Monday, April 24, 2017

Arts and Values

Please respond to at least three of the following prompts:

1. How are value judgments in the arts justified? How is 'good art' or 'bad art' recognized or decided on?

2. What are the justifications and implications of claiming that there are absolute standards for good art, or that the only standard for good art is individual taste?

3. Does the artist carry any moral or ethical responsibility? Is it possible for an artwork to be immoral? Should art be judged on its ability to shock?

4. What is the role of education in creating art, and in appreciating it? Is an art form legitimate if it can be enjoyed only by those trained in its appreciation through having had relevant education or through having become familiar with it in their own cultural context? Is a critical assessment of an art form legitimate if it is made by someone with no relevant education or cultural familiarity?

5. What relationships exist between the arts, on the on hand, and power over the public mind, on the other? Should art be politically subversive? Conversely, should it serve the interests of the community or the state? Why would governments, corporations, advertisers, and ideologically based groups of many kinds concern themselves with visual artists, musicians, and writers?

41 comments:

  1. 1. How are value judgments in the arts justified? How is 'good art' or 'bad art' recognized or decided on?
    Most of the times, value judgments in the arts are justified if the person judging the work of art has some sort of skill or expertise in the type of art they are judging. For example, a highly talented and praised person in ballet can judge another ballerina’s skill, and their judgement would be considered valuable because they have earned the power, skill, and respect to reasonably judge others. This applies to many forms of art such as pottery, painting, poetry, dancing and many more. On the other hand, the distinction between “good art” and “bad art” is recognized and decided on by the individual’s own criteria. Each person perceives art differently, and therefore their value judgments as to whether it is good art or bad art is dependent upon them.

    2. What are the justifications and implications of claiming that there are absolute standards for good art, or that the only standard for good art is individual taste?
    When claiming that there are absolute standards for good art, then you are implying that there are certain requirements every piece of art must achieve to be considered “good art.” In addition, there is the implication that in order for it to be “good art,” then the standard is that everyone must agree that it is good art. By implementing standards for art to be good, you are limiting self-expression and restricting the artist if they want their piece to be perceived as good. When claiming that the only standard for good art is individual taste, then you are essentially saying that there are little to no requirements since each individual will judge it as “good” based upon their own judgment. There is the implication that one person may consider the art bad, whereas another person may consider the art good.

    3. Does the artist carry any moral or ethical responsibility? Is it possible for an artwork to be immoral? Should art be judged on its ability to shock?
    I think the artist carries some moral or ethical responsibility, depending on their work or type of art. I also think that some art can be considered immoral. For example, let’s say someone’s definition of art is that it serves as an emotional outlet or release. If a person takes this definition into account and also happens to be a serial killer that likes to torture his victims because he is sadistic and seeing the pain of others is an emotional outlet for him, then this would be considered immoral. Calling this “art” does not excuse his actions, it is completely immoral (and illegal and horrible). I do not think art should be judged on its ability to shock. A piece of art may shock one person, but may have no effect on another person, which makes it difficult to objectively judge its value. It all boils down to how much the art affects the individual, and the individual can use the ability to shock as a criterion when judging the art’s value.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 1. How are value judgments in the arts justified? How is 'good art' or 'bad art' recognized or decided on?

    Valued judgements are entirely personal; the only reason certain arts are popular and deemed “good” is the influx of opinions due to general public consensus. The public relies on both professional critics and general agreement on wether an art piece is good, as bias and the bandwagon fallacy tend to shift perspectives on certain pieces. For the most part (and my interpretation) good art speaks to the mind and makes a lasting impact, while bad art makes no impression at all. A good example of bad art is a song on the radio that is played over and over and over, which glances off your ears and can be played without you even noticing it, or even get mad at the sound of it. Good art then would be the song that never fails to make you cry or laugh or happy- a song that speaks to you. This concept can branch out to every and any form of art, since art is meant to evoke strong emotions, it only makes sense that good art would do just that.

    4.

    Education acts in a sort of refined viewpoint of art; it adds more points and knowledge that the student can use when looking at new pieces or creating their own. Education also gives new techniques that were not previously known in which the artist can employ in order to give deeper meaning or more detail in their art. Any art form can be appreciated even if cultural and background are lacking. Even aesthetics of a piece can make an inexperienced critic recall certain emotions that are envoked when taking in a good piece of art. Yes, certain backgrounds and context will be glossed over or go completely unrecognized, however is context really necessary? There is an argument to be made that context is not necessary, art is meant to be personal and whatever you want out of a piece you take out of it. Therefore art does not need to be created by someone with no contextual/cultural background, as ultimately it depends on the viewer and how they perceive it.



    5. What relationships exist between the arts, on the on hand, and power over the public mind, on the other? Should art be politically subversive? Conversely, should it serve the interests of the community or the state? Why would governments, corporations, advertisers, and ideologically based groups of many kinds concern themselves with visual artists, musicians, and writers?

    Art has the potential to completely sway public opinions over various things, all it takes is a large amount of exposure and popularity. Art is a very personal concept, so it would make sense for it to be used in political subversion. People see a certain piece that can sway then a certain way- and smart political figures would use that to their advantage. Wether that is a good thing or not is up to opinion, and I believe that art should be a part of that. Art is everywhere, even in political situations- see political cartoons. Yes the attacking and dumb ones protesting Obama would make the casual liberal call for a complete sacking of all art in politics, yet while Trump is in power the same liberal believes the piece is essential to democracy and protecting the country. Essentially art does need to be included in everything, even if personal preference does not match up with what that art does. Groups that seek power (whether financially or politically) align themselves with different art mediums in order to grow public following or subconscious positivity. If a company pairs itself with a popular song that is well liked, obviously more people would see that company (subconsciously) in a more positive light. Really very smart on the part of the companies honestly.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 1. How are value judgments in the arts justified? How is 'good art' or 'bad art' recognized or decided on?
    Art is highly subjective as we base our judgements about the arts on our own emotional and personal responses to the piece of art we are looking at. Nonetheless, as a society, we deem art “good” or “bad.” This is an interesting phenomenon because there is no such thing as right or wrong in the arts. These value judgements are based on individual preferences of art. However, when a society all has a similar response and preference for a type of art or is skewed by authority, ideas about “good” and “bad” art arise. We distinguish “good art” using the opinions of experts as well as general consensus. These value judgements are justified by our cultural ideas of beauty and skill. However, in actuality, these value judgements cannot truly be justified as they are often contradictory and ever-changing. For example, impressionism used to be viewed as “bad art,” but now it is considered some of the “best art.”

    2. What are the justifications and implications of claiming that there are absolute standards for good art, or that the only standard for good art is individual taste?
    Stating that there are absolute standards for good art has severe implications. It implies that art is stagnant and never changing. However, this is vastly untrue. Art is evolving all of the time. Therefore the standards for art have to evolve as well. Similarly, because art is subjective, it is not viable to project your own personal ideas about “good art” onto the general public. People justify their claims about absolute standards for good art because they believe their opinion is more valuable than other peoples. Claiming that the only standard for good art is individual taste also has severe implications because by this definition, everything has the potential to be art. Therefore, if everything is art than nothing is art. People justify this claim by stating that art is subject. While it is true that art is subjective, art must be intended to be art for it to truly be art.

    4. What is the role of education in creating art, and in appreciating it? Is an art form legitimate if it can be enjoyed only by those trained in its appreciation through having had relevant education or through having become familiar with it in their own cultural context? Is a critical assessment of an art form legitimate if it is made by someone with no relevant education or cultural familiarity?
    Traditional art education helps aspiring artists learn how to make “good art.” However, modern art education helps aspiring artists create their truest artistic expression and helps people to learn to appreciate all different types of art. Art is meant to be experienced by all those the artist wishes to. For this reason, it is not necessarily viable for an art form to only be able to be appreciated by experts. Since art is subjective, it is perfectly legitimate for someone with no education to have a negative response to an art form.

    ReplyDelete
  4. 1. How are value judgments in the arts justified? How is 'good art' or 'bad art' recognized or decided on?
    Judgments made about anything are entirely subjective and varying from person to person. When it comes to the arts a judgement on the quality or value of a piece always comes into question. However how these decisions are decided on and the validity of them is less straightforward but seems to play a major role in the “success” of a piece. If a mass amount of people have an emotional connection to a piece then it's bound to be recognized positively. However due to other circumstances such as lack of exposure or lack of emotional connection a piece will fail in the eyes of the public.

