What's so valuable about art?

[dimreepr]

In recent news here in blighty, A Banksy has been defiled by a tagger in a mask caught on camera; the Twittersphere is all of a twitter, which could have added value if it hadn't been bought by someone who didn't understand the art...

[geordief]

47 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

In recent news here in blighty, A Banksy has been defiled by a tagger in a mask caught on camera; the Twittersphere is all of a twitter, which could have added value if it hadn't been bought by someone who didn't understand the art...

Who does understand the art?

Anyway the masked figure  was probably posing for inclusion in a latter montage where they run the risk of ridicule by anyone who knows them.

How does Banksy manage to do all those murals more or less incognito?

 

Was it perhaps a self portrait this time?

 

To the OP art works as a mirror into the creator and viewer.How effective  I can't say - or whether what is being reflected necessarily has intrinsic worth.(everything is faceted)

Edited August 14 by geordief

[Peterkin]

The urge to create art has certainly been with humankind for a long time. Cave painting, rock etching, bone carving, stone monuments, personal ornament, decoration on tools, weapons, vehicles, clothing and housewares, pottery, weaving, wood carving, tattoos, piercings and skin painting, ritual costumes and masks; singing, dancing, musical instruments and storytelling, decorated graves too, have been with us perhaps longer than language. Art is everywhere people have been for over 50,000 years. 

Today, we overcomplicate the idea of art, categorize, rate and monetize it, enshrine it, hoard it, have professional commentary dictate trends and fashions. But, really, the impulse to create and appreciate are simple, inherent human characteristics. Give a toddler a crayon and let it loose in a room with white walls. Put on some music, and they'll dance while drawing. 

[geordief]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

The urge to create art has certainly been with humankind for a long time. Cave painting, rock etching, bone carving, stone monuments, personal ornament, decoration on tools, weapons, vehicles, clothing and housewares, pottery, weaving, wood carving, tattoos, piercings and skin painting, ritual costumes and masks; singing, dancing, musical instruments and storytelling, decorated graves too, have been with us perhaps longer than language. Art is everywhere people have been for over 50,000 years. 

Today, we overcomplicate the idea of art, categorize, rate and monetize it, enshrine it, hoard it, have professional commentary dictate trends and fashions. But, really, the impulse to create and appreciate are simple, inherent human characteristics. Give a toddler a crayon and let it loose in a room with white walls. Put on some music, and they'll dance while drawing. 

Would there be an evolutionary advantage  to "art creators"?

 

It is very common for artists to say that they picked up an instrument "to get laid"

John Fahey ,for one.

[swansont]

A lot of art is unique, or nearly so. And if it’s good, some people want it. Supply and demand.

[StringJunky]

Art is a means isolating elements of our experience and perception for the purpose of sharing it.

[geordief]

24 minutes ago, swansont said:

A lot of art is unique, or nearly so. And if it’s good, some people want it. Supply and demand.

What about intrinsic worth? Can that be evaluated in any way?

Purely subjective,aside from technical ability?

I

19 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Art is a means isolating elements of our experience and perception for the purpose of sharing it.

Any examples? Edith Piaf?

[StringJunky]

36 minutes ago, geordief said:

What about intrinsic worth? Can that be evaluated in any way?

Purely subjective,aside from technical ability?

I

Any examples? Edith Piaf?

Van Gogh. He used colour to express emotions evoked by his subjects, rather than try to represent them verbatim.

Edited August 14 by StringJunky

[swansont]

44 minutes ago, geordief said:

What about intrinsic worth? Can that be evaluated in any way?

I’m not sure it has an intrinsic worth. The value is what people place on it. I’m sure there are people who wouldn’t pay $5 for the Mona Lisa to hang in their house, if they somehow were unable to give or sell it to anyone. 

[CharonY]

Just now, swansont said:

I’m not sure it has an intrinsic worth. The value is what people place on it. I’m sure there are people who wouldn’t pay $5 for the Mona Lisa to hang in their house, if they somehow were unable to give or sell it to anyone. 

I think that is to various degree true for most things. I suspect one could argue that e.g.. life sustaining things (say food or water) have intrinsic value as they have purpose, but the value placed on it would be extremely different based on situation. In that context, is there anything that one could think of that has a clear intrinsic (as opposed to situational) value?

