Quote:
Originally posted by RobynYoBank
But that can be said of almost anything. And it's not like everyone agrees that there is no absolute sense of beauty. That's just your opinion, and who's to say it's any more valuable than anyone else's? It's like the debate about absolute morality.
I know you want things to be quantified, but if we were unable to assign value or make large-scale decisions on issues that aren't quantifiable, where would society be? We love the idea of true democracies, but how often do they work out or even exist? Assigning weight to small groups of decision makers is pretty how much how society has always functioned.
But even beyond that, there is a tangible value to art that can be assessed. Is that novel good? Well, that's a matter of opinion. Was it innovative and impactful with respect to the direction of the art form? Well, that's a question that theorists and historians are probably well-positioned to assess.
I generally argue in favor of the latter idea of value in criticism.
|
That's why politicians all around the world have been debating the same issues for decades; there is no real right or wrong, just cause and effect. It's slightly different in art appreciation because there's nothing more basic than saying whether you like something or not. Societal cause and effect tends to be too complicated to understand, even for the politicians themselves.
Yes you can assess the tangible
aspects of art, but I would not call that a tangible
value. You can objectively research the creative process behind the work and the effect it has had on the world, but whether they are "good" or "bad" is subjective. And these awards we're talking about always tend to use the word "best", and reviewers always like to attach a meaningless grade.
).