tangomonkey
Active Member
Zoops:
"Are you speaking of contemporary (lifetime of the artist) "expert" opinion or how history will judge?"
May be either or both.
"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"?"
No.
"If someone is wildly popular with the masses (as is Van Gogh today) does that discount the value of "expert" opinion?"
No.
"Do people need to understand WHY a popular artist is held in high esteem by experts for their preference for that artist to "count"?"
No.
"How do you rank legitimate and historically important artists whose work is inflated due to popularity (like Van Gogh) "
Do you mean inflated as highly priced due to popularity?...That's just supply and demand.
"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 isn't impossible to define art in a meaningful way; difficult, yes, very. Expert opinion is based on study and analysis, which is objective, not subjective. Historical importance, ie how subsequent artists/composers were influenced is a consideration. Whether the expert likes or dislike a particular piece of art or music is subjective, but there is more to it than say simple first impressions.
As I said, individuals have likes and dislikes and tastes, that is what matters.
"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?"
Don't almost alll threads drift off from the OP after a few days...
"Are you speaking of contemporary (lifetime of the artist) "expert" opinion or how history will judge?"
May be either or both.
"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"?"
No.
"If someone is wildly popular with the masses (as is Van Gogh today) does that discount the value of "expert" opinion?"
No.
"Do people need to understand WHY a popular artist is held in high esteem by experts for their preference for that artist to "count"?"
No.
"How do you rank legitimate and historically important artists whose work is inflated due to popularity (like Van Gogh) "
Do you mean inflated as highly priced due to popularity?...That's just supply and demand.
"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 isn't impossible to define art in a meaningful way; difficult, yes, very. Expert opinion is based on study and analysis, which is objective, not subjective. Historical importance, ie how subsequent artists/composers were influenced is a consideration. Whether the expert likes or dislike a particular piece of art or music is subjective, but there is more to it than say simple first impressions.
As I said, individuals have likes and dislikes and tastes, that is what matters.
"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?"
Don't almost alll threads drift off from the OP after a few days...
