compare a Monty Python film to a Fellini film than one can compare it to a painting by Renoir (I would say "no more" rather than "little more", but they are rendered in the same medium, which allows for some limited comparison).

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Obviously, the aphorism suggests that beauty is relative, whereas no such opinion can claim to be fact. By contrast I would suggest that "Beauty is in the eye of the Designer", who designed both human ability to perceive beauty, and beauty itself.

Well, then we are left with two different opinions, neither of which can, ultimately, claim to be fact. Your argument assumes the existence of a Designer, which cannot be proved as a matter of fact (but is rather a matter of faith).

But, even assuming the existence of a Designer, then surely there is still scope for subjectivity in assessing the quality of art. I accept, in this scenario, that art which goes against the will of the Designer will, objectively, be "bad art". But, excluding such material, that still leaves a wide range of art on which different people can have widely differing opinions. Is it not therefore the case that this Designer intentionally invested us with sufficient free will to allow us to be able to determine for ourselves, on a subjective basis, which is "good" and which is "bad"?

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

This time, it's not moral versus artistic, but good as pleasure-providing versus good as of high quality.

And "high quality" is judged by what standard? I do accept that the individual may make a distinction personally between art which is merely "enjoyable" and art which they consider to be "high quality". In both cases, they consider the art to be "good", but they may well accord more value to that which they perceive as "high quality". The assessment is still, however, a subjective one in my view.

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Everything was in cartoonish overload, outlandish and full of stock nonsense. I felt insulted. It was as if this writer, who has written over 70 novels, decided that he "knew what that kind of reader liked", and threw together this mishmash that fairly insults the reader. I can't say any more good or bad about it, as I stopped reading in disgust. So, not enjoyable. Maybe he was trying to be a-musing. I could believe that.

So, to your mind, it was "bad art" (and, from your description, I would probably agree with you). But there will be others who consider it to be "good art". They might even consider it to be "better art" than the works of Tolkien. You and I may disagree with them, but we cannot deny their honest and genuine reaction.

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

The only problem with "enjoyable" is that I still think I want to refer to a specific category of enjoyment - not sensual pleasure; I would not call eating candy the enjoyment of art.

There are no doubt many top chefs who would disagree with you that the inspiration of sensual pleasure cannot be considered an art form.