Do people seek quality in art?

[fvgazi]

If you want to learn about "art", take a college class in Decontructionism.

Actually, deconstructionism is just one particular view on art: one that effaces notions of truth. Derrida's The Truth in Painting would be the canonical deconstructionist text on art, IMO.

Every time we debate art on here (in games, music, etc.) I get frustrated because most people haven't ever read anything about art from a critical perspective. Lots of wheel-spinning, little productive discussion. I've posted this list before as kind of a "What is Art?" 101 - I suggest that people read them first and then we'll see what kind of discussion we can have.

For those genuinely interested in the "what is art" debate (something I studied in graduate school and occasionally refer to in my own critical scholarship), there are a few "classic" pieces worth reading:

George Dickie - "What is Art? An Institutional Analysis" (sorry, I can't find a version on the web - it is requisite reading to this discussion, though - go hunt it down!).

Arthur Danto "The Artworld" - http://estetika.ff.cuni.cz/files/Danto.pdf

Stephen Davies - “First Art and Art's Definition,” (again, no pdf)

Robert Stecker's books on the subject are also good (http://www.amazon.com/Robert-Stecker/e/ ... r_dp_pel_1)

Morris Weitz - "The Role of Theory in Aesthetics" (still hunting a full text pdf)

For those who don't care for academic prose:

A more encyclopedic summary on Dickie and others: http://homepage.mac.com/ryanal/InstitutionalTheory.pdf

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry - http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/art-definition/

A point by point summary of Dickie, others: http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/irvi ... world.html

A well written web-based reply to Dickie: http://artandaesthetics.wordpress.com/2 ... is-of-art/

Almost all of this stuff predates the deconstructionist view on art, but since Derrida and the like are largely responding to some of the discussion above, you should start there.

It wouldn't hurt to read critical theory addressing aesthetics, either. Eagleton and Adorno come to mind, as does Heidegger and Wollheim.

I agree with you completely, but I think Derrida wouldn't take the time to debate if Waterworld, Avatar, or Don Pachi was an example of "good art". Having most of the racketeers read The Truth in Painting might confuse them more than come to an answer. I am certainly no philosophy aficionado, but, I remember the basics of a discussion like this can get pretty abstract. Similar to what I would equate telling someone to understand English theater by reading all of Shakespeare and analysis of him (and other important english theater people.. i don't know anything about it - hopefully you get the point).

I also agree that if people are going to debate something like this, they should be well versed it in. General_Norris - you probably shouldn't be asking if people are actively seeking good art, but whether or not they enjoy watered down plots and having movies/games/books/any medium do the thinking for them. The answer is that most people will say yeah, they would rather. It's sad, but I think majority of people just want to loose themselves for a while. It has nothing to do with art. It also has to do simply with taste. We're living in a different generation that people growing up even 10 years ago.

I guess the real bottom line is... who cares? Shitty movies grossing millions of dollars does not affect my ability to already enjoy the music, movies, and video games I already like.

[dsheinem]

I agree with you completely, but I think Derrida wouldn't take the time to debate if Waterworld, Avatar, or Don Pachi was an example of "good art". Having most of the racketeers read The Truth in Painting might confuse them more than come to an answer. I am certainly no philosophy aficionado, but, I remember the basics of a discussion like this can get pretty abstract.

I agree that Derrida is a rough entry point, but the readings I listed initially really aren't that tough to get through. And while Derrida might not analyze Warterworld or DonPachi, much of contemporary film criticism and game studies scholarship (or pop culture criticism in general) directly or indirectly draws on more "heady" theory to do their critical work.

It has nothing to do with art. It also has to do simply with taste.

The importance of "taste" is why I suggested reading stuff about aesthetics...art as a concept can't really be separated from the concept of taste, ultimately.

I guess what irks me is that the recurring "what is art?" discussion here or almost anywhere else on the web is full of intellectual pretense and posturing, but no one actually puts in the effort required to engage in actual academic debate.

[fvgazi]

I understand your aesthetics argument. To most people it seems that "opinions are opinions". I know very the bare minimum to even start having a discussion. I'm now inclined to read read up on it just because it sounds interesting. The point I was making, which I think you tied into was, that the majority of people having these discussion online do not have the knowledge to hold a discussion. It's hard to talk about this stuff without an academic background in it.

The importance of "taste" is why I suggested reading stuff about aesthetics...art as a concept can't really be separated from the concept of taste, ultimately.

I guess what irks me is that the recurring "what is art?" discussion here or almost anywhere else on the web is full of intellectual pretense and posturing, but no one actually puts in the effort required to engage in actual academic debate.

Exactly! No truer words have been spoken.

Now time to daydream about playing borderlands while at work.

[Erik_Twice]

General_Norris - you probably shouldn't be asking if people are actively seeking good art, but whether or not they enjoy watered down plots and having movies/games/books/any medium do the thinking for them.

The question is the same, you just reduced the scope of my question since "Watered down plots" means "lower quality plots". And there's no reason to ask only about plot.

I'm asking if quality affects what people like without any kind of judgement on such people.

I'm asking about data because you can't draw a conclusion without it.

[dsheinem]

I'm asking if quality affects what people like without any kind of judgement on such people.

I'm asking about data because you can't draw a conclusion without it.

When you are dealing with whether or not something is "quality", you aren't in the realm of objectivity or "data" any longer. Some art that I think is quality has a ton of viewers, makes a lot of money, etc. Other art that I think is quality receives no mass recognition at all. You can't quantify quality.

[Erik_Twice]

When you are dealing with whether or not something is "quality", you aren't in the realm of objectivity or "data" any longer.

I would say it's not marths, but it's not entirely subjective either. In fact, I think it's objective, but our capacity of measuring it objectively is a different matter.

Anyways, it strikes me as watching our navels because at the end of the day both you and I claim objectivity when it comes to art. For example:

the gaming crash a few years earlier had been a market flooded with low-quality games. Fortunately for Nintendo, their launch titles were not low quality.

And it's not bad! (Like your blog, btw ) We need to be able to do this, because a somewhat subjective "fact" is better than nothing.

It's not the most objective topic in the world but being so strict is useles. If Megaman took 2 seconds to move after you pushed the button, can't we really claim that that makes the game worse? Can't we say that a plane with an obvious string is a bad special effect?


In fact, this topic has the same goal as your blog does. In the same vein you ask if a console success was influenced by it's launch including quality of games I wonder if the success of a game is dependant on it's quality.