logo Sign In

Post #1304592

Author
ZkinandBonez
Parent topic
Episode IX: The Rise Of Skywalker - Discussion * SPOILER THREAD *
Link to post in topic
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/1304592/action/topic#1304592
Date created
12-Nov-2019, 12:17 PM

Broom Kid said:

DrDre said:

I think the entire concept of artistic expression as you define it is meaningless, because by that definition any form of expression is art, hence nothing is art. It’s like those schools, where a student can’t fail, and everyone gets a passing grade. Anyone calls themselves an artist these days, effectively putting themselves in the leagues of a Mozart, Beethoven, Leonardo DaVinci, Stanley Kubrick, Oscar Wilde, etc, etc. It’s preposterous in my view. Making a painting doesn’t automatically make you an artist in my book, just like being able to count to ten doesn’t make you a Math Professor.

Don’t know what else to say. The question isn’t Art or Not Art. it’s Good Art or Bad Art.

Beethoven and The Prodigy are both musical artists. Daniel Johnston and Mozart. The Chainsmokers and Vivaldi. Skrillex and Johnny Cash. The entire concept of artistic expression as I defined it is how it’s defined. That doesn’t make it meaningless. Art has meaning, even the crappiest art. And that’s where your argument about it being like a “crappy school where nobody can fail” falls apart, because being Crappy Art is BAD. Yes, you tried to express yourself via artistic intent, and you did it terribly. That’s not a good thing. You made bad art and it reflects poorly on you. “Being an artist” doesn’t shield you from having made crappy art. It didn’t protect Mapplethorpe. Or John Waters.

That’s honestly enough. Trying to levy the charge that The Force Awakens isn’t really art AT ALL just doesn’t make any sense, and is a pretty huge overreaction, as is the decision to try and disqualify its status AS art in response. It’s obviously art. It’s okay if you don’t like it and think that it’s bad. You don’t have to go as far as you do. It’s unneccessary to make the criticisms you’re making.

Exactly. The problem with trying to disqualify something as art is that there’s no clear definition. If you were to separate things into proper art and not art then logically there’d be works that straddle that line. But how would you decide when it crosses over that line into either art or not art? It’s too vague and subjective. Quality obviously has similar issues, but then you can start making clearer arguments, like the difference between the quality of the craftmanship and originality between, f.ex. a Pollock and a Dahli painting. Or the difference in originality between ANH and TFA.