    3. Does the artist carry any moral or ethical responsibility? Is it possible for an artwork to be immoral? Should art be judged on its ability to shock?
    Moral and ethical responsibility should be at least somewhat present in every aspect of life in order to limit violence or atrocities. In regards to the arts however responsibility holds less of a role. I think because art is emotional and vulnerable it allows creators to reveal not only their best selves but also the worst aspects of their personality. Some art can be immoral but this should not limit its creation as immorality is ever present society and reflects truth. Weather it socks the viewer is only indicative of the viewers morals and ethics, but should not be judged on this aspect.

    4. What is the role of education in creating art, and in appreciating it? Is an art form legitimate if it can be enjoyed only by those trained in its appreciation through having had relevant education or through having become familiar with it in their own cultural context? Is a critical assessment of an art form legitimate if it is made by someone with no relevant education or cultural familiarity?
    Art education plays a major role in the well roundness of a person's character. Yes mathematics and scientific education is important but there is also significant value in creating art and or understanding it. The varying degrees of understanding art does not limit an art form to be any less legitimate but only allows art to be universal. Being trained in the arts and having a vast understanding of cultural context in regards to a piece helps the knower to see the artist intent. Yet similarly a novice simply enjoying the art for the emotions it brings is also valuable. However legitimacy is called into question when a novice attempts a critical assessment of a piece, as they do not have to tools or education in order to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  5. 1. How are value judgments in the arts justified? How is 'good art' or 'bad art' recognized or decided on?
    Value judgments can be justified through general consensus, authority (like extensive art education), or logical reasoning. However, value judgments are inherently subjective and personal. Thus there is no way to justify judgments as universal, as they are all opinions. However, one can discern "good art" from "bad art" based on the beauty or aesthetic value of the work, its level of skill and technique, the creativity and uniqueness, the meaning or emotional depth, and the artist's message. "Bad art" is lacking in these qualities. Every viewer of the work decides how well the work fulfills each of these qualities, and passes judgment on the art based on their personal values.

    2. What are the justifications and implications of claiming that there are absolute standards for good art, or that the only standard for good art is individual taste?
    One can make the claim that there are absolute standards for good art because there are widely accepted standards of beauty and appeal. Art critics also have authority for passing judgments on a work's value because they are educated and have tools to analyze the work. However, every person decides whether the art is valuable ultimately on their own. Each individual has different standards of beauty and value different characteristics of art. For example, some people will claim that Mozart's music pieces are the best because they are extremely skillful and widely regarded as beautiful. However, another person might think that the band Nirvana, had songs that were more valuable for their emotional depth, lyrics, and message. Both Mozart and Nirvana created music, but each person judges which is more valuable or "better" based on personal standards.

    3. Does the artist carry any moral or ethical responsibility? Is it possible for an artwork to be immoral? Should art be judged on its ability to shock?
    Artists certainly carry moral and ethical responsibilities. Their works should not bring undue harm to its subjects, especially unwilling or unknowing people. Sometimes artists use dead animals, but the animals should not undergo inhumane treatment. Artists also criticize other people such as political figures, and can bring harm to the person's reputation, but this level and type of harm is not sufficient for the work to be considered immoral. However, if an artist were to kill people and re-arrange their bodies to create a work of art, the work would be immoral and unethical. Art can be judged on its ability to shock if it presents new concepts or is groundbreaking in some way. However, this should not be the only criteria in judging a work of art, and should be considered in context.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 1. How are value judgements in the arts justified? How is 'good art' or 'bad art' recognized or decided on?

    The interpretation and evaluation of art is personal and there is no exact way to know whether another person has the same interpretation to it because emotions are completely subjective. The people who see the art piece decides whether or not it is valuable, and it can differ from person to person. 'Good art' or 'bad art' can be recognized or decided on by everyone discussing the art piece. Even if there is no way to fully understand how they feel, if there is a consensus of opinions throughout. The value of art can also be justified through a consensus of people's opinions.

    3. Does the artist carry any moral or ethical responsibility? Is it possible for an artwork to be immoral? Should art be judged on its ability to shock?

    Artists should have some ethical and moral responsibility. They should not be untruthful or create some sort of false reality. Art should speak the truth and not create some sort of illusion of what something is. Artists should also not bring harm to any of their subjects without their consent. I think artwork can be immoral if it damages the subject, in either a physical or emotional way, or if it creates a false reality and is not truthful. Art can be judged on its ability to shock and its reactions of it, but that should not only be it. Art can be judged based on a variety of things, and shock ability could be one of them but not the only one.

    4. What is the role of education in creating art and in appreciating it? Is an art form legitimate if it can be enjoyed only by those trained in its appreciation through having had relevant education or through having become familiar with it in their own cultural context? Is a critical assessment of an art form legitimate if it is made by someone with no relevant education or cultural familiarity?

    Education is not necessary at all in the role of creating art and appreciating it. Art is not only created by experts and artists are not only trained people. You do not need an education in order to create, you merely need the desire to create. You do not need to be educated in order to appreciate art because you do not need an education in order to feel things in response to an art piece. I do not think art is legitimate if only a select few can understand and appreciate it. Art should be for everyone, no matter the education or familiarity with it. I think a critical assessment can be created and be legitimate of an art form if the person has no relevant education, but I think there does need to be some cultural familiarity. They can assess it based on their emotional response, which does not need any education, but depending on the piece there needs to be some cultural familiarity in order to identify and understand the specifics of it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 1. How are value judgments in the arts justified? How is 'good art' or 'bad art' recognized or decided on?
    Value judgements in the arts are justified in numerous ways. These judgments and values can be justified because the person critiquing the art could be considered a pro of it or someone who is highly thought of in the art World. Or one could say that value judgements are an individual process and others do not effect it. I believe good art and bad are recognized and decided on by how popular the piece of art is and who said it was “good”. If a world known artist or a popular judge goes on and on about one piece of art it is bound to gain popularity and fame. Whereas if these same people torn apart a piece of art with negative judgement, people obviously not want the piece of work. Another factor of deciding wether art is good or bad is the worth factor. Wealthy individuals often want expensive pieces of art in his or her home. Expensive art to most is considered the best. For example if someone goes into a high-in art gallery and purchases a five-thousand dollar painting, most will think that art is better than picking up a five dollar piece of street art. Overall I personally believe value judgments are justified personally as well as with the thought of “who” said it. In addition, art is decided good or bad based on price and popularity.
    2. What are the justifications and implications of claiming that there are absolute standards for good art, or that the only standard for good art is individual taste?
    If one were to claim absolute standards for good art or that the only standard for good art is individual taste, a number of unwanted things may happen. First off, art would never change. The beautiful thing about art is that it is always changing and growing. People crave new things and art is constantly giving that to the people. Every form of art is different and special to the artist which ultimately makes it more appealing. Any justifications or standards placed on art would ruin the uniqueness of each piece of art that buyers always want.
    3. Does the artist carry any moral or ethical responsibility? Is it possible for an artwork to be immoral? Should art be judged on its ability to shock?
    To some the definition of art is anything one sees as art. I believe an artist can chose wether he or she wants to carry any moral or ethical responsiblity. Although, I truly believe that artists should carry these two responsibilities. No artist should bring harm to their surrounding nor create false realities or simply lies. As far as ethic responsibility, everyone should have the duty to follow a morally correct path especially if many people count on them to do the right thing.
    On another note, of course it is possible for a piece of artwork to be immoral. There are a vast amount of artworks that are extremely dark and flat out wrong. In some ways, I do believe art should be judged on its ability to shock. For example if one goes to a museum and sees a piece of art that he or she is so found of, that it makes them cry, one would say that, that piece of art is better than the other piece of art that they walked up to, smiled, then went on to another piece.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 1. How are value judgments in the arts justified? How is 'good art' or 'bad art' recognized or decided on?
    Value judgments in the arts are typically made by those who study the specific type of art in question. This critic knows the difficulty behind the techniques executed, how they were executed, and likely the effort and time put into the painting. The critic would also be aware of how rare or unique a piece is and could therefore place a numerical value on a piece. However, I believe that “good art” or “bad art” is recognized by an individual. A painting may be executed with horrible technique, but still hold great meaning and emotion to someone. Something may not be conventionally “good” or “bad” but be good or bad based on someone's interpretation and perception of the art itself.

    2. What are the justifications and implications of claiming that there are absolute standards for good art, or that the only standard for good art is individual taste?
    The ideas of good or bad are entirely relative to a single person’s experiences and life. Aesthetics are also taken into consideration, but one person’s aesthetics may differ from another’s. In addition, the feelings and meaning one draws from a piece of art is largely affected by their experiences. For example, if someone experiences heartbreak and observes a painting portraying heartbreak, they will likely place higher value on this painting than someone who has never had such an experience.

