h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

sounds like a good idea...what are you offering?

RF

Not terribly surprising how many discussions of aesthetics end with that line - including many of Joyce's own

Ho yus!

Well, I think we can all agree that - objective standards being neither here nor there - a good is indeed a sort of art.

I would also agree with Joyce's basic point that for something to be art, it must be created with the intention of making art. I know there is a school of modern art and poetry referred to as "found art" - which are everyday items slapped in a gallery or on a page and called art, but I think that is more than a bit dodgy philosphically speaking.

I think I have made that case that there are some objective standards for judging art based on technical merit, whether the end product successfully fulfills the artist's intention (did it turn out the way they wanted it to?) Does the piece evoke the intended emotional response (are people laughing at the right bits or are they laughing when you want them to cry) or communicate the idea it was intended to? Whether anyone likes the work in question is pretty much irrelavent to these standards. There is lots of art out there that is good art that I don't like, simply because it is not to my tastes, but that doesn't make it bad art.

I think you are falling prey to the notion that because everyone is equally entitled to an opinion that everyone's opinions are equally valid. To someone who has never heard rock music before, the Bay City Rollers or New Kids on the Block might seem to be the epitome of the genre. But once they've heard the Stone, Beatles, Led Zepplin, David Bowie and dozens and dozens of other bands they may change their minds. The opinion of someone who has little or no knowledge or experience on the topic is not as valid as the opinion of someone who has devoted time and study to the topic.
I am not suggesting that you don't know anything about music or anything like that, I'm pointing out what I think is a flaw in your arguement

*nips in*

Blimey, this one's rumbling on a bit, isn't it?

Outside the world of the academics and the theorists, surely if one person - no matter how misguided - thinks something is art, then it is?

*nips out again*

If I think George W. Bush is a genius, does that make him one?


Not all opinions are equally valid on all subjects! You wouldn't ask your lawyer for an estimate to get your car fixed or consult your Doctor on the best way to fix your plumbing, that is to say, you might, but you'd be more inclined to listen to what your mechanic and your plumber had to say.

My four year old thinks the Thomas the Tank Engine Movie is the greatest motion picture of all time. Does that mean it is to anyone but him? Since he has only seen about 20 films in his life, I don't think his opinion is likely worth as much as Pauline Kael's or Roger Ebert or even my own.

no, im not falling prey to a flaw. i argue, rightly, that peoples' opinions are the only thing that matter, and that objectivity CANNOT be achieved in anything.

you are still trying to tell me that some peoples' opinions are more valid than others, which is rubbish. it all comes down to taste. there are plenty of good, even seminal, records which i dislike, such as the white album (i hate 50% of the beatles stuff, 90% of the stones and 75% of led zeppelin. i still know rather a lot about music and rather a lot about what i like. i dont think your liking of these so called greats makes your taste any worse). does that invalidate my taste? no, course it doesnt, except in the eyes of taste supremacists. who are wrong.

there is no such thing as objectivity.

the example of your son is flawed, also. his opinion is valid for him. if he watched casablanca now hed think it to be oincredibly dull. therefore his taste, for him, is optimum.

and anything someone says is art, is art. just because, say, old people dont like damien hurst, doesnt mean a rotting cow in formaldehyde isnt art.

we seem to be having two discussions here at the same time.

That's what I said, Number Six For example, I'm not really a poetry buff and I know what I like but someone else might think it total rubbish. Going back to my previous point, that's why I think beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

**wanders in. Reads backlog with bemused look on his face**

**wanders out again to make sure he's still in his own journal**

B

Heavy,
Do you really think there is no objective basis for saying Eric Clapton is a better guitar player than me?

Do you honestly believe that a judgement based on technical merit (degree of mastery of physical technique), importance and suitability of artistic message, and degree of originality demontrated in the work that is made by an experieced and knowledgable observer and a judgement made on purely subjective often irrelevant criteria ("Of course its a great song, the guy who sings it is sooo cute") by an inexperienced, largely ignorant observer are of equal value? If that is true why don't universities and museums hire laid-off merchant bankers and bricklayers to teach art and curate exhibits? Why shouldn't the tone deaf be hired to teach music?
Seriously, I realize that all observations are necessarily somewhat subjective, but the more knowledgable and experienced the observer is, the less subjective their judgements on quality tend to be.

Whether something is to your taste is irrelevant to judging whether it has artistic merit. Not everyone wants high quality stuff all the time. Sometimes you need fast food, sometimes you need cordon bleu.

It has all got a bit highbrow, hasn't it, Master B?

I think the thing is that one has to keep things in proportion. The thing about artistic merit is that it is often a question of individual tastes, and these are by definition subjective. Say, the example of the Beatles and the Stones. UH used this example, saying he disliked 50% of the former's output and 90% of the latter. Now I'd go the other way around. However, that is my individual opinion, and has no more and no less significance and/or input that his.

Now the question of whether or not one thing or artist is better than another is different. I think rev. paperboy, you are interchanging, and perhaps confusing, technical proficiency with artistic appreciation. There's no question that Eric Clapton is technically more proficient at playing the guitar than, say, Peter Buck of R.E.M. However, that is a completely different judgement from saying that he is a better artist. I appreciate Clapton's technical ability, but I prefer Buck's music. Similarly with art: a lot of the Victorian genre painters were extremely proficient technically, they just happened to produce twee, sentimentalist junk. Now someone like Mark Rothko produced work that wasn't technically difficult to achieve, but which is visually, and intellectually, far more satisfying.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that artistic merit isn't just a matter of using a simple formula or something to come to an arbitrary conclusion. It's like the human genome project: it tells us all the ingredients in a dish, without providing the recipe. Everything is fundamentally about personal judgement. It'd be bloody boring if it weren't.

yeah, sorry to hijack your journal Master B. Would a few virtual make it right?

No, it's fine. You can carry on as long as I can make an entirely subjective and pointless list of the best guitarists ever, on the understanding that this is my journal and therefore it is definitive.

1) Hendrix
2) Blackmore
3) Knopfler
4) Page
5) Vaughan

B

Vaughan?

Stevie Ray.

B

Ah, OK.

Ho nonono, you want:

1) Hendrix
2) Page
3) Gilmour
4) Blackmore
5) Greenwood

Brian May! Brian May!

RF

Huh, if U221383 had any self respect he'd come on here and defend himself.

i agree with emily.

1) the overcooked output of all your 60s and 70s prog fret-wanking nominees makes them all incredibly tiresome. frankly, go van halen (a completely different and altogether better kind of fret wanking.