Do people seek quality in art?

[Erik_Twice]

It's something I have always wondered but I still haven't checked any hard data to see if they do or not. Do people watch good movies? Do they read good books? Do they play good games?

I haven't watched, say, Waterworld and people claim that it bombed in the box office because it was bad but given how successful Twilight has been, can we really say that it failed because it was bad?

I think that checking the highest grossing films of each year would be a good start albeit not a perfect one since it's just a correlation and not a direct causation.

For example, how many people bought Looney Tunes because they knew the name compared to how many buy it because they are good shorts? A very sizable part of the people who watched Avatar went to see the 3D effects, acknowelding it was a bad movie. Would this even out or would it render the test useless?


I think that people do not seek quality. They will reject something if it's really bad but they won't learn from the experience so they never achieve a critical mind so as to discern what they like and what they don't or what is good and what isn't.

What do you think? Do you think people look for quality?

[D.D.D.]

Quality, good, etc are open to interpretation and people's opinions aren't they?

[CRTGAMER]

I think a lot are initially swayed by advertising trends to see a particular movie. Once the fizzle dies down, then DVD sales tend to be a somewhat honest assessment to a point. Having seen the single disc rental, I waited for the special edition of Avatar to come out for purchase. In this case the movie's story is crap, but the "Art effects" is why the purchase for the collection.

This same argument can apply why some shun the classic Retros because of the basic 8 bit graphics. A loss of exposure to great games.

[fvgazi]

If you want to learn about "art", take a college class in Decontructionism. All these things you're talking about are gimics and trends. Art doesn't really have "good" and "bad" qualities - it is supposed to portray or convey a truth. Explaining it feels impossible because the "truth in art" has been debated since greek times. It doesn't literally mean a true thing it gets a bit deeper than that. There are several books written on it (I remember reading hiedegger mostly). I barely understand it coming out of the classes, but it's very wordy and german all that stuff.

Art differs from just a pop song, an arcade game, or a blockbuster hit. People aren't really looking to experience an extension of the artist when they go to the movies. They are going to get entertained and see things blow up and people have sex.

I don't see what's wrong with it either. We don't have to be pondering about truths and communication all the time to enjoy something. Sure, I love "artsy" stuff, but I also love to watch aliens get decapitated in Distric 9.

I firmly believe that there are video games out there that can be considered "art". Games that tend to focus on the experience / characters and less on game play fit into the category better.

[AppleQueso]

OP's question seems a little ridiculous to me, but I can't really point out why I think that.

Fvgazi I think nailed it though. Can't think of anything to add to what he said.

[Erik_Twice]

Art differs from just a pop song, an arcade game, or a blockbuster hit.

I would say that all those are art and so don't differ from it. The most mindless blockbuster is art, be it good or bad. Movies with things that blow up are art too, and they can be good art.

Anyways if you don't think art can be good or bad, there's little we can do but agree to disagree.

[dsheinem]

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.

[AppleQueso]

Art differs from just a pop song, an arcade game, or a blockbuster hit.

I would say that all those are art and so don't differ from it. The most mindless blockbuster is art, be it good or bad. Movies with things that blow up are art too, and they can be good art.

Anyways if you don't think art can be good or bad, there's little we can do but agree to disagree.

I think you may have missed the point he was trying to make in his post.

[Opa Opa]

The way I see it, art is any particular idea or object (through any medium: game, music, film, literature, etc.) that, based upon personal biases and tastes, has more desirable qualities than another idea/object in the same medium.

...

Am I getting somewhere?

[GamerMON]

My fiance went to art school. From talks with her, I can safely say I have no clue what art "is". The only thing I know is what I like and what I dislike. Everything else seems to be a justification of one of those two options.