    3. Does the artist carry any moral or ethical responsibility? Is it possible for an artwork to be immoral? Should art be judged on its ability to shock?
    I believe that the artist’s moral or ethical responsibility is dependent on the artist’s intentions. If an artist intends only to display art within their own home, where it will only be seen by the artist themself, then the art itself holds no moral or ethical responsibility. If the art is to be widely displayed, the artist must decide what the intentions of the piece are. If the artist wants to shock, draw conflict, and receive criticism, then they hold no moral or ethical boundaries. If an artist believes a piece should be simply appreciated and not receive criticism, the artist should hold their work to certain ethical standards. I do believe it is possible for art to be immoral if it is specifically targeted to attack a group of people or cause them harm. However, if the art simply captures the artist’s feelings and has no intent to harm others, this art is not immoral. Art is certainly judged on its ability to shock - art that is more controversial gains more attention. Whether good or bad, this controversy places more value on a piece.

    ReplyDelete
  9. How are value judgments in the arts justified? How is 'good art' or 'bad art' recognized or decided on?

    Value judgements in the arts can be justified in multiple ways. First, there are art "experts" who judge and critique the certain piece of art to determine it's value. Other artists may see the piece and have there own thoughts about the worth of the piece. The art experts who critique the piece and determine it's value do not really set the price for a piece. If a person has a taste for the piece of art and really enjoys it, they could end up paying a higher price than the experts value for the piece.

    What are the justifications and implications of claiming that there are absolute standards for good art, or that the only standard for good art is individual taste?

    There is no certain standard for good art, but when a majority of people like a certain piece of art, it is to be considered "good art." Art can be complicated. Many people can dislike a certain piece, while others see so much to like in it. When someone can relate to a certain piece of art and understand the intent behind the piece, they are more likely to be drawn to it. For example, a depressed person may hang up paintings similar to Van Gogh in their household to relate and feel comfortable with themselves, while a happy and exuberant person, may hang up paintings with flashy and bright colors.

    Does the artist carry any moral or ethical responsibility? Is it possible for an artwork to be immoral? Should art be judged on its ability to shock?

    The artist does not carry any moral or ethical responsibility. Art is used a way to convey ones thoughts, feelings, and emotions. If someone chooses to express how they feel or what they think through art, why should they be judged? In a world where people seem to get depicted by every little thing they do, art tends to be a way to escape the real world for these artists. Art should be judged by it's ability to shock people and make their minds wander. Art should also be judged by it's ability to relate to another human, while understanding that the artist is not going to be able to relate with everyone who sees their work.

    ReplyDelete
  10. 1. We justify our judgement of art based on two things: past studies and our emotional reactions to the piece. I think that many believe that we can unbiasedly judge art using past techniques and interpretations and by comparing it to other previously validated art. Similarly, we judge art based on what its monetary worth is and what other pieces by that artist are worth. I think the most valid and important way to judge art is based off of our emotional reactions to pieces and what feelings they evoke.
    While many support putting absolute standards on art and creating strict guidelines I believe that the individuality of art and the ability of the viewer and artist to determine the worth of a piece is really valuable. However, I can understand the value in having set guidelines as it makes art more definite and therefore easier to teach. By creating a “right way” we create a concrete fact that is easier to share but we also come into danger of losing valuable art to what is then created as wrong.
    I think artists are ethically obliged to tell the truth and as long as they use their art as a true expression of their emotion then they fulfill it. I think artwork becomes immoral when its purpose moves beyond expression and into persuasion or solicitation. The use of art as a tool for manipulation corrupts the purpose of art as expression and blurs the line between the two, making them harder to distinguish. I also think that because of the misuse of art in the past people can be accusatory towards artists when the only way to know the true intention behind the piece is to put the emotion into it, something only the artist can do. I think if art is shocking the way it should be judged based on that is really based on the intention behind it. If the piece is a true expression of how the artist feels then I think the shock factor is irrelevant but if the artist’s intention is to shock then it can be a factor in judgement.

    ReplyDelete
  11. How are value judgments in the arts justified? How is 'good art' or 'bad art' recognized or decided on?
    They are judged against criteria developed by the community of art critics, which I frankly find laughable. Art is attractive based on what makes it interesting to the most people. Not unlike political pundits, they perform a service which actively damages society. Part of the value of art is forcing individuals to make their own judgement as to its meaning. In trying to establish some measure of skill beyond the opinion of the masses we attempt to confine art in ways that it ought not to be. Again like political pundits, if your opinion is handed to you on a silver platter, do you ever have the chance to develop your own considerations? I think not. Moreover I think the only person that can decide what is good art, and what is bad art is myself, for myself.
    Does the artist carry any moral or ethical responsibility? Is it possible for an artwork to be immoral? Should art be judged on its ability to shock?
    Yes. Also Yes. Also Yes. Shock can be valuable, so can amorality. Its damages can also be a rallying cry for action, be it war photography or stirring cinematography. Sometimes we need to see things that confuse or challenge our beliefs, morals of our time may or may not be moral by future standards, or frankly even our own. Many times in the pursuit of the most moral solution we perform great injustices that violate our own beliefs. Whether or not we perceive those infractions is a separate story. Why should art not be a medium for this change?
    What are the justifications and implications of claiming that there are absolute standards for good art, or that the only standard for good art is individual taste?
    While I am more in favor of the second standardization of art, it is not without its flaws. Consider literature as an art, is it really justifiable to say that there are no absolute standards for a good novel? Of course not, grammar for example is a standard which we readily apply to literature. Also why would genres be considered via different standards if there are not standards? You aren’t going to read smut and judge it in the same way as you would just historical fiction. Frankly, there exists a grey area between absolute standards and individual tastes. Attempting to simplify our judgments to either one or the other category is an oversimplification of a far more complex reality.

    ReplyDelete
  12. 1. How are value judgments in the arts justified? How is 'good art' or 'bad art' recognized or decided on?

    Value judgements in arts arent exactly "justified". That would insinuate that there is some general justification for art as "good art" or "bad art" There is personal justification that can explain or elaborate how an individual perceieves art as "good" or "bad" not solidifying it as so.

    2. What are the justifications and implications of claiming that there are absolute standards for good art, or that the only standard for good art is individual taste?

    Art is set as a standard for individual taste because perception is everything in the "eye of the beholder" There is all difderent oerceptions on art some believe that there must be intention for it to be art while others can consider something unintentionally created art as well. In my perspective anything that has a creative process can be considered art. And there are very very few things that just "are"

    3. Does the artist carry any moral or ethical responsibility? Is it possible for an artwork to be immoral? Should art be judged on its ability to shock?

    The artist only carries the moral or ethical responsibilities of its culture. And the perception of artwork being ethical or moral is up to an individual. There are many ethnocentric views on morality or ethicality so culture also plays a massive part in the perception of morality in regards to art. In my opinion art should be judged off of its ability to shock as a large part of art is based off of its ability to connect to an individuals emotions wether they are good or not.

    ReplyDelete
  13. 1. How are value judgments in the arts justified? How is 'good art' or 'bad art' recognized or decided on?

    Value judgments are justified by people's individual responses and feelings towards the art. If they like the art a lot, they might tend to not hate on the piece so much. Or if they personally know the artist, they might be biased towards it. Good art or bad art is honestly just dependent on the observer's opinions.

    4. What is the role of education in creating art, and in appreciating it? Is an art form legitimate if it can be enjoyed only by those trained in its appreciation through having had relevant education or through having become familiar with it in their own cultural context? Is a critical assessment of an art form legitimate if it is made by someone with no relevant education or cultural familiarity?

    Appreciation of the arts is definitely not just based off of education of appreciation. Any assessment of any art form is most assuredly legitimate even if its made by someone who isn't educated in the arts. They could easily see things that art critics would not have thought of even with their fancy-dancy art appreciation skills.

    3. Does the artist carry any moral or ethical responsibility? Is it possible for an artwork to be immoral? Should art be judged on its ability to shock?

    I guess artwork can be immoral? But there aren't really defined lines set that artists can't cross so its a grey area. I think there's obviously a possibility that artwork can be immoral, but I can't think of any artwork that I've ever seen that seems immoral to me. There's of course a responsibility that the artist has to not offend anyone who looks at their art, but if it doesn't offend at least one person, is it really art?

    ReplyDelete

  14. 1. How are value judgments in the arts justified? How is 'good art' or 'bad art' recognized or decided on?
    To me, there are certain requirements to art that help determine whether or not something is good or bad. To me, good art has a certain style to it or a particular aesthetic appeal to the observer. While I do like good looking art, it does always have to focus on just the looks. However, I feel that “not good looking” art should atleast have some sort of style to work, to show that the artist put effort and skill into making his art work in harmony. Good art also has a kind of story or message behind it, either to capture an event or spread a message to the audience. This demonstrates that the art may be important, as well as good looking. My final rule is for the art not to be too obscene, as in, no child porn or over the top gore.


