Quote:
Originally posted by Kworb
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.
 |
I think we agree on almost everything in this discussion.
Critics aren't uniform in what they claim to be assessing, and that's another part of the problem. Harold Bloom believes he's gauging true aesthetic value, Robert Christgau claims to respect the creation with respect to the art form and with respect to enjoyability, and Ebert says he tries to judge films in relation to what they're meant to be for their selected audience.
I value informed criticism because I like to understand how pieces of art fit into the bigger scheme and whether aspects I see as innovative are actually innovative or are innovative within a sub-context of the art form: for instance, sampling in popular music vs avant-garde jazz sampling. I also enjoy hearing why people think something is beautiful or great in an absolute sense, but I don't take it as an absolute.
Their terminology is a mess though.
