aesthetics

[wufwugy]

I THINK I'VE FOUND OUR DIFFERENCE!

edit: please define each. i'm thinking my focus is heavily on a metaphysical kind of conception of what, if anything, "quality" is (which is what i'm inferring from your use of "value") and your focus is on how well the artist does (insert your definition of artistic merit here)

Value means anything. Artistic merit is how well the material does what it sets out to do while being compared to contemporary material and within certain purposes. That sounds complicated, but what it means that you can't create something meant to distract and call it good art because it distracts super well. Art has always been about stuff that enchants and makes you think about things differently.

IMO a big reason why we even question this is because we're so inundated with art and entertainment in our culture that we have replaced the appreciation for art with superficial sensory stimuli and opinions therein. The telling of stories by professionals use to be a big fucking deal, but now we see it everywhere and anywhere that people confuse themselves into thinking that whatever they happen to enjoy is good. So then when somebody else (like me) comes along and points out any of the flaws that shouldn't fly according to aesthetic sensibilities, they say "it's all subjective man!"

[surviva316]

So then when somebody else (like me) comes along and points out any of the flaws that shouldn't fly according to aesthetic sensibilities, they say "it's all subjective man!"

Wuf, I may have to think for several days about the change of focus from value to "artistic merit," but I can reply to a couple of things in the meantime.

It seems like much of your angst with the subjectivity of art comes down to the fact that people twist this into a false equivalency. I think a near-perfect analogy would be that I often here religious people say, "Well you can't be 100% certain that science is correct either." The problem isn't that they're wrong (just like the problem with someone screaming "ART IS SUBJECTIVE" isn't that they're wrong); the problem is the emthymematic fallacy they're mindlessly spouting off: they're trying to imply that religion is JUST AS legitimate as science simply because there's a 1 in a trillion chance that we live in the matrix and that everything we experience empirically is an illusion meant to mislead us and all of that crap. Well, no, relying on our senses isn't infallible, but it is certainly going to get us closer to the right answer than relying on what some bearded maniac said in a desert several millennia ago.

In the same way, yes, the value of Arrested Development and Jersey Shore is largely dependent on the qualities of the person/society/etc that is watching those shows, but that does not make their values the same thing. Jersey Shore is only more valuable for people who are stupid, lazy, shallow, etc. This is a massive oversimplification and it will fail when you compare any two pieces of art that aren't on complete opposite sides of the spectrum in terms of quality to you and me, but you get my point.

I mean, you've probably gathered forever ago that I'm "on your side" when it comes to me hating much of corporatized popular culture (though not all of it) and in finding merit in intellectual sentimentalities. So we are only likely to end up disagreeing on the nitty gritty of the mechanics of objectivity and the semantics of "artistic merit" and such; I don't think we're going to end up disagreeing on anything mind-blowing like that critics suck and should let me go on listening to the radio without them pointing out that it is possible that music that I've never heard of before might also be good.

Though I do find much more merit in a lot of aspects of popular culture and much less merit in classics than basically every single one of my MFA classmates, so there may be more meat to our disagreement.

[wufwugy]

In the same way, yes, the value of Arrested Development and Jersey Shore is largely dependent on the qualities of the person/society/etc that is watching those shows, but that does not make their values the same thing. Jersey Shore is only more valuable for people who are stupid, lazy, shallow, etc. This is a massive oversimplification and it will fail when you compare any two pieces of art that aren't on complete opposite sides of the spectrum in terms of quality to you and me, but you get my point.

I would contend that by definition (or perhaps only by connotation), art is the opposite of stupid, lazy, and shallow. So I have little sympathy for sentiments that argue for why Jersey Shore compares to Arrested Development or Sunny in Philly or Spaceballs

Though I do find much more merit in a lot of aspects of popular culture and much less merit in classics than basically every single one of my MFA classmates, so there may be more meat to our disagreement.

I'm not a classics person either. I'm not sure why I would explain that is, but I do see a TON of refinement over time to the point that I might argue that on his worst day, Eminem is a better poet than any of the Classics were. Obviously, he wouldn't be inherently more astute, but that the media evolved in ways that makes the product more aesthetically sensible. That is a different issue and one I'm not as firm on though.

Also recently read some prose by Aristotle. Shit was awful, couldn't even follow it. Refinement of style has come a long way