This week's email message from Musea applies to zines too
Readers, you remember me talking about the KERA blog that I have
recommended for all around arts discussion?
Well since I wrote about the blog, there has been more debate on it,
and I'm glad of it. And I invite your input, because I think my group
of readers could bring some much needed slant to Dallas arts through
this blog.
But surprising to me is that I've had two people in separate posts,
suggest that art is completely subjective and no one can tell great
art from bad art! It's all just that person's opinion.
This boggles my mind. How can one confuse finger painting of
a first grader with brushwork from Rembrandt, or pounding on
a piano with the skills of Mozart? And say which you think is great
art is just a subjective opinion. And say that decades of hard work
and innovation from masters of art count for nothing. It upsets all
the laws of nature.
Everyone understands that there are good doctors and bad doctors,
great ball players and lousy ones, but somehow the same reasonable
analysis can't be applied to a painter or musician? Are the arts some
type of magic that mystifies and hypnotizes each person in a different
way?
These people are serious. I can only surmise that somehow cor****ate
art has promoted the idea - all art is subjective so don't listen to
critics - to sell there bad art. If they can put out films that can't
be judged objectively (they prefer they be judged on sales instead of
quality), then they can put out bad films and get away with it. They
can counteract critics by saying that bad review is just a subjective
opinion that doesn't matter.
Then too go to an art auction house and see if all art costs the same.
If all art is subjective how is it that great art commands such high
prices and poor art doesn't?
Part of the problem is confusing one person's personal taste with his
analysis of a work. I don't like all classics. I would even say MOST
are not favorites. But that has nothing to do with my respect for
these classics as great art. These are clearly two different things.
And any good art critic or art historian or art lover, makes the
difference clear when he talks of art. Some art I like. Some art I
respect. Some of the art I like is great art, some is not. All the art
I respect is great art. The difference is clear.
The collective intelligence of people does count. It's called art
history. It is full of reasons why great art is good. These are not
vague subjective opinions. They are based on specific concrete
analysis. Even that special and illusive je ne sais quoi - that
something in great art that can't be quite described - can still be a
part of the analysis of great art. Great art clearly has it, poor art
does not. And just about every person sees that.
No there is no reason for this ridiculous opinion that all art is
subjective. It just is not. And those that have this opinion need to
wake up.
|
