[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="peterw007"]
I see your point, and I don't intend to completely generalize per se.
I do find a general correlation between effort and value, but it isn't always the case.
You're right; sometimes geniuses create masterpieces with very little work invested, and idiots create a mess with a ton of work invested.
-
But if I find something that I blatantly attribute to a lack of effort, I immediately devalue it as art.
To me, a striking lack of effort on the author's part absolutely ruins any potential that the piece had.
-
Like if someone spent two hours making a really poor quality flash game, I immediately devalue it.
But if a team of two hundred people spent four years making an epic RPG, I give it a chance to assess it's quality.
-
To be put in painting terms:
If I see a painting of a black square on a white canvas, I immediately devalue it because the effort was clearly not there.
But if I see a very intricate painting, I give it a chance.
-
It's the same kind of principle.
If something looks, feels, or sounds like it has had effort put into it, I give it the chance to be considered as art.
And that quality can be manifested in captivating atmosphere design, a beautiful art style, or an obvious sense of layers.
peterw007
I see you point, but what's to say there isn't effort there? What if there was effort involved despite the result being something basic? It's a big judgement call just from a glance and one based on hypotheticals; which isn't to say you would be wrong in saying 'wow that's just a godamn square'. The same can be said about highly technical art 'there's lots of finesse on display, but where's the meaning and thought in it other than looking pretty'? Interestingly enough it's the discussion that has plagued modern art and post-modernism, be it Dada or Jackson Pollock. Quality isn't something that can be easily determined (same with value), quality more often than not is based on perceptions; today's Van Gough might just be ignored as he was during his lifetime. It's all messy, and well; that's art, and why fine art still provokes so much discussion (and I'd say there's value in it just for that). Just like your example of a large RPG to Flash game, it's a perception of quality based on the software preconceptions; I can safely say I've played better Flash games then I have triple A megabudget games with huge developtimes; which isn't to say I can't appreciate the effort (even if it's Duke Nukem Forever). That really is a fascinating concept...the balance between aesthetic appeal and underlying meaning.
Does beauty make art? Does symbolism make art?
Is it a combination of the two? Or is art all of the non-essential material created by a human?
-
Personally, technical art blows me away.
Awe-inspiring landscapes, lavish gardens with every little flower painstakingly detailed, and the literal representation of a wild imagination...that's what really captivates me.
I see extreme abstractness, and it naturally makes me confused...there's no inherent meaning in the piece of art.
The greatest difficulty of modern art is how to define the abstract.
I see a square and see a square, but you might see a square and see the answers to life's difficult questions.
-
In my opinion, because extremely abstract art has no inherent meaning, trying to draw excess meaning from it (that isn't immediately obvious) is ludicrous.
If a square is a square, it's only going to be a square, and you're silly for thinking it's something other than a square.
But that's my own view of art, and obviously my view is highly controversial.
-
You claim that it's imposible to qualify art, as art is subjective.
But that can't be true...not every artist is famous.
There are millions of artists more technically brilliant, but not nearly as famous as Warhol or Pollock.
Do you think popularity is the true measure of an artist's talent?
Does an artist only become famous if his art is somehow objectively "better" than the millions of other artists out there?
Well, your view isn't highly controversial, hell as I pointed out the reason I was singling out the comment was because I've seen similar remarks so many times, over a long period of time. But you're absolutely spot on in terms of subjectivity and underlying that value is inherently personal and not a simply quantifiable metric, and by all means if you dislike all that abstraction then you have every right to, we all have our own preferences (I even agree with most of your points here in terms of preference, not a fan of a lot of post modern stuff myself). I just wouldn't write it all off, there's some brilliant art out there; and there very well can be meaning in the shapes and composition, there's no right or wrong; nothings definitive. There is bad and good art however, and it's usually a case by case basis. As I said, it's all messy. Popularity is just popular recognition, the reality is value is a perception; my example being like when an artist becomes embedded in the popular mindset in one generation, and completely disregarded in the last (which isn't to say popularity is a gauge of the arist's merits). An artist becomes popular out of popular recognition, usually starting with appreciation within cultural circles. Sometimes not! And sometimes some artists who we might think are outright terrible are getting more attention then they deserve. That's art, it's a big messy thing. 
Log in to comment