[Son of Jack]

At the end of the OP, I'm including the talk that set my thought in motion for this thread. I realize that the video is supposed to be an hour in length, but the meat of the talk only lasts forty minutes.

In his lecture, Wolterstorff forwards the notion that there are two basic "values" of art. The first is the instrumental value. The person coming to art from this perspective, seeking the instrumental value of the art, evaluates the art on the basis of its usefulness, and a piece of art's usefulness is judged primarily on the criterion of its aesthetic pleasure. In order words, does the art make me feel good, happy? Does it bring me pleasure? This, it seems, is the sole basis for most people's judgment of art, and that is not bad (though a little stunted, perhaps).

He makes the case that art that is primarily created for instrumental value has the potential to do to very useful things. First, it can ennoble our experiences. It can elevate our experience and help us transcend what would normally be a mundane, run-of-the-mill event in our lives. Wolterstorff uses "work" music as his example for this point. Second, it is often the only thing that befits our memory of the past. In other words, the Vietnam Memorial better befits the event than does a textbook rendering of the event. He uses memorial art as his example of this point.

Now, he moves from purely instrumental understanding of art to seeing at least some art as intrinsically valuable. Some art is simply worthy because it is, not because it makes us feel this way or that. In other words, there is such a thing as art that is intrinsically better than other pieces. What Wolterstorff doesn't do is explain what makes a piece of art intrinsically good, better, best?

That's what I want to attempt to discuss. Do you agree that there are two "values" of art? If so, what is it exactly that differentiates the two? Is there anything objective in art that we can point to? Do you agree with his assessment of instrumental value?

Here is the video. Warning: Wolterstorff is a tad eccentric and not exactly aesthetic pleasing to listen to.

Art and Aesthetics

[Town Heretic]

I'll have to get around to the video, but I appreciate your summary.

I don't believe art is intrinsically valuable. It gains its value in relation. If it doesn't move or speak to me then its value to me is non existent. Now we could discuss the objective elements of art, the skill required to produce it and the rarity of that skill or degree of proficiency, but none of that will mean anything to me if I can't relate to it.

And that's where I believe the value of art is found.

[Cracked]

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

I'll have to get around to the video, but I appreciate your summary.

I don't believe art is intrinsically valuable. It gains its value in relation. If it doesn't move or speak to me then its value to me is non existent. Now we could discuss the objective elements of art, the skill required to produce it and the rarity of that skill or degree of proficiency, but none of that will mean anything to me if I can't relate to it.

And that's where I believe the value of art is found.

Art does indeed gain "its value in relation." However, if it "doesn't move or speak to [you]" it does not mean it has no value, even to you. For example, there are many works of fine art that I do not particularly care for or am indifferent to, however, they seem to move others in a way that speaks to their value. Art may be static, but people are not. As I change, perhaps I will find worth in something I previously dismissed, despite its static nature.

I tend to see art like I see Scripture--it can be applicable, allegorical, or literal/historical (representative). Often, it operates on all three levels. Rarely does art operate in the realm of mere representation. Good art, in my meager estimation, reflects its creator while also invoking a relationship from which we find something out about ourselves (and others).

[Buzzword]

I think we really need to define "art" before we can get into valuing it.

Especially since far too many people confuse "art" with "craft" and vice versa.

A boat can be aesthetically pleasing, even if it can't float.
But if it can't, it's not well-crafted.

Art is derived from the emotional reaction a person's creation provokes in an audience.

Craft is derived from the utility of the creation itself.


In terms of the "Two Values," the first seems closer to CRAFT, while the second seems closer to ART.

[Cracked]

Originally Posted by Buzzword

I think we really need to define "art" before we can get into valuing it.

Especially since far too many people confuse "art" with "craft" and vice versa.

A boat can be aesthetically pleasing, even if it can't float.
But if it can't, it's not well-crafted.

Art is derived from the emotional reaction a person's creation provokes in an audience.

Craft is derived from the utility of the creation itself.


In terms of the "Two Values," the first seems closer to CRAFT, while the second seems closer to ART.

Ah--but art is what I say it is. If I put a coffee cup (or a screw driver, or ream of paper) on a white pedestal in a museum, I have changed is assumed purely utilitarian context. It is now something that provokes wonder.

So, it may be accurate to say that all craft has the capacity to be art, but not all art can be craft.

[Town Heretic]

Originally Posted by Buzzword

I think we really need to define "art" before we can get into valuing it.

Especially since far too many people confuse "art" with "craft" and vice versa.

A boat can be aesthetically pleasing, even if it can't float.
But if it can't, it's not well-crafted.

Art is derived from the emotional reaction a person's creation provokes in an audience.

Craft is derived from the utility of the creation itself.


In terms of the "Two Values," the first seems closer to CRAFT, while the second seems closer to ART.