    2. What are the justifications and implications of claiming that there are absolute standards for good art, or that the only standard for good art is individual taste?
    I think that there are some basic, core principles for art that helps everyone develop standards. For example, most humans reveal things like snuff films and rape, so we don’t consider those things “Art”. Humans are also attracted to things that please them in some way, either sensually (good looking) or mentally, in a stylistic aspect. Everything else to me, is relative. A person’s background and culture might color what they consider to be pleasing or intellectually stimulating. What they may think is obscene, may be normal to us.


    3. Does the artist carry any moral or ethical responsibility? Is it possible for an artwork to be immoral? Should art be judged on its ability to shock?
    Yes, I do think that artist do carry an ethical responsibility in their art to not spread a negative or harmful message. To me, art is immoral when it glorifies bad things, such as drug use or stealing. Artist can depict those situations in their work, but trying to make negative things look positive is dishonest and immoral. However, I don’t think we should judge art on its ability to shock and audience. That would just lead to a slippery slope of artist trying to constantly out do the other for exposure.

    ReplyDelete
  15. 4. What is the role of education in creating art, and in appreciating it? Is an art form legitimate if it can be enjoyed only by those trained in its appreciation through having had relevant education or through having become familiar with it in their own cultural context? Is a critical assessment of an art form legitimate if it is made by someone with no relevant education or cultural familiarity?
    i think that people create art to express themselves and show in a visual what they cannot say. I think art is like a sixth sense that everyone in some type of has, it could be interpreted by dance by singing my writing by the expression on your face, body language and so on. now, the way it is interpreted by everyone else is different and each person has the right to think otherwise but i think that education interprets art that way

    1. How are value judgments in the arts justified? How is 'good art' or 'bad art' recognized or decided on?
    Judgments will always be made on everything and having different opinions on different pieces of art is not bad. we each have a mind of our own and we think differently. i don't believe there is good or bad art we all just perceive it differently because we all think of it differently. just because someone may see something ugly does not mean you see it the same, it may be the most beautiful thing you have seem it all depends o the perspective.

    5. What relationships exist between the arts, on the on hand, and power over the public mind, on the other? Should art be politically subversive? Conversely, should it serve the interests of the community or the state? Why would governments, corporations, advertisers, and ideologically based groups of many kinds concern themselves with visual artists, musicians, and writers?
    I feel like the government is in a way intimidated of what artists, musicians, and writers may say because they seem to say the bitter truth of what many be happening. Art is something very powerful because it can always express something we may not be able to put into words.

    ReplyDelete
  16. 1. How are value judgments in the arts justified? How is 'good art' or 'bad art' recognized or decided on?
    Although most people argue that art is totally subjective, I’d like to argue that there are some value judgements are more valued than others. As the brain reacts to the stimuli of art, it picks out specific memories and alters their perception of the art based off their past experiences, and people react differently. However, value judgements in art from professionals in the field generally follow a consensus based off skill and purpose. After shaping one’s own neural network to recognize subtleties (wow that is a strange word), the variation of value assignment narrows due to that perception of what is good and bad. Although I am not an expert in art and I do not claim to be an activist in the art world other than rap culture, I would think that that variation narrows around skill and purpose, rather than a cruder effect. However, that recognition itself creates new levels of reactions and effects that art can create. Wouldn’t you value a classical art museum more if you understood the techniques that went into the pieces?

    2. What are the justifications and implications of claiming that there are absolute standards for good art, or that the only standard for good art is individual taste?
    Implying that there are absolute standards for good art comes with the justification of what I talked about in question 1. The absolute standards are based off of the education of skill and purpose, which adds value judgements to the art. The implications of that is that everyone agrees on that educational knowledge and that the definition of skill is clearly defined in the population. The idea of skill is changing in our society as it becomes more and more subjective, more and more abstract. This can be seen in the area of modern art, where the skill and purpose is questionable but in some cases can be justified, where in other areas it does not. The only standard for good art is not individual taste, but rather depends on the purpose of the artist and the skill that went into the art. Since the purpose and skill fluctuates between culture and people, must of those standards are based off of the individual, however some artists affect a wider variety of people than other anomalies.

    3. Does the artist carry any moral or ethical responsibility? Is it possible for an artwork to be immoral? Should art be judged on its ability to shock?
    Artists carry a moral or ethical responsibility similar to that of any individual in their society. Although those morals and ethics may shift over time, it can be argued that the morals of the time period should be adhered to. However, it could also be argued that artists carry a limited amount of moral or ethical responsibility. Making art out of skin may sound weird in our culture, but to some it is beautiful. However, the problem with that reasoning is in the extension of that logic. If moral responsibility is up to the artist that deems beauty in unique areas, then a serial killer should not be held morally responsible for their artistic mass killings and raping, which is where the moral or ethical responsibilities of their society are brought forward to bar extreme circumstances to be justified.

    ReplyDelete
  17. 1. How are value judgments in the arts justified? How is 'good art' or 'bad art' recognized or decided on?
    The judgment of art is highly based on personal taste and opinion. Everyone has different definition of what is art. For some people a piece of art can look uninteresting, however for others it can be the definition of art to them. The decision between good and bad art comes solely to a person's perspective. In the art world, pieces of art with the most shock factor or the most odd ones are praised to be art. Especially in modern art, almost anything can be labeled as art as long as someone says it is. Also in modern art, pieces of art that make the most profit are considered to be good art. There are many work of arts that are unappreciated, but when money comes into play there is a clear distinction between good and bad art.

    2. What are the justifications and implications of claiming that there are absolute standards for good art, or that the only standard for good art is individual taste?
    Claiming that there are absolute standards for good art is that implying that there must be qualifications a piece of art must have in order to be considered one. Which is false because when artists create a piece of art, they all have their own methods and their methods have intentions, unless the art was created unintentionally. It is true that the only standards for good art is individual taste, at the end of the day even when standard are placed of good art, there will still be some people when will not agree. When placing standards on art, it’s limiting a person's opinion and their ability to express themselves.

    3. Does the artist carry any moral or ethical responsibility? Is it possible for an artwork to be immoral? Should art be judged on its ability to shock?
    I don’t think it’s a requirement for an artist to carry moral or ethical responsibility in their work, however if the art was done intentionally, it’s a given that the artist created a piece of art that includes his or her beliefs and morals. I think an artist should include their moral or ethical beliefs to promote positivity and to make a difference in society. There is a possibility an artwork to be immoral when it includes hate or if it’s attacking people, such as propagandas. Art should not be judged on its ability to shock, it all depends on a person's perspective.

    ReplyDelete
  18. 1. 1. How are value judgments in the arts justified? How is 'good art' or 'bad art' recognized or decided on?
    I think that the value of art is up to interpretation. Those who are more experienced and care more about art probably are going to think more about the value of a piece and have more judgement about it. Good art and bad art is up to the person who is looking at it because everyone has a different opinion. It is subjective and personal. Some people could hate an art piece that other find fascinating and beautiful. I personally usually value pieces that are pleasant to look at and those that I can tell required a lot of talent and time.

    3. Does the artist carry any moral or ethical responsibility? Is it possible for an artwork to be immoral? Should art be judged on its ability to shock
    I personally do not think that an artist has nay moral or ethical responsibility. I think that they have the freedom to do what they feel and what they want to express. Those who respect and enjoy the work can enjoy it and those who do not don't have to pay attention to it. I think that their art necessarily have to illustrate who they are as a person. I do not think that art should be judged based on its ability to shock because some art pieces are not meant to. That does not mean their value should be affected.

    2. What are the justifications and implications of claiming that there are absolute standards for good art, or that the only standard for good art is individual taste?
    I think that people and art critics can believe there is a standard for good art because they are experienced and educated to be able to do so. However, I personally think that it is up to the individual taste. Everyone can see things differently and have different feelings toward an art piece. I also think that art is such a broad category and is very abstract so it could be difficult to set standards or qualifications in place.

    ReplyDelete
  19. 2. What are the justifications and implications of claiming that there are absolute standards for good art, or that the only standard for good art is individual taste?
    Saying that the only standard for good art is individual taste leads to a lot of disagreement and no real way to call things good art definitively. If the only way to call art is individual taste then there would be no way to create things like museums. The way that art is decided upon as good is through a general consensus, or a popular opinion. This is part of the concept of shared knowledge, but in this case shared emotions about a certain piece of art. This is kind of related to personal opinions, but it branches out farther than that.

