Here's a question that stems from a conversation I just had with a friend. Is artistic merit ever absolute, or is it strictly a matter of opinion?

In other words, does one ever come across a work and have the right to say, "EVERYONE should appreciate this"? Or is there always room for someone to argue against even the finest piece of music, film, etc.?

Not sure if I'm making any sense here; let me know if I need to try rephrasing this.

Are there absolutes in anything? Even if we say there are absolutes, can we know what they are?

Art is a medium of communication. If it fails to communicate to someone, what appreciation can they have of it? I doubt anyone can find a way to communicate so that everyone gets the message.

A few quick-draw responses, and then I'm off to bed.

And like all true believers, I am truly skeptical of all I am about to say.

In that there is an aspect of crafstmanship and skill in art, then yes, there are absolutes. 2+2 does not equal 5. Are there absolutes in chair building? Yes. A chair is not a chair unless someone can sit on it. A story is not a story without a beginning and an end... (preferably a middle as well, but I don't think that's absolute.) A comedy must do certain things to qualify as a comedy, of course.

But within the basic confines of an art's definition, there is a lot of room to maneuver. As soon as an artist decides upon the framework for their work, more absolutes come into play. The more specific the intention, the more specific the absolutes they must follow to achieve what they intend.

Insofar as art expresses beauty and truth, then yes, it reflects the absolutes of God.

Jeffrey Overstreet wrote:
: A story is not a story without a beginning and an end... (preferably a
: middle as well, but I don't think that's absolute.)

Just my two bits here: I think it bears emphasizing that films are not necessarily stories. Hence, while it is true that a film must start at some point and must stop at some point (being a linear artform that moves through time, etc.), it is not necessarily true that a film must "begin" or "end" in the way that a story does. Some films are more like songs or poems than stories; do poems have "beginnings" and "ends"?

For a bit of fun on what makes good art and how one judges art, check out http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/britney_spears.htm

I wish this question was in a place where more people would see it because it's a tough, important, and very interesting question.

On the one hand, I'd like to agree with Jeffrey and say that there are absolutes when it comes to art because...well because I was brought up with the modernist point of view that says that God-given absolutes govern everything and art certainly falls into that category.

On the other hand, if there is an absolute standard for art (or even more problematic, what separates good art from bad) then I have not idea what it is. There are no Ten Commandments for creativity (I am the Lord, thy God. Thou shalt not portray me as a whimpy looking white male) and standards for beauty vary wildly around the world in a way that basic moral principles do not.

Again, I wish there were a way to get more eyeballs to this topic. I clicked on the "Leftovers" link out of sheer curiosity (and as a way to postpone exercising). I'd love to see more comments on the subject.

It depends--is art self-expression or communication?

At least since romanticism and impressionism, I think art has largely been seen as self-expression, with the audience playing largely a voyeuristic role. In that sense, there are few, if any, limits to art other than what an individual artist cares to express. Taste, skill, context all recede in importance or vanish altogether.

If one considers artistry to be primarily artisanship (skill-based), then communication becomes relevant again. The Bible has volumes to say about what is appropriate in communication, so absolutes are back on the table.

[quote]I wish this question was in a place where more people would see it because it's a tough, important, and very interesting question.[/quote]

This question is addressed regularly in different venues. Most recently in the Film Criticism as Narcissism thread. So poeple may not be answering here because they've already battled it out elswhere.

[quote][quote]I wish this question was in a place where more people would see it because it's a tough, important, and very interesting question.[/quote]

This question is addressed regularly in different venues. Most recently in the Film Criticism as Narcissism thread. So poeple may not be answering here because they've already battled it out elswhere.[/quote]

Also, people should be using the View posts since last visit option to stay in touch.

Something that may be a related question: Is hell more an outright rejection of God or an inability to recognize Him? Or what combination of both?

QUOTE

It depends--is art self-expression or communication?

I don't think it has to be either/or. I don't think it should be. (Typical answer from me ) But it probably should be both/and--if someone's self-expression doesn't communicate, then it's not art. Sorry. Or it's ineffective art. Sound your "barbaric yawp" all you want, but unless you're Walt Whitman or Allen Ginsburg, nobody or very few people are really going to care. (Uh-oh...)

Not every work of art has to communicate in the same way, however, in my (and others') opinion. According to a list of "aesthetic principles" I came across in Critical Thinking by Moore & Parker, people usually expect a work of art to do at least one of the following:

1. convey important meaning or teach general truth
2. convey values or beliefs central to the culture or tradition in which it originates
3. have the capacity to help bring about social or political change
4. cause pleasure as you (or others) experience or appreciate it
5. produce emotions we should value, at least when the emotion is brought about by art rather than life

Works for me.