I think most people do actually intend to argue about what is "good" art. When a layperson says, "Look at that plain white canvas in this museum, how can that be art?", they're not claiming that they think this particular artifact is a different medium of creative expression than the other paintings. What they are saying is: "I don't feel this work effectively embodies the principles of what I consider to be good art." Whether that thought is justified or not is another story.
An amateur filmmaker with poor taste can create a horrible movie with no sense of design or understanding of the medium. But it's still an artistic work - it's just a poor one. Asking, "How is this movie art?" is like saying, "How is this movie a movie?" If the creator intended it to be art, then it's art, good or bad. Of course, a creator can intend something not to be art, and it's not, until it's intentionally presented or experienced as art by another observer.
Is a toilet art? What if an artist put one in a museum? Is an advertisement art? What if it was placed in a museum? These things have happened, and it's all been accepted as art. It's really about context and how an artists intends it to be. If someone has artistic intention, then they can create art, regardless of the medium or artifact.
It sounds like perhaps you may be arguing that for something to be art, it needs to meet a minimum threshold of quality. I guess that's fair, but at that point it seems futile to argue over those bounds. My definition of art is that those bounds are very low, and yours is that they should be high. Past that threshold, we're still left with bad art and good art.
I personally don't see the need to distinguish between things that are below that threshold ("art" so bad it's not even art), and things that are just above it (art so bad it's barely art). That's why I think it's best to keep that quality threshold at zero, because what we actually care about is determining that value of quality, not whether or not it's above some subjective threshold.
Comments
I think most people do actually intend to argue about what is "good" art. When a layperson says, "Look at that plain white canvas in this museum, how can that be art?", they're not claiming that they think this particular artifact is a different medium of creative expression than the other paintings. What they are saying is: "I don't feel this work effectively embodies the principles of what I consider to be good art." Whether that thought is justified or not is another story.
An amateur filmmaker with poor taste can create a horrible movie with no sense of design or understanding of the medium. But it's still an artistic work - it's just a poor one. Asking, "How is this movie art?" is like saying, "How is this movie a movie?" If the creator intended it to be art, then it's art, good or bad. Of course, a creator can intend something not to be art, and it's not, until it's intentionally presented or experienced as art by another observer.
Is a toilet art? What if an artist put one in a museum? Is an advertisement art? What if it was placed in a museum? These things have happened, and it's all been accepted as art. It's really about context and how an artists intends it to be. If someone has artistic intention, then they can create art, regardless of the medium or artifact.
It sounds like perhaps you may be arguing that for something to be art, it needs to meet a minimum threshold of quality. I guess that's fair, but at that point it seems futile to argue over those bounds. My definition of art is that those bounds are very low, and yours is that they should be high. Past that threshold, we're still left with bad art and good art.
I personally don't see the need to distinguish between things that are below that threshold ("art" so bad it's not even art), and things that are just above it (art so bad it's barely art). That's why I think it's best to keep that quality threshold at zero, because what we actually care about is determining that value of quality, not whether or not it's above some subjective threshold.