    3. Does the artist carry any moral or ethical responsibility? Is it possible for an artwork to be immoral? Should art be judged on its ability to shock?
    Art can be unethical, but that does not stop it from being art. It is unethical if it harms another person or the artist creating it. This concept could be negated by talking about masochism, but I believe that masochism is partially unethical and can fit to this model. The artist does carry the moral responsibility to ensure that his or her art does not harm others, but often people do things only for shock value. Just because art is shocking does not make it meaningful, and there are other ways to create impact and meaning without hurting people.

    4. What is the role of education in creating art, and in appreciating it? Is an art form legitimate if it can be enjoyed only by those trained in its appreciation through having had relevant education or through having become familiar with it in their own cultural context? Is a critical assessment of an art form legitimate if it is made by someone with no relevant education or cultural familiarity?
    There are whole schools that exist only to teach about art and about appreciating it. I do believe that it is important to understand art in order to appreciate it fully, but there is some art that requires no explanation or previous knowledge. I think that art is legitimate even if it is only enjoyed by those trained to appreciate it because much of what people believe is influenced by what they know, so they believe that art is beautiful or impactful because of what they know; this is not very different than others enjoying things because of their past knowledge. I, however, think that art can be judged by anyone who views it. That is one of the good things about art, it can be viewed by anyone and create some type of emotion. That means that any review of art is valid, although some might be taken more seriously than others.

    ReplyDelete
  20. 2.
    The metrics for determining what art is good are murky. In my opinion, the only metric for determining quality art should be personal taste. In my definition of art, the purpose of a piece is to communicate something to someone (even if that something is beauty and the someone is the artist themselves). For that a connection with the art is necessary. There is no universal standard in this conception, only personal aesthetics, and many artists would be lauded. The other metric for artistic critique is a set of universally applied standards. This would mean when an artist’s skillset is well displayed, the art is good. The pieces would adhere to a checklist of standards provided by scholars of art. In my mind this is a poor method. Artists who break convention, like Van Gogh once did, would receive little or no recognition. There could be famous art that makes no one feel anything, but displays the skills of the artist. Perfect art (art that is perfect in terms of classical skill) does not appeal to me without an option of gorgeous and stylistically risky art also rewarded.
    3.
    Art does carry ethical responsibility, but failure to succeed in this responsibility does not disqualify art from being art. This failure on the part of the artist should not be embraced, and immoral art should be discouraged, however. If an artist chooses to make a sculpture of murdered corpses (as in the TV show Hannibal), that would cross an ethical barrier. In my mind and my definition of art, immoral art such as this still qualifies as art. The caveat of immorality cannot strip art of the fact that it was created to communicate something. Morality can change. I don't mean to imply that murder would ever in any way be acceptable, but there are times where art has become moral. Leonardo Da Vinci famously dug up dead bodies, dissected them, and drew sketches of his findings. This act was heinous in his time, but it did produce meaningful art. Shock value is in my mind a terrible metric for judgement in art, but awe can be a means of determining personal connection to art. Shock is less valuable in my mind because art intended soley to shock is not often as lauded or respected as art which provides awe. Paintings like Van Gogh’s sunflowers are not shocking, but their harmony produces awe. Shocking immoral acts can be art, but cannot and should not be all art.

    4.
    Education can enhance art, but in my opinion is not required. Renaissance art, for example, can be appreciated by someone who knows nothing about the composition of the period, but who enjoys the aesthetics of a particular piece. A technical understanding of music can augment the appreciation of a particularly technically interesting piece, but this does not mean someone without that background cannot hear beauty in it. A context does not necessarily add legitimacy to an art form. Art that cannot be appreciated by some people because of a lack of context is still legitimate, though. Many people have little to no cultural understanding of the art of makeup. That does not delegitimize it as an art form. In the same way that only some people can appreciate art meant to resonate with certain experiences (like poetry open letters that include an author’s inside jokes with someone) that does not make it any less art. I do think education is vital for critical analysis, however. Disliking a piece without education is not the same thing as critiquing it. If a person was to criticize Virginia Woolf with no knowledge of how or why she used stream of consciousness in Mrs. Dalloway, I think that critique would be invalid. Education plays a nuanced role in art.

    ReplyDelete
  21. 1. How are value judgments in the arts justified? How is 'good art' or 'bad art' recognized or decided on?

    Value judgements in the arts are justified strictly in the art world by recognized critiques. People that study art extensively and can analyze works in the minutest of details should have some merit when assessing art. They must be able to judge the technique, meaning, and culture behind a piece. Good art is recognized by popularity and what is seen as tasteful by the upper echelon of the art world. The art piece should have a wow factor and instill an memorable impression on the perceiver. Bad art is recognized by not having meaning or having strategic cohesive manner in the art that flows with the rest of the work. The art also does not convey anything and has no real value it relays or manifests.

    2. What are the justifications and implications of claiming that there are absolute standards for good art, or that the only standard for good art is individual taste?

    There definitely should be a base justification of absolute standards for good art so that people are able to assess art critically in an academic setting. Although these justifications should be broad enough to allow for personal interpretation but at the least make it so that one can try to assess a piece of art. This however may discredit individual taste because although an art may not fit these absolute standards this does not however mean that the piece may not be a good piece of art. It simply means that it does not fit the criteria. Individual taste should only matter if the piece is dear to their heart and not discussed for value in a setting with other intellectual minds because in order to discuss value there should be guidelines. If individual taste is the defining factor then every piece of art should be famous but not all is famous nor will people want to be replicate it or steal it monetary value.

    3. Does the artist carry any moral or ethical responsibility? Is it possible for an artwork to be immoral? Should art be judged on its ability to shock?

    The artist should carry an ethical responsibility. If there is endangerment of life then this is a definite ethical boundary. Yes it can be seen as art but it the most extreme measure of art that crosses an ethical boundary of safety for the individuals. Artwork can be immoral when it tries to incite a negative response in an offensive manner. The loss of culture within a piece is an example of an artwork being immoral because it does not acknowledge the culture from which the art is inspired. Art should not be judged on its ability to shock although if it does have a shock factor then it may leave a more lasting impression.

    ReplyDelete
  22. 1. How are value judgments in the arts justified? How is 'good art' or 'bad art' recognized or decided on?

    Value judgements in the arts are justified strictly in the art world by recognized critiques. People that study art extensively and can analyze works in the minutest of details should have some merit when assessing art. They must be able to judge the technique, meaning, and culture behind a piece. Good art is recognized by popularity and what is seen as tasteful by the upper echelon of the art world. The art piece should have a wow factor and instill an memorable impression on the perceiver. Bad art is recognized by not having meaning or having strategic cohesive manner in the art that flows with the rest of the work. The art also does not convey anything and has no real value it relays or manifests.

    2. What are the justifications and implications of claiming that there are absolute standards for good art, or that the only standard for good art is individual taste?

    There definitely should be a base justification of absolute standards for good art so that people are able to assess art critically in an academic setting. Although these justifications should be broad enough to allow for personal interpretation but at the least make it so that one can try to assess a piece of art. This however may discredit individual taste because although an art may not fit these absolute standards this does not however mean that the piece may not be a good piece of art. It simply means that it does not fit the criteria. Individual taste should only matter if the piece is dear to their heart and not discussed for value in a setting with other intellectual minds because in order to discuss value there should be guidelines. If individual taste is the defining factor then every piece of art should be famous but not all is famous nor will people want to be replicate it or steal it monetary value.

    3. Does the artist carry any moral or ethical responsibility? Is it possible for an artwork to be immoral? Should art be judged on its ability to shock?

    The artist should carry an ethical responsibility. If there is endangerment of life then this is a definite ethical boundary. Yes it can be seen as art but it the most extreme measure of art that crosses an ethical boundary of safety for the individuals. Artwork can be immoral when it tries to incite a negative response in an offensive manner. The loss of culture within a piece is an example of an artwork being immoral because it does not acknowledge the culture from which the art is inspired. Art should not be judged on its ability to shock although if it does have a shock factor then it may leave a more lasting impression.

    ReplyDelete
  23. 1. How are value judgments in the arts justified? How is 'good art' or 'bad art' recognized or decided on?

    Good art is the art that speaks to someone on emotions, ideals, or just plain aesthetic pleasure. Bad art is forced even for the creator. If there is no emotional ties to the piece, it cannot be art in my opinion and trying to pass it off as such is bad taste.

    3. Does the artist carry any moral or ethical responsibility? Is it possible for an artwork to be immoral? Should art be judged on its ability to shock?

