Expert Opinion: the consens opinion of art historians/professional artists; musicologist/professional musicians, etc
Are you speaking of contemporary (lifetime of the artist) "expert" opinion or how history will judge?
The obvious example of Van Gogh comes to mind.
If someone's art crosses over all 3 categories, is that the true test of "art"?
If someone is wildly popular with the masses (as is Van Gogh today) does that discount the value of "expert" opinion?
Do people need to understand WHY a popular artist is held in high esteem by experts for their preference for that artist to "count"?
How do you rank legitimate and historically important artists whose work is inflated due to popularity (like Van Gogh)
And then there's the Beatles....
It's
almost impossible to define "art" in any meaningful way. No matter how expert someone is, their view is still subjective. The only test that probably has much
objective validity is how much or in what direction an artist influences what comes after them. (which is why Van Gogh is not just a popular artist). Then it becomes an analysis of history, rather than of the art itself.
Everything else is just someone's opinion... even if they are an expert.
It seems this conversation has drifted over to one that was being addressed in another thread... Is the actual topic of
this thread about the artistic merit of weding dance choices, or the practicality of the way wedding dances are approached?
