I can't imagine a case where some artwork, presumably bad, has never appealed to anyone anywhere anytime. Ditto for so called good art. The case can't be tested in either the good or bad sense except via statistical probablilities -- which can't measure subjective responses with equal parameters or controls. So we are left with the problem that neither good art nor bad art can be determined by a measure of its appeal, and is so also partly because of Cheerskep's reminder that art has no intrinsic "isness" identity anyway.
However, I stand by the guess based on experience that good art always appeals to anyone in some way, however trivially or profoundly, but I'll add that cultural patterns probably need to be assumed. But I don't want to say with equal faith that bad art does not appeal to everyone in some way because that would also be a valid statement of good art. AH...why are we looking at this paradoxical issue when we know very well that a universal definition of art is impossible? WC --- On Mon, 2/23/09, armando baeza <[email protected]> wrote: > From: armando baeza <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Definable and measurable truths > To: [email protected] > Cc: "armando baeza" <[email protected]> > Date: Monday, February 23, 2009, 7:50 PM > Would it stand that if," Good art appeals to all", > "bad art would appeal to no one". > mando > On Feb 23, 2009, at 5:33 PM, William Conger wrote: > > > Cheerskep's issue with isness of objects reflects > one form of existentialism which asserts that objects have > no intrinsic meaning. I agree but at the same time there > are other philosophical views that offer some form of > subjective-objective relatioinship to meaning. His > absolutism regarding the isness question is a matter of > (existential) choice. > > > > When I say that all great works of are are accessible > at some level I do assume a willingness on the part of the > experiencer to subjectively experience a proposed work of > art regardless of response. Thus it is ok to say in effect > that while I am willing to experience Waiting for Godot as > if it were a work of art, my pervious experience in doing > that left me with a negative art response and that previous > response can be quite different from my judgment that the > play does indeed have the high-to extraordinary capacity to > be experienced as if it were a great work of art by others > or even by me at some other time (production. What I am > saying is that a great work of art can be accessed by me at > some level --- in this case a judgmental level and a > separate negative response level -- without engaging me at > the aesthetic level I might prefer. (I think I claim that > all experience has some subjective-aesthetic content. > > WC > > > > > > --- On Mon, 2/23/09, [email protected] > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> From: [email protected] <[email protected]> > >> Subject: Re: Definable and measurable truths > >> To: [email protected] > >> Date: Monday, February 23, 2009, 5:17 PM > >> I wrote: "I can't agree with William when > he says, > >> "Good art appeals to all, > >> I mean it offers something -- some access -- to > any viewer. > >> That has always > >> been true of the best art."" > >> > >> I prefaced the explanation of my disagreement by > saying: > >> > >> "The assumption, the reification, of an > entity or > >> category that is art, is a > >> big problem." > >> > >> I then cited WAITING FOR GODOT, which some have > called the > >> greatest work of > >> theater art in the twentieth century. I remarked > that it > >> does not appeal to me > >> on any level. I then argued in effect that if > William means > >> if a work is > >> "accessible" then it must have appeal, > that seems > >> to me wrong. GODOT is fully > >> accessible to me, I said, but I still loathe it. > >> > >> Chris responded: > >> > >> "I question the example ("Waiting for > >> Godot") which Cheerskep has offered > >> as an exception to William's > statement." As a > >> reason for his doubt, Chris > >> states: > >> > >> "Although, like Cheerskep, I loathe that > play, I see > >> no reason to concede > >> that it is among "the best art" just > because > >> "Some (presumably famous critics) > >> have called it the greatest work of theater art > in the > >> twentieth century." > >> > >> My response to Chris: But I DIDN'T concede > >> "it's among the best art". Indeed, > >> my preface was meant to convey it's a flat > error to > >> believe ANY entity is > >> "art". To say that something > "is" > >> "art" -- as distinguished from our just > >> CALLING > >> it "art" -- is to assume there is a > >> mind-independent metaphysical > "category", > >> "art". Those who think this way believe > every > >> object either IS art or it is > >> NOT, regardless of what any individual or group > calls it. > >> > >> Artsy recently posted a column -- Encorebuzz, in > the Nashua > >> Telegraph -- that > >> said this: "Art is the creative expression of > an > >> artist who tries to paint > >> his own impressions of something seen visually or > >> mentally." The correct way > >> to > >> counter this is NOT by starting, "No, no -- > that's > >> not what art IS! Art isb&" > >> and then give another would be description of what > >> "art" "really is". > >> > >> Consider other judgmental words like > 'delicious' or > >> 'disgusting' or > >> 'impolite'. Wouldn't it seem silly to > believe > >> in some quasi-Platonic > >> metaphysical > >> domain wherein there's a set of all the > impolite acts, > >> and another set of all > >> the > >> other, non-impolite, acts? > >> > >> Picture this category as either the set of all > objects that > >> ARE "works of > >> art", or picture it as "the quality of > >> artness" that all and only "works of > >> art" > >> are supposed to "have" or, in > Plato's term, > >> "participate in". Pictured either > >> way, the category is imaginary, an instance of the > basic > >> error of reification > >> (or, as it is sometimes called when what is > reified is an > >> abstraction, this is > >> hypostatization). > >> > >> At first glance Chris and I would seem to be > agreeing, but > >> we aren't. He is > >> not saying that NOTHING "is" art. He is > not > >> claiming that 'art' is a > >> judgmental > >> word, a reflection only of our individual notional > >> attitudes toward a given
