> Qualifying art as "good" or "bad" is a subjective measure you probably should've left in middle school
Judging good from bad requires hubris, and a strong internalized belief in some kind of inalienable order. The inability to distinguish good from bad is an inability to distinguish between virtue and vice, wholesome and depraved, worthwhile and worthless. In other words, someone who distinguishes between good and bad takes on the role of judge and all the responsibilities that entails. The one who doesn't, abdicates this responsibility, and thus frees themselves from accountability. Which is cool. But lame.
Judging art is harmless. So dare be a judge in the presence of art. It is strangely liberating.
> And realistically, you'll never really know what is "good" or "bad" art without years of exposure to the ideas and thoughts that go into the work.
That's a premise, which is relatively modern. With art, you can just known in your bones when something is good, and when something is bad. When in the presence of "good" art, there's a gravity you can physically not escape. That feeling can be intellectualized, of course, it makes for fun dinner conversations. Nonetheless, it is absolute.
All that said, the article is actually pretty good (although it is not to my taste).
> someone who distinguishes between good and bad takes on the role of judge and all the responsibilities that entails. The one who doesn't, abdicates this responsibility, and thus frees themselves from accountability.
Nah :)
Someone can judge a work as "good" or "bad" then shrug off any "responsibility" e.g. by dismissing further discussion.
Equally someone might judge a work to be neither good not bad but something else -- disruptive, satirical, insightful, humble, obsequious -- and willingly take "responsibility" for their judgement, i.e. defend, debate, discuss, modify it.
> Judging art is harmless.
This is strongly dependent on context. To someone's face? As a politician?
> So dare be a judge in the presence of art. It is strangely liberating.
Judging good from bad requires hubris, and a strong internalized belief in some kind of inalienable order. The inability to distinguish good from bad is an inability to distinguish between virtue and vice, wholesome and depraved, worthwhile and worthless. In other words, someone who distinguishes between good and bad takes on the role of judge and all the responsibilities that entails. The one who doesn't, abdicates this responsibility, and thus frees themselves from accountability. Which is cool. But lame.
Judging art is harmless. So dare be a judge in the presence of art. It is strangely liberating.
> And realistically, you'll never really know what is "good" or "bad" art without years of exposure to the ideas and thoughts that go into the work.
That's a premise, which is relatively modern. With art, you can just known in your bones when something is good, and when something is bad. When in the presence of "good" art, there's a gravity you can physically not escape. That feeling can be intellectualized, of course, it makes for fun dinner conversations. Nonetheless, it is absolute.
All that said, the article is actually pretty good (although it is not to my taste).