Not alien to my skill/relation distinction.

Cracked, I'd say it still wants value if I don't relate to it. Relating at another time just underscores the lack of inherent value and the dependency on my perception as an individual experiencing it.

[Cracked]

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

Cracked, I'd say it still wants value if I don't relate to it. Relating at another time just underscores the lack of inherent value and the dependency on my perception as an individual experiencing it.

Or perhaps your ability/willingness to perceive it?

How many times have you heard, "My kid could draw that." We are quick to dismiss what we do not fully comprehend.

edit: I am not saying that we can relate to all art. I am saying that just because we don't relate to it doesn't mean that it necessarily lacks value, or that we can't appreciate the value others find in it.

[Son of Jack]

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

I'll have to get around to the video, but I appreciate your summary.

Gladly.

I don't believe art is intrinsically valuable. It gains its value in relation. If it doesn't move or speak to me then its value to me is non existent. Now we could discuss the objective elements of art, the skill required to produce it and the rarity of that skill or degree of proficiency, but none of that will mean anything to me if I can't relate to it.

And that's where I believe the value of art is found.

But, isn't it possible to say that art holds an intrinsic value that is attached to the notion of it's being pro-creative? Does that make sense? Also see my question to Cracked...

Originally Posted by Cracked

Art does indeed gain "its value in relation." However, if it "doesn't move or speak to [you]" it does not mean it has no value, even to you. For example, there are many works of fine art that I do not particularly care for or am indifferent to, however, they seem to move others in a way that speaks to their value. Art may be static, but people are not. As I change, perhaps I will find worth in something I previously dismissed, despite its static nature.

To what extent are we discussing taste and not artistic value?

I tend to see art like I see Scripture--it can be applicable, allegorical, or literal/historical (representative). Often, it operates on all three levels. Rarely does art operate in the realm of mere representation. Good art, in my meager estimation, reflects its creator while also invoking a relationship from which we find something out about ourselves (and others).

Okay. So, you would argue that art isn't required to be representational in order to be intrinsically good, is this correct? If so, to what degree does it matter that a piece of non-representational, that is abstract, art must, by definition, be non-objective, that is subjective? And, if that is indeed the case, then can such art be intrinsically valuable?

Originally Posted by Buzzword

I think we really need to define "art" before we can get into valuing it.

Especially since far too many people confuse "art" with "craft" and vice versa.

A boat can be aesthetically pleasing, even if it can't float.
But if it can't, it's not well-crafted.

Art is derived from the emotional reaction a person's creation provokes in an audience.

Craft is derived from the utility of the creation itself.

In terms of the "Two Values," the first seems closer to CRAFT, while the second seems closer to ART.

That's fair, but I think Cracked handled this point clearly. I think you make an important distinction, and I appreciate it.

Now, the bolded sentences. Isn't an emotional reaction just a different type of utility?

[bybee]

Originally Posted by Son of Jack

Gladly.



But, isn't it possible to say that art holds an intrinsic value that is attached to the notion of it's being pro-creative? Does that make sense? Also see my question to Cracked...



To what extent are we discussing taste and not artistic value?



Okay. So, you would argue that art isn't required to be representational in order to be intrinsically good, is this correct? If so, to what degree does it matter that a piece of non-representational, that is abstract, art must, by definition, be non-objective, that is subjective? And, if that is indeed the case, then can such art be intrinsically valuable?



That's fair, but I think Cracked handled this point clearly. I think you make an important distinction, and I appreciate it.

Now, the bolded sentences. Isn't an emotional reaction just a different type of utility?

I have thought there is a grid or framework programmed into the mind which responds involuntarily to extermal stimuli.
Children respond to beauty and ugliness quite naturally without any preconceived critical sense.
Carl Sagan in his "The Dragon's of Eden" stated that our fear and revulsion of snakes has an evolutionary component related to survival.
I think of "Guernica". I had an intense revulsion to this painting upon first viewing. Once I researched the artist's intent I felt the immense pain contained therin. Still, it is hideous to view yet has intrinsic value in it's intent. I still can't bear to look at "The Scream". It depresses me.

[Arthur Brain]

Originally Posted by bybee

I have thought there is a grid or framework programmed into the mind which responds involuntarily to extermal stimuli.
Children respond to beauty and ugliness quite naturally without any preconceived critical sense.
Carl Sagan in his "The Dragon's of Eden" stated that our fear and revulsion of snakes has an evolutionary component related to survival.
I think of "Guernica". I had an intense revulsion to this painting upon first viewing. Once I researched the artist's intent I felt the immense pain contained therin. Still, it is hideous to view yet has intrinsic value in it's intent. I still can't bear to look at "The Scream". It depresses me.

The only problem with bringing children's reactions into the equation is the lack of sufficient development to appreciate that which can come with the years. There's pieces of art/music I adore now which I wouldn't (and didn't) when I was 5.