[geordief]

25 minutes ago, swansont said:

I’m not sure it has an intrinsic worth. The value is what people place on it. I’m sure there are people who wouldn’t pay $5 for the Mona Lisa to hang in their house, if they somehow were unable to give or sell it to anyone. 

But not all value is monetary.

Suppose you happen to be an artist and you are  questioning the value of what you do on a daily basis (reflecting on you life choices and actions).. well your work as an artist would be one of  those  choices or activities that you  might wish to evaluate on its own merits.

 

Could that be done or would personal judgements of that kind be kind of "flip of the coin"? (Whether or not it was appreciated,perhaps?)

21 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I think that is to various degree true for most things. I suspect one could argue that e.g.. life sustaining things (say food or water) have intrinsic value as they have purpose, but the value placed on it would be extremely different based on situation. In that context, is there anything that one could think of that has a clear intrinsic (as opposed to situational) value?

What about Zelensky's refusal of the offer of an American helicopter out of Kiev?

Edited August 14 by geordief

[swansont]

1 hour ago, geordief said:

But not all value is monetary.

Suppose you happen to be an artist and you are  questioning the value of what you do on a daily basis (reflecting on you life choices and actions).. well your work as an artist would be one of  those  choices or activities that you  might wish to evaluate on its own merits.

 

Could that be done or would personal judgements of that kind be kind of "flip of the coin"? (Whether or not it was appreciated,perhaps?)

It’s likely that some fraction of the people will think your art sucks. That it has no value. Not worth looking at. Revolting, possiblt\y. 

[geordief]

18 minutes ago, swansont said:

It’s likely that some fraction of the people will think your art sucks. That it has no value. Not worth looking at. Revolting, possiblt\y. 

Can they be wrong?Do you need to understand a work of art before you give an opinion that can be considerered "considered"?

Suppose we segregate all those people who can be considered knowledgeable enough that their opinion is  valuable and we (as we surely will,I imagine)  find a spectrum of responses   to the piece...

Can we collate those varied reactions  and come to something of a consensus amonst the cohort  of some intrinsic value(s) of the piece?

Not to say that the opinion of the relatively ignorant  is not also important  but that  its importance  can be overstated.

For years I thought Hendix wanted to "kiss this guy".I still liked the song...

[swansont]

12 minutes ago, geordief said:

Can they be wrong?Do you need to understand a work of art before you give an opinion that can be considerered "considered"?

How can personal preference be right or wrong? 

[geordief]

 

37 minutes ago, swansont said:

How can personal preference be right or wrong? 

John Fahey claimed he changed his preferences very suddenly 

 

https://www.johnfahey.com/Blood.htm

"Where I was brought up was very prejudiced towards Negroes," Fahey explains. "I was taught to hate and fear them. I didn't like black music very much, I wouldn't even listen to it." 
     Two years later, Fahey heard the record that turned his music and life around: Blind Willie Johnson's "Praise God I'm Satisfied". "[Blues connoisseur] Dick Spottswood and I were sat in a store where they were selling up old 78s," he remembers. "They weren't catalogued or anything, they were just lying around. We were going through them and I was not picking up any records by Negroes for myself because all I wanted was bluegrass. I found several black records and gave them to Spottswood. Then we went over to this other collector's house and he put on the Blind Willie Johnson. I started to feel nauseated so I made him take it off, but it kept going through my head so I had to hear it again. When he played it the second time I started to cry, it was suddenly very beautiful. It was some kind of hysterical conversion experience where in fact I had liked that kind of music all the time, but didn't want to. So, I allowed myself to like it." 
      

Is that what you meant by "personal preferences"?

Edited August 15 by geordief

[MigL]

Art has value in two ways

1 ) It makes you feel good because you can interpret it to fit your mood.

2 ) You can boast that you can spend that kind of money on something and pretend it makes you feel good.

[geordief]

4 minutes ago, MigL said:

Art has value in two ways

1 ) It makes you feel good because you can interpret it to fit your mood.

2 ) You can boast that you can spend that kind of money on something and pretend it makes you feel good.

I have a friend who travels around the country from one poetry  competition  to another.

She quite  often wins a  monetary prize.Some value there

[Peterkin]

11 hours ago, geordief said:

Would there be an evolutionary advantage  to "art creators"?

Yes. Creative people are generally admired, respected and sought after as mates.