    Every person carries moral and ethical responsibilities. Artwork itself does not get to chose how it gets made and therefore can't be immortal. And no I'm not an Edgy Teen who needs to have gore and shock factor to appreciate good art.

    5. What relationships exist between the arts, on the on hand, and power over the public mind, on the other? Should art be politically subversive? Conversely, should it serve the interests of the community or the state? Why would governments, corporations, advertisers, and ideologically based groups of many kinds concern themselves with visual artists, musicians, and writers?

    Should art be used to further ideals? Not sure. Is it? Definitely. Artists fill a demand of their own thoughts and the thoughts of the public. Of course agendas come out in that. That isn't to say every piece can be used that way, but humans are emotional creatures and a lot of quiet propaganda lies in the mainstream art we consume.

    ReplyDelete
  24. 2. What are the justifications and implications of claiming that there are absolute standards for good art, or that the only standard for good art is individual taste?
    The claim on whether or not art is good is very subjective. Each individual has his/her own justifications for what good art is. Firstly, people can categorize the value of art based on their own standards of beauty and aesthetics. This is why there are arguments over whether or not a piece of artwork is worthy or not of being remembered as a classic. Furthermore, there are so many different forms of art that people can both agree and disagree with. For example, some may enjoy the same music but disagree on a painting by Picasso. Moreover, people not only can be different from one another, they can change individually as well. The standard of good art can change from time, as people mature and see the world in a different light. The standard that the individual created for what qualifies as beauty can change, making the claim of “good art” even more subjective.

    3. Does the artist carry any moral or ethical responsibility? Is it possible for an artwork to be immoral? Should art be judged on its ability to shock?
    I believe that the artist should consider the moral and ethical bounds before creating the art. For example, there is a difference between the Bodies Exhibition and an artist killing a person just for their skin. People have given their consent and agreed to donate their bodies to the Bodies Exhibition while a random artist who doesn’t ask for permission crosses the moral and ethical boundaries. However, I also think that this responsibility can vary based on culture and no matter the moral or ethical responsibility, whatever is created will still be considered art. But the artwork itself is not immoral; instead, it is the artist who creates the piece that should be considered immoral. Furthermore, shock can be a factor on which art is judged, but it should not be the only form of judgement. Some art are created for different reasons that do not require it to have a shock factor. Therefore, art should be judged for its ability to shock only if it applies to the particular art piece.

    4. What is the role of education in creating art, and in appreciating it? Is an art form legitimate if it can be enjoyed only by those trained in its appreciation through having had relevant education or through having become familiar with it in their own cultural context? Is a critical assessment of an art form legitimate if it is made by someone with no relevant education or cultural familiarity?
    Education helps students learn and appreciate different forms of art that are not originally appealing to the individuals. Through education, students can study and evaluate how different artists created their pieces and the different techniques. This does not mean that one cannot appreciate art without having learned about the arts. Art is legitimate no matter if it can only be appreciated by those who were trained or have the cultural context. If there is anyone in the world who understands or can appreciate the piece, it further adds value to the art. Furthermore, the education or cultural familiarity helps enhance the art, but isn’t always needed in order to appreciate the pieces. The assessment of art forms should be applied to any piece, regardless of the background education.

    ReplyDelete
  25. 1. Value judgements are justified in the skill required for the artist to make the piece as well as the art's emotional impact. This is generally how good and bad art is categorized. Not everyone's opinion on this is the same, but the overall quality of a piece is generally determined by community consensus.

    3. An artist only carries a moral or ethical responsibility when their art touches on sensitive subjects. Using horrific or tragic events to inspire shock is morally wrong, and should not be done by artists. Along these lines, an artist should not be judged positively for their ability to inspire shock. Anybody could glue a picture of a massacre onto a canvas and call it art, but it has no skill or emotion other than what the event already inspires in people. There has to be something else on top of the shock which is actually created by the artist in order to make it a good art piece.

    4. Fine art is often, but not always, produced by those who are classically trained to produce it. Appreciating or criticizing art is also generally dependent on one's classical training based on the amount of background knowledge necessary for a deep understanding of fine art. An art form's legitimacy is not dependent on how many people can appreciate it. As long as any kind of community can appreciate it, it can be considered art. A critical assessment by a non-educated person is legitimate, though it lacks the depth that an educated person's assessment would have.

    ReplyDelete
  26. 1. How are value judgments in the arts justified? How is 'good art' or 'bad art' recognized or decided on?

    - Personally, I believe that the people who are typically judging or critiquing art have had some sort of experience in that field. However, this is not always the case. Even someone who has no background in creating art still has the power and ability to judge and determine what is and is not good art. It all comes down to individual perspective, as one person's opinion on a piece of art will naturally be much different than the next persons. Value judgments should be justified on the amount of time and skill an artist puts into a piece of work.

    2. What are the justifications and implications of claiming that there are absolute standards for good art, or that the only standard for good art is individual taste?

    -Each individual naturally has their own beliefs and opinions on what "good' art is, so the claim on whether or not art is goods very subjective. People may classify good art as what they find aesthetically pleasing or even classify it as the art that they don't completely understand. There are so many different potential forms of art that is literally impossible to determine and label what is good art. In the end, it is all up to personal opinion.

    3. Does the artist carry any moral or ethical responsibility? Is it possible for an artwork to be immoral? Should art be judged on its ability to shock?

    -I believe that an artist only carries a moral or ethical responsibility when their art represents a sensitive, touchy area in society. However, I do not believe that an artist should be judged for portraying their thoughts or feelings, even if some people find it offensive. While an artist may be held accountable for what they draw, they are ultimately allowed to express themselves freely with or without judgement.

    ReplyDelete
  27. 1.How are value judgments in the arts justified? How is 'good art' or 'bad art' recognized or decided on?
    Value judgements in the arts are justified by trends and standards for the quality of art displayed. The line between "Good art" and "Bad art" becomes blurred when an artist's style is to mimic "bad art", but in the end, if the piece is widely deemed as bad, no claim of technique can render it "good art". Also, the distinction of good and bad differs from person to person and truly relies on individual interpretation.

    2.What are the justifications and implications of claiming that there are absolute standards for good art, or that the only standard for good art is individual taste?

    When claiming that there are absolute standards for good art, that implies that everyone in the world has a similar opinion of art. I personally think there is no justification for this because individual taste factors into how a person will perceive something as "good". If the majority of the world finds a work of art bad, such as the song All Star by Smash Mouth, there can be a possibility that one person thinks it is a good song. That being said, individual taste is not the only standard for good art because it is possibly to like an art piece, but recognize it is bad. For example, I like Rebecca Black's "Friday" but understand that it is a horrible song in terms of quality.

    3.Does the artist carry any moral or ethical responsibility? Is it possible for an artwork to be immoral? Should art be judged on its ability to shock?

    I think that the artist caries some moral and ethical responsibility, but not to the point that it should be a big priority to think about. For example, if an artist wants to paint with the blood of innocent humans, they should realize that that is immoral and that they probably shouldn't carry out their desires in this case. Also, it is definitely possible or artwork to be immoral. For example, a painting made from the blood of innocent humans is immoral. Don't do it. Also art can be judged on its ability to shock, but not solely on its ability to shock. Political cartoons are usually shocking due to their tendency to put down a side and can easily be more admirable. But just because that man slaughtered 2 people in front of me and shocked me doesn't make that the greatest art work I've ever seen.

    ReplyDelete
  28. 1. I think good art or bad art is all based perception. If you think a piece of art is good then is good to you, however it can be considered trash to someone else. This at least my basic opinion which I know VT doesn't like but that is my take on that.

    3. I think if an artist is doing a piece well knowing that what there doing is offensive then yes they do need to hold a moral responsibility. I personally do not think good are should be based off of shock factor, I like art based of technique and colors not really based off of a feeling, or how " art makes me feel" I know that a lot of people do and will judge art or feeling or shock factor though.

    4. I think art classes are cool in order to learn basic techniques. I do not really think appreciating art needs to be taught that is something that just sort of comes naturally. I mean we have eyes and emotion so its not really something that needs be taught. trying to teach people how to appreciate art is restricting and you do not allow people Mohave their own unfeathered thoughts.

    ReplyDelete
  29. 1. How are value judgments in the arts justified? How is 'good art' or 'bad art' recognized or decided on?

    “Good” or “Bad” art is decided upon what the reviewer of that art believes of the work at hand. But what if the reviewer does not like a certain type of art, let's say modern art, than their views may be biased negatively in reviewing it. While getting a fan of modern art is sure to skew reviews positively due to their bias in appreciating that certain art form more than others. It is hard to find a middle group in this, but I believe that's the reason why many reviews are a favorable thing in any circumstance, due to this somewhat leveling bias from either side of the spectrum.

