Replies

If there is no measure of objective beauty, then it would be pointless to attempt to make something beautiful since--after all--it's all good, right?

But there is a measure, based upon fact, observation, and experimentation. There is, for example, the golden section, that most pleasing of rectangles, which happens to share the same proportionate ratio (1:1.618) as the chambers of a seashell or the petals of a flower or the whorls of the human earlobe. Another example: the human eye (and mind) perceives differently colored pigments differently as a matter of human physiology. The pigment red, for example, when it is of a certain size, makes the human heart beat faster, and comes forward visually when viewed against adjacent, cooler colors such as blue or (its complement) green. Jagged lines at hard angles and smooth, flowing lines of varying width evoke different emotional states and associations in the viewer. Knowing these things (among others) can enable a skillful artist to evoke a wide range of sensation. I cried once, viewing a Rothko painting, and I rarely ever cry--not since childhood, and never before in a public place.

So before you tell me that all art is qualitatively the same, a wholly subjective affair, read Ruskin, Kandinsky, Geothe, Chevreul, Albers, Birren, Rothko, and others. I am wholeheartedly sick of that whole 'eye of the beholder' line of thought, which automatically makes Grandma's paint-by-numbers hobby project the equal of serious, thoughtful work by artists who sometimes killed themselves striving after an aesthetic ideal.

There's nothing elitist about knowing the difference between good and bad art.

Sigh. I think we are talking over each other.

Let me be completely concise. YOU ARE OBJECTIVELY CORRECT IN EVERYWAY. There is OBJECTIVE beauty. There is stunningly bad art. In fact, it is everywhere. There is most certainly completely irrefutable GOOD ART and BAD 'art'.

There are without question basic measures of proportion. Color is emotive. I actually teach many students all of these things, over and over each year, so I KNOW what you are saying instinctively and educationally and experientially. While I teach design, which is not art, I am constantly immersed in and amazed by the entire study of aesthetics and their effect on our lives. I espouse and educate and uphold those standards in my students. I believe in objective beauty. I eschew the entire concept of "cute." But I also understand and embrace subjective beauty for entirely different reasons.

While Kinkade's work is objectively horrible and what he does is objectively crappy...I am not going to condemn people for enjoying kitschy crap...because there is some kitschy crap I enjoy myself. We all have our "aesthetic weaknesses." I prefer diet coke to good wine. Is one intrinsically higher value than the other. ABSOLUTELY. One takes craft, time, observation and experimentation. It is aesthetically more important. But I don't care. I like diet coke a whole lot more. I have no illusions that attitude would irritate the heck out of Winemakers and connoisseurs alike. So be it.

Here's the basic rub for me. I absolutely hate elitism. I hate the fact that purists dismiss the joy Granny gets from her paint by numbers, and the sentiment behind it when she passes it on to her family. She and her family have no illusions that this is high art. They appreciate and embrace the sentiment. I respect that. I am irritated by the fact that art appreciation sometimes means that the simple joys of "intent" are dismissed and those that perceive them thought of as somehow aesthetically challenged. Instead, I find that those intangibles are essential to and individual soul, no matter what objectivity might say. I hate the fact that everything has to be objectified and quantified. I understand it intellectually, I realize it is a necessity but I hate it's uppity exclusivity. Different people have different priorities.

Crying while viewing a Rothko shows that art really moves you personally. That is admirable and wonderful and I am genuinely moved by your experience. But are you going to condemn those who do not have the same experience as tasteless, uneducated boobs? Or do you accept that while they do not emotionally connect to objectively good material, they can find joy in other creative endeavors?

Some people cry at the ending to a Harlequin romance or a Hallmark movie. Some may cry when they see a Thomas Kinkade painting? IT IS SOMEHOW MEANINGFUL TO THEM. It still isn't high art, but that doesn't make them second class.

While one's reaction to a work does not intrinsically give it value, it does give it value to that individual. That is ALL I am saying.

FWIW, this is a conversation I have regularly. While I am not in the fine arts area, and while the purpose of my teaching differs wildly from those who teach fine arts...it is often frustrating to me that my students are put down by the elites because they are not fine artists.

Their purpose is to communicate and/or make functional while making it as aesthetically pleasing in the process. Some, are exceptionally talented and head for graduate work at schools like Parsons. Most are simply competent. That does not make what they do art, but it also does not make what they do valueless.

You are correct that there is absolutely nothing elitist about knowing the difference. There is something elitist about not accepting that some people choose to surround themselves and enjoy things that don't fall into the "good art" category.

I have to apologize to you for ranting about this. As you can see, it is one of my buttons and something I have spent many years working through. While I only started teaching exclusively last year...and part time for a few years before that...I have been in the design industry for almost 20 years now.

Elitism, egoism and condescension are horrible side effect of this business. Those art culture characteristics often become a hindrance to those willing to learn and embrace objective beauty. They put good and decent people off, and do more to destroy our ability to "educate" than they do help it. In addition, imo, they are morally reprehensible. I can not embrace that kind of world because I really believe that every person can grow in their aesthetic appreciation.

Even if their personal taste never leaves the Kinkade gallery.