Where it comes to 'value' in art then it can often still be restricted by what comes down to subjective taste (IMO). What is 'ugly' for one can be 'beautiful' to another. I don't need an emotional reaction to necessarily see value in a piece even if I'm unmoved by or indifferent to it as some have commented.

Ironically enough 'The Scream' is an art work I see value in but wouldn't have on my wall as personally I don't find it that pleasant to look at, but I can't deny the power of the piece. Funnily enough a friend from a college course absolutely loved the piece and had it in her bedroom. She saw it as dark but vibrant so there we go....

My 0.02$....

[zoo22]

Originally Posted by Arthur Brain

Ironically enough 'The Scream' is an art work I see value in but wouldn't have on my wall as personally I don't find it that pleasant to look at, but I can't deny the power of the piece. Funnily enough a friend from a college course absolutely loved the piece and had it in her bedroom. She saw it as dark but vibrant so there we go....

She had it in her bedroom?? Was she involved in one of the Scream heists?

[WandererInFog]

Originally Posted by Son of Jack

Now, he moves from purely instrumental understanding of art to seeing at least some art as intrinsically valuable. Some art is simply worthy because it is, not because it makes us feel this way or that. In other words, there is such a thing as art that is intrinsically better than other pieces. What Wolterstorff doesn't do is explain what makes a piece of art intrinsically good, better, best?

What makes a piece of art intrinically good is much like what makes anything else intrinsically good: the extent to which it fulfils the purpose for which it's intended. This isn't a simple checklist that one applies to each piece of art. One piece may be good because of it's degree of innovation, another as the apotheosis of a particular style or school, and so on. There are any number of objective criterion like this on which a piece of art can be judged apart from our own subjective reactions to it.

[PureX]

Art isn't about what it makes us feel. Or about being beautiful. Or about glorifying mythical histories. Or about great craftsmanship. Though it may employ any of these characteristics.

Art is about human expression. That is: expressing what it's like to be a human being from the artist's perspective. Regardless of the subject or the content or the execution, artworks primarily express the heart and mind of the artist.

And the reasons this matters to other people are complicated. The artist shares his/her experience of the world through the artwork, and we get to glimpse the world through their eyes/ears/ideas/experiences/etc., through that same artwork. Why are we interested in this? Sometimes it's because the artist is expressing something that we have also experienced. They are able to represent or to articulate it for us in ways that we are not able. They become our 'voice', so to speak. Sometimes it's because they express a perspective on life that we have never thought of or experienced before, ourselves. So that they open our minds and expand our own perspective through our experience of their artwork. Sometimes it's because we find their particular way of expressing themselves fun, entertaining, humorous, poignant, clever, or whatever. And that's fine, too.

The thing to remember is that art isn't the product that results from the creative endeavor, art is the creative endeavor, itself, being shared with others via the art product. Art is the endeavor to express whatever it is inside the artist that he needs to share with others. And through the product that results from that endeavor, we get to experience that in some way.

[Town Heretic]

Originally Posted by PureX

Art isn't about what it makes us feel. Or about being beautiful. Or about glorifying mythical histories. Or about great craftsmanship. Though it may employ any of these characteristics.

Art is about human expression. That is: expressing what it's like to be a human being from the artist's perspective. Regardless of the subject or the content or the execution, artworks primarily express the heart and mind of the artist.

The thing to remember is that art isn't the product that results from the creative endeavor, art is the creative endeavor, itself, being shared with others via the art product. Art is the endeavor to express whatever it is inside the artist that he needs to share with others. And through the product that results from that endeavor, we get to experience that in some way.

A man takes a blender and smears it with a streak of blood. He has an idea. He places it in a collection at a gallery. Someone bombs the gallery and surrounding buildings. Combing through the rubble later another man sees the art. He thinks, "Some poor devil must have died near that blender."

Whatever it was to the artist, it's a blood smeared blender to the rubble comber.

I can as readily say art resides in me and in its interaction with me as a matter of value, but in genesis you have something. The creation of art rests with the artist or we might be wondering after every smeared blender we see. Art must first have intention.

[bybee]

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

A man takes a blender and smears it with a streak of blood. He has an idea. He places it in a collection at a gallery. Someone bombs the gallery and surrounding buildings. Combing through the rubble later another man sees the art. He thinks, "Some poor devil must have died near that blender."

Whatever it was to the artist, it's a blood smeared blender to the rubble comber.

I can as readily say art resides in me and in its interaction with me as a matter of value, but in genesis you have something. The creation of art rests with the artist or we might be wondering after every smeared blender we see. Art must first have intention.

Agreed. Sometimes, the artist creates not from intent but from inspiration. Once created it becomes something personally to the beholder, or not. I'm not sure that an artist really exists outside of his/her inspiration.