    ReplyDelete
  30. 2. What are the justifications and implications of claiming that there are absolute standards for good art, or that the only standard for good art is individual taste?

    That's not true cause that can be said by anyone about anything that they consider a piece of art in their rightful minds. Yes it can be true for some cases, but in others what give an artwork standards are the conditions placed by the artist, and the ones created by the audience. If the artist achieves a sense of disgust out of the audience, then his work has met its “standard”. Whether people generally like it or not is a another whole question.

    ReplyDelete
  31. 3. Does the artist carry any moral or ethical responsibility? Is it possible for an artwork to be immoral? Should art be judged on its ability to shock?

    Technically no, but each artist has a certain set of morals, and ethical restrictions if they chose to follow them, and this influences their work. Whether they carry any moral or ethical responsibility is up to them to decide whether they want to accept that responsibility or not. For artwork that seems to just be shock value, it accomplishes what it sets out to do, and for the audience searching for content such as this it comes to no shock that it delivered. The shock value is at it’s best to first timers in that it is the most sincere and legit reaction possible. After a while one can become desensitized, and that may not be a good thing but who knows. Whether a work should be judged on it’s ability to shock, personally I don't think so but the reviewer may have a different opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  32. 1. How are value judgments in the arts justified? How is 'good art' or 'bad art' recognized or decided on?
    There is no getting away from the fact that the arts is a subjective area of knowledge. This means that views on what is good art and bad art vary from individual to individual. Societies, too, have differing traditions of art, meaning that music, literature, and fine art can have a radically different form depending on which country you are in. And our tastes also change according to which historical era we are looking at.

    3. Does the artist carry any moral or ethical responsibility? Is it possible for an artwork to be immoral? Should art be judged on its ability to shock?
    Art can open us up to new ideas and beliefs, and artists can make a massive impact as role models, either in a positive or a negative manner. Because art communicates with us on so many different levels, and appeals to our senses, emotion, reason, language, and imagination, it inevitably affects us more than other areas of knowledge. There are few of us who would pay to see a scientific experiment, but most of us are regular cinema goers, or visit art galleries and photo exhibitions. Because of that, it is easy to be affected by something we read or see that seems to us to be something to which we should aspire.

    ReplyDelete
  33. 1.) Value in art is justified by the person justifying I guess. I personally think that art should be defined by each individual person to what think art is or isn't. To me, if something thinks something is art, then its art. Who am I to say it isn't art? It doesn't mean that I agree with them, but who is it hurting that they think something is art that I don't ? If they see a mop and think it's art, then it's art. What if they actually do see something being the mop? I don't know what they're thought process is. I just know that personally, you decide what art is for you (also you don't get to decide what isn't or is art to others as well). Not other people.
    2.) Honestly I think that it really just depends who you are and what you think of art. I just think it's about individual taste, because if you can truly find meaning and beauty behind something that isn't “traditionally” art, then goblet it be art. Just because someone doesn't think something isn't art doesn't mean it actually isn't. It's all about the quote, “beauty is held in the eye of the beholder” because I know for sure my peers and I agree and disagree on some types of forms of art, but that doesn't necessarily not make it art.
    3.) I don't think that the artist had to carry any moral or ethical responsibility to their art? Honestly, why doesn't everything have to be deep when it comes to art? Why can't it just sometimes be something dumb and fun that the artist decided to make. Just because it would be “dumb and fun” doesn't mean it can't be “art”. I think anything is possible when it comes to art so yeah, I do think art can be immoral. And also art shouldn't be judged on its ability to shock because not everyone thinks the same when it comes to this type of thing.

    ReplyDelete
  34. 1. How are value judgments in the arts justified? How is 'good art' or 'bad art' recognized or decided on?
    I believe that value judgements on art are based upon personal preference and whether or not interpretation on a work of art resonates with the observer or not. Good or bad art can also be based upon the amount of effort put into a piece or the intent behind the piece. truthfully, I really don't believe in good art or bad art, but rather if someone feels connected to a painting and its meaning or not. There are plenty or works of art that personally do not resonate with, however I do not dub these works bad art because I can still appreciate the effort behind a work of art.


    2. What are the justifications and implications of claiming that there are absolute standards for good art, or that the only standard for good art is individual taste?
    There are several implications based upon claiming that there is a set definition of good art or only upon preference. If art was only judged upon a set scale of good or bad based on a strict outline of rules, then it would completely disobey the definition art and all art would look the same because everyone wants their art to be "good". Art is an expression of oneself and should be free of subjective opinions about what it "should" look like or be in order to be good. However, saying that art is completely preference also has several implications. By saying that art is based solely upon preference then equalizes all works of art. However, I believe that all works of art do start out equal and then only differ based upon intent, popularity and the over all message behind it.

    5. What relationships exist between the arts, on the on hand, and power over the public mind, on the other? Should art be politically subversive? Conversely, should it serve the interests of the community or the state? Why would governments, corporations, advertisers, and ideologically based groups of many kinds concern themselves with visual artists, musicians, and writers?
    Art is an expression of the mind and the soul. Art allows someone to mold their emotions and create a physical representation to show to the world. It should not be limited by governments or any other corporation. Art should be displayed where it can be and whether or not someone chooses to look at it and accept the message from it is up to the observer. So hopefully the observer is strong minded enough and has a support net work so they know whether or not the interpreted message is socially and morally alright.

    ReplyDelete
  35. 1. How are value judgments in the arts justified? How is 'good art' or 'bad art' recognized or decided on?
    Judgments in the art are justified by the reasoning behind that judgement. why they think that way about the art piece. When the judgement is well thought out it is also credible, it is also extremely helpful to have a counter argument to why you think the art piece is good or bad. Good or bad art is judged by the type of art, the quality of the art and the age of the artist. people decide individually based on those qualities and their own personal emotions. How are value judgments in the arts justified? How is 'good art' or 'bad art' recognized or decided on?her or not that they think the art is good.

    3. Does the artist carry any moral or ethical responsibility? Is it possible for an artwork to be immoral? Should art be judged on its ability to shock?
    Yes an artist does carry somewhat of a moral responsibility. yes they are allowed to express their opinions in whatever way they would like but, they need to watch out for their audience that is viewing their art. If the artist is showing their art to little kids it should be little kid friendly. if they are showing their art to adults the range is much wider of moral leash should be placed onto their art. of course each persons morals are different so people viewing the art should be open minded about what they are viewing. Art should not be judged on it's ability to shock, it should be judged individually. The art piece does not need to shock people in order to be good.

    4. What is the role of education in creating art, and in appreciating it? Is an art form legitimate if it can be enjoyed only by those trained in its appreciation through having had relevant education or through having become familiar with it in their own cultural context? Is a critical assessment of an art form legitimate if it is made by someone with no relevant education or cultural familiarity?
    The role of education of the arts is for the person to learn the history of art and, different types of art. The teaching of cresting art introduces children to different styles of art and they are able to figure out what type of art they like to participate in. The teaching of art also introduces the idea of appreciating art because when the children experience the art they learn how difficult some of the steps are to make art and how much or how little thought is put into each art piece. An art form is legitimate even if it is enjoyed and learned by a small amount of people. Some styles of art are passed down through generation and only that family or culture knows how to make that specific art piece.

    ReplyDelete
  36. 1. How are value judgments in the arts justified? How is 'good art' or 'bad art' recognized or decided on?
    I believe that value judgements are all subjective it is all a matter of opinion. In a sense they are justified simply by being ones own opinion and therefore it is justified. How good or bad art can be decided on is also subjective. However it is often the case that art experts have the general same opinion regarding pieces. I can't quite say what causes a piece to be better than another because I am no expert on the matter. It could be due to whether or not it causes someone to feel a powerful emotion or if there is a resounding message there.

    3. Does the artist carry any moral or ethical responsibility? Is it possible for an artwork to be immoral? Should art be judged on its ability to shock?
    Yes an artist holds moral and ethical responsibility. Artists are not exempt from laws or simple human decency for being an artist. As soon as the art they are creating is something malicious or law breaking they are at fault and should be help accountable with out any exemptions. Artists face the same moral and ethical responsibility as anyone else. Art should be judged on its ability to create feeling, whether that be shocking or comforting, it simply should be able to evoke some sort of feeling.

