> I can't think of anything that would constitute "bad art" in accordance with this view of art.
Many can. It is everywhere. Trite poems, uninspired paintings, thematically muddled novels, boring photos. The people who made them aimed at creating something great and kinda missed. Either by a litle or a lot. I call that bad art.
> I went out of my way to say that it doesn't matter what I personally think
But you also said your view about what art is is the “common sense” view. In other words you are right others are wrong. Which is what i take an exception with.
> Ask a million people if Vermeer is art. I can't imagine a significant number of them will say it isn't.
Why would that be at dispute?
> My arguments have generally been about art and aesthetics.
You postulated that this work of art has no contemplative value. As if you are the final arbiter of that. If you would have said “folks, this doesn’t do it for me”, I wouldn’t have cared. But you choose to pontificate on it in absolute terms. As if your analysis is going to have universal value.
I still wouldn't call any of that "bad" art, because that term means more than just "failing to achieve greatness".
> you also said your view about what art is is the “common sense” view. In other words you are right others are wrong. Which is what i take an exception with.
I questioned whether the general public is right while the art world can't see the emperor has no clothes.
> > Ask a million people if Vermeer is art. I can't imagine a significant number of them will say it isn't.
> Why would that be at dispute?*
Great, now ask a million people if Duchamp's Fountain is art. That's what I mean by common sense. That's what's at dispute.
> You postulated that this work of art has no contemplative value. As if you are the final arbiter of that. If you would have said “folks, this doesn’t do it for me”, I wouldn’t have cared. But you choose to pontificate on it in absolute terms. As if your analysis is going to have universal value.
I'm really repeating myself here, but to be clear I'm not saying I am the one who is deciding its artistic merit. I'm saying works that evoke no contemplative experience through their aesthetic characteristics shouldn't be called art, even if they evoke contemplative experiences through other features such as political relevance.
This is certainly not pontificating in absolute terms. It's just debating Theory of Art. My analysis doesn't have to have universal value to be logical and cogent.
I'm aware that goes against the contemporary view of art in the art world, which seems to equate artistic intent with artistic expression (or some other long form variant of that statement). To me that's just a charade, a long con, a hack. It solves for high-browness at the expense of beauty. But b e a u t y m a t t e r s.
And that's what I take issue with, hence this thread. If you're allowed to challenge my view, why am I not allowed to challenge yours?
I never claimed that my analysis would have universal value, whatever that means. What I am trying to do is to arrive at a definition of art through first principles. But the cognitive dissonance is deafening in this thread, so most of my energy has been spent trying to explain why I'm allowed to even present an argument instead of actually debating the issue. Oh well.
> I never claimed that my analysis would have universal value
Let me quote your own words to you: "It still doesn't qualify as aesthetically interesting." and "photos in the article have very little aesthetic value and elicit no contemplative experience" These are your opinions masquerading as universal truths.
> What I am trying to do is to arrive at a definition of art through first principles.
And you ended up with "art is what people call art"? Deep.
Many can. It is everywhere. Trite poems, uninspired paintings, thematically muddled novels, boring photos. The people who made them aimed at creating something great and kinda missed. Either by a litle or a lot. I call that bad art.
> I went out of my way to say that it doesn't matter what I personally think
But you also said your view about what art is is the “common sense” view. In other words you are right others are wrong. Which is what i take an exception with.
> Ask a million people if Vermeer is art. I can't imagine a significant number of them will say it isn't.
Why would that be at dispute?
> My arguments have generally been about art and aesthetics.
You postulated that this work of art has no contemplative value. As if you are the final arbiter of that. If you would have said “folks, this doesn’t do it for me”, I wouldn’t have cared. But you choose to pontificate on it in absolute terms. As if your analysis is going to have universal value.