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Art has value in two ways

1 ) It makes you feel good because you can interpret it to fit your mood.

2 ) You can boast that you can spend that kind of money on something and pretend it makes you feel good.

To 1) it doesn't even need to do that. Art exists in many forms and certain types (music, movies/TV, books etc.) are very big industries. 

[Peterkin]

8 hours ago, geordief said:

What about intrinsic worth? Can that be evaluated in any way?

No. Only food, air and water have intrinsic worth. Everything else is evaluated by people according their circumstances and proclivities. 

8 hours ago, geordief said:

Purely subjective,aside from technical ability?

Technical ability isn't important. The personal appeal of art is just that - personal. Most grandfathers would not trade the crooked mug their grandchild made at camp for a Vermeer. Also, not everyone likes Vermeer, or Bosch,  or Dali, who all had technical ability oozing out of their fingers.... and yet.... someone may prefer the picture of a boat on a lake at sunset by some neighbourhood amateur.

The whole business of art is bogus.

[geordief]

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

No. Only food, air and water have intrinsic worth. Everything else is evaluated by people according their circumstances and proclivities. 

Technical ability isn't important. The personal appeal of art is just that - personal. Most grandfathers would not trade the crooked mug their grandchild made at camp for a Vermeer. Also, not everyone likes Vermeer, or Bosch,  or Dali, who all had technical ability oozing out of their fingers.... and yet.... someone may prefer the picture of a boat on a lake at sunset by some neighbourhood amateur.

The whole business of art is bogus.

Doesn't technical ability  increase the "vocabulary" of the artist and thereby the work?

And ,as is often mentioned  you can be  fluent in any number of languages and have nothing worth saying in any.

So ,as a corollary you can be highly technically skilled and also have a worthwhile  expression ** which would make the object more intrinsically valuable than if the opposite were true.

The "business " of art ,whilst it is in the OP  might be a red herring as to whether an artwork can have genuine worth.

 

** not sure how I could define that ,though as a self professed "philistine".

[swansont]

11 hours ago, geordief said:

 

Is that what you meant by "personal preferences"?

It doesn’t need to be that involved. The Beatles had/have a lot of fans, but others thought rock was just noise. There are people who are ambivalent about classical music from the masters. Not everyone loves opera. There’s no right or wrong involved.

[geordief]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

It doesn’t need to be that involved. The Beatles had/have a lot of fans, but others thought rock was just noise. There are people who are ambivalent about classical music from the masters. Not everyone loves opera. There’s no right or wrong 

A lot of people claim that it is "wrong" to close your mind to all forms of musical expression.

That is a debate on its own account

If an artist has lived a life that  is reprehensible (eg arguably MJ)  they will be censored out of  the airways regardless of the quality of the music itself.

Personally ,once an artist has died I lose  nearly all interest in their work (am not looking forward to the  possibly imminent demise of Bob Dylan.... he's not ill but old age is its own illness)

 

[dimreepr]

16 hours ago, swansont said:

A lot of art is unique, or nearly so. And if it’s good, some people want it. Supply and demand.

It's the antipode of supply and demand, I've seen the Rhino unsolicited and if I want it on my wall I've just got to copy and paste.

The artworld has to manufacture it's uniqueness in order to dupe the plebs that think eating at a starred restaurant will taste so much better, bc a famous person got paid to say it does.

[swansont]

34 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

It's the antipode of supply and demand, I've seen the Rhino unsolicited and if I want it on my wall I've just got to copy and paste.

Where’s the value? Original art can be valuable. Copies much less so.

34 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The artworld has to manufacture it's uniqueness in order to dupe the plebs that think eating at a starred restaurant will taste so much better, bc a famous person got paid to say it does.

What does that have to do with anything? Van Gogh isn’t considered great because of celebrity endorsements.

1 hour ago, geordief said:

A lot of people claim that it is "wrong" to close your mind to all forms of musical expression.

I said nothing about closing one’s mind to all forms of musical expression. That’s not even close to what I expressed.

1 hour ago, geordief said:

Personally ,once an artist has died I lose  nearly all interest in their work (am not looking forward to the  possibly imminent demise of Bob Dylan.... he's not ill but old age is its own illness)

That speaks to the role that uniqueness has, though. A dead artist won’t be making more of their art.