    2. What are the justifications and implications of claiming that there are absolute standards for good art, or that the only standard for good art is individual taste?
    One can justify that the only standard for good art is the individual taste because what else could be the standard for good art? The answer to that question would be on opinion of individual taste. And because there wouldn't be the same answer for every single person the standard then falls to be no standard at all. It is just a matter of someone's opinion, why they like it. This implies that art and the judgement of art is a subjective area of knowledge there isn't much certainty other than origins of the piece but even then that isn't always for sure. Art in general is generate by opinion and it is appreciated by opinion.

    ReplyDelete

  37. 1. How are value judgments in the arts justified? How is 'good art' or 'bad art' recognized or decided on?

    In my eyes there is no such thing as good art and bad art. Art is something that is used to inspire emotions within people and if it inspires any sort of emotion it is art and there is really no way to apply a quantity to that. I do feel however, that people who are experienced in a certain field of the arts can better determine the quality of a piece of art than someone with no experience. For example, a highly talented expert in the art of ballet can judge another ballerina’s skill, and their judgement would be considered valuable because they have earned the experience, skill, and understanding to reasonably judge others. This applies to almost all forms of art such as pottery, painting, poetry, dancing and many more. On the other hand, the distinction between “good art” and “bad art” is recognized and decided on by the individual’s own views and the way they feel their art should be valued. Each person perceives art differently, and therefore their value judgments as to whether it is good art or bad art is dependent upon them.

    2. What are the justifications and implications of claiming that there are absolute standards for good art, or that the only standard for good art is individual taste?

    I do not feel that there are any set standard for what makes a given piece of art, “good’ or “bad” considering all of the vast possibilities and forms of art that exist. When claiming that there are absolute standards for good art, then you are also implying that there are certain standards or requirements every piece of art must achieve in order to be considered “good art.” In addition, there is the implication that in order for it to be “good art,” then the standard is that everyone must agree that it is good art, however everyone can have different views and feelings about a piece of art. By implementing standards for art to be good, you are limiting self-expression and inspiration for creativity in artists. Restricting the artist if they want their piece to be perceived as good. When claiming that the only standard for good art is individual taste, then you are essentially saying that there are little to no requirements since each individual will judge it as “good” based upon their own judgment. There is the implication that one person may consider the art bad, whereas another person may consider the art good.

    3. Does the artist carry any moral or ethical responsibility? Is it possible for an artwork to be immoral? Should art be judged on its ability to shock?

    I think the artist carries some, but very little moral or ethical responsibility when it comes to the content of their art, depending on their work or type of art. I also think that some art can be considered immoral. For example, Artists can often be very vivid with their painting and artists should be cautious of the audiences that are going to be viewing the art before making it too graphic. I do not think art should be judged on its ability to shock. A piece of art may shock one person, but may not make sense or have any sort of impact on someone else, which makes it difficult to objectively judge its value. It all boils down to how much the art affects the individual, and the individual can use the ability to shock as a criterion when judging the art’s value.

    ReplyDelete
  38. 1. How are value judgments in the arts justified? How is 'good art' or 'bad art' recognized or decided on?

    Value judgments are justified in the fact that they are all subjective. One person may like a piece of art but another may hate it. A person's opinion is mostly based in experiences so in that regard it is also justified. One can't reject another's judgment without understanding that person entirely and their experience. Good art can be a piece that makes you think or feel something whereas bad art might be one that doesn't connect with you at all. It is all subjective and dependent on a person's life and experiences.

    3. Does the artist carry any moral or ethical responsibility? Is it possible for an artwork to be immoral? Should art be judged on its ability to shock?

    I think the artist does carry some moral/ethical responsibility to an extent. The artist should follow their own moral boundaries but not necessarily have to focus on others since it is self-expression and not for others. Following this I do think a piece can be immoral if it breaks standard behaviors and rules of modern society. Art should not be based on its ability to shock since art is not always for an audience and is more for the artist. If the artist intends for a shock value then by all means but otherwise I think not.

    ReplyDelete
  39. 1. How are value judgments in the arts justified? How is 'good art' or 'bad art' recognized or decided on?

    Value judgments in the arts are justified with the common standards accepted in the art community. The evaluation of art includes nine elements of art, as well as the meaning. The nine elements include space, line, balance, rhythm, modeling, etc. Good art employs these elements in order to express something. Good art is also original. It is hard to determine something as bad art. I’m not sure how art is justified as bad, because from my perception, there is no bad art.

    3. Does the artist carry any moral or ethical responsibility? Is it possible for an artwork to be immoral? Should art be judged on its ability to shock?

    The artist does carry moral and ethical responsibilities, but I don’t think it's possible for art to be immoral. Art is subjective—the artist may depict an image or scene that is immoral to one person, but it may be there in order to communicate a message about the context of the art work. Art should not be judged on its ability to shock. Subtle art can be just as powerful as shocking art.

    4. What is the role of education in creating art, and in appreciating it? Is an art form legitimate if it can be enjoyed only by those trained in its appreciation through having had relevant education or through having become familiar with it in their own cultural context? Is a critical assessment of an art form legitimate if it is made by someone with no relevant education or cultural familiarity?

    The role of education with regards to art should be to historically analyze and inform students about art in the past in order to build their understanding of art today. Art has progressed through time, and it’s important to study that progression in order to appreciate art. With a basis of exposure to art, one may create their own art. Art is still legitimate even if only experts can appreciate it’s formal analysis, because it can still be appreciated by other interpretations. Any assessment of art is legitimate because the perception of art is where its value is found.

    ReplyDelete
  40. 1. How are value judgments in the arts justified? How is 'good art' or 'bad art' recognized or decided on?
    Value judgements in the arts are decided upon based on many different factors. As humans, in part we are programmed to appreciate specific kinds of patterns, colors, and depictions of things. Many of us appreciate nature when it looks incredibly beautiful, some of us the city, but regardless, there are common threads as to why people visually appreciate specific sights. When an artists is able to appreciate a specific sight that humans instinctually appreciate, then that piece will be liked. Furthermore, human beings are very similar to one another and often internally struggle with similar things and share emotions. When an artist is able to create a piece that invokes emotion and feels relatable to many, then that piece of art is deemed incredible. Furthermore, there is definitely a lot of subjective appreciation involved that varies from person to person. Certain pieces are naturally going to relate to and complement some peoples lives more than others.

    3. Does the artist carry any moral or ethical responsibility? Is it possible for an artwork to be immoral? Should art be judged on its ability to shock?
    The artists definitely carries moral and ethical responsibility, but it is actually very challenging to create immoral art. Often times when the art depicts or represents an immoral or unjust circumstance, the art functions as a statement political or social statement. The only time that art can truly be immoral is if it falsely depicts a marginalized group or individual, marginalizing them more. I think art should be judged in part by its ability to shock, but only to a small extent. Each piece of art must be judged based upon the category that it falls under.

    4. What is the role of education in creating art, and in appreciating it? Is an art form legitimate if it can be enjoyed only by those trained in its appreciation through having had relevant education or through having become familiar with it in their own cultural context? Is a critical assessment of an art form legitimate if it is made by someone with no relevant education or cultural familiarity?
    An art form can definitely be legitimate even if it can only be appreciated by people who have an understanding. Many of the more beautiful and complex things in life require prior knowledge to understand and art is no different. Often times, when individuals are very talented, even if someone cannot pinpoint exactly what is going on or understand it perfectly, they can still understand the weight and context of it slightly through the rest of the people engaging in the art and just because the artist is so talented. A value judgement given by someone with no education is valuable, but to a lesser extent than one given by educated professional. Often times to someone who is unfamiliar with something, they can be totally blown away by the littlest things and art is no different.



    ReplyDelete
  41. 4. Yes an art can be legit, even if only trained professionals can even so much as understand its content. We have a little magical something today, that I would like to call, MEMES. They are most definitely an art form, and what makes them amazing is that only a trained eye can really appreciate a good meme. My dad, on the other side of the equation, can be shown the most amazing meme of 2017, and not even smile. He hasn't been trained in the art of the meme, but its still definitely an art form.

    1. I think, someone who can look into art and say things that many other people would also say when looking, makes them good at judging art. Of course, you can judge art in a way that no one appreciates and still be correct, but you won't necessarily be deemed as a good judge of art. You will just be in your own zone. Art is almost entirely opinion and reaction. When someone looks upon a piece and feels something or learns something, then that makes the art piece pretty good, and I do feel like most art critics agree. Its not about the looks, it is more about the message that comes along with it.

    3. I think that the only reason that an artist would be able to take moral responsibility for a piece of art is if that art piece directly hurts someone or something else. If you draw art of someone dying, who cares. But, if you decide to paint on human skin using blood as ink, that might not be the most morally responsible. Art should be judged on its ability to shock, otherwise most modern art would be deemed trash by the society, because it really doesn't look good at all most of the time.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.