- Posts
- 16,246
- Likes
- 44,716
JwRosenthal
·At some point, when words take on multiple definitions, they become useless.
Aristocracy of Taste v/s Democracy of Acquisitions (Reflections)
- Posts
- 6,622
- Likes
- 21,397
M'Bob
·To clarify, I'm asking you why, if it is truly "intrinsic" to the work, why isn't it instantly recognizable.
You are making an assumption that these two things are intimately related. Why does the recognition have to be immediate? As Tony said, the concept is not invalidated if takes some time, for some people, to see something that had always been there.
- Posts
- 1,790
- Likes
- 2,001
michael22
·Well, @michael22 , I don't find that argument to be compelling. You are suggesting, among other things, and to revert to one of my previous examples, that the preference of a canvas with used cigarette butts glued indiscriminately to it, over a Rembrandt master work, would, because humans are not limited in their preferences, and preferences can change over time, somehow be an expression of equally good taste as a preference for the latter. I rather doubt that any but a tiny percentage of people might agree that because it is theoretically possible that such a change in preference could take place on a mass scale, the two works are therefore somehow indistinguishable in terms of their intrinsic beauty, emotional power, or the level of skill required to create them.
If your point, however, is that every individual is entitled to their preferences, and that they are all in some sense equal, I might agree. But when one places value judgements on them, the exercise obviously becomes more complicated., and not just on terms of art or music.
I do agree that taste is not a popularity contest, and never suggested that it is. I even made the distinction between mature and immature markets (or contexts), and pointed out that artists whose work has been held in extremely high regard for centuries have more solid standing than those whose work is relatively young.
Along the same lines, elections are a poor analogy, as they are clearly transitory popularity contests, held and decided within a very narrow spectrum of time. There is also tremendous room for disinformation and money to influence elections, so the results are often not based on either good information or careful analyses. I would say that television, which is also a form of popularity contest, would be a better example to support your view, and there is an interesting tangent to the discussion that could be tied to TV, that being how some art works are created in a relatively independent manner, while others are clearly reflections of, or responses to broad, popular culture.
Your last point is a bit of a straw man, albeit an interesting one. I never suggested that being able to discern good taste included any sort of detailed ranking of taste. That would, in my view, be taking things much too far.
Finally, and again, this is at least partly a semantic problem. Take my original example of the Vogels. One could argue, it seems to me, that either something very unusual and special underpinned their choices of art, that it was largely a matter of luck, or that there was no significance whatsoever. But even those who agree with me that it was the former might reasonably object to my use of the word "taste" in the context of the discussion. There may be a better word to express what I was attempting to say.
I am indeed suggesting that honestly held preferences are equal, when it comes to taste. And also that statistical rarity or popularity doesn't change the value of the held opinion.
I also agree that elections are a poor analogy. I merely wished to point out that popularity of an opinion is no measure of intrinsic value.
I fail to see your mature/immature market distinction as a support for your position. It is, from one perspective, simply a popularity poll over time. From another perspective, it allows people pushing a barrow to push their barrow, & "educate" the market or population as to what they should perceive as valuable. Another perspective is that antiquity can confer its own value. So maturity clouds the issue, rather than proving any kind of intrinsic taste or value.
Similarly with your example of the Vogels. At some point in history, the Vogels became a valuable part of the story, & I suspect that each artwork they collected is now more famous & lauded, simply because they owned it.
I'm not sure which point you refer to as a strawman. If it is my story of volcanic activity changing attitudes toward sunsets, I can only disagree. Sunsets have been held as an example of intrinsic beauty or taste. Intrinsic taste should not be changed by changes in the surrounding environment. I suggest this widely held opinion is not due to an intrinsic quality of sunsets, but due to the fleeting & rare nature. If we lived in an environment where reds were pervasive, & other hues became visible only briefly at midday, I believe societies would stop to admire the fleeting strangeness of midday.
I also have not attempted to rank taste.
- Posts
- 5,460
- Likes
- 8,495
Peemacgee
·I have been trying to stay out of this Lazarus argument (thank you @michael22 !) as it is somewhat circular and its obvious that views are irrevocably entrenched.
However, I can't help notice finite statements, that are impossible to justify, are being used as proof of conclusion.
In relation to the Newman:
"You use the terms intrinsic value and intrinsic beauty. The piece you site has neither." (sic)
In general:
"the cigarette butts work is easily understood as being deeply inferior to a Rembrandt"
I personally believe that the Newman is quite beautiful.
The artisan ability of the artist may not be deemed as skilful as an 'old master' but that is not the only metric upon which art is judged.
Cigarette butts might not be your personal thing but we're not comparing apples to apples here.
Are the abstract works of Naum Gabo or Henry Moore inferior to Canova or Rodin because they're not figurative sculpture?
Or is it the lack of perceived effort that singles the anecdotal 'butt-art', (and indeed the Newman) out for criticism?
Where is the inferiority line drawn?
Duchamp, Pollock, Rothko, Koons?
Tony touched upon it earlier by mentioning the 'power' in art - art is about how it makes the viewer (or listener) feel and not necessarily the style or the manner of the creation of the art.
Figurative art appeals to some, whilst impressionist or abstract art appeals more to others.
As Rembrandt has been cited often in this discussion, I delved a little into his story.
He was generally appreciated in his own country but criticised in Italy and France (for a century or more) as his style didn't conform to the 'accepted conventions' of the French Royal Academy, which had set ideas of what constituted 'good art'.
Were the critics right?
Certainly not in my eyes, I would gladly swap a dozen of their 'right' paintings for a Rembrandt but to them his works were a mess of blurry daubs.
Likewise, the beauty of nature has been raised as proof of intrinsic beauty but then conflated with created art,
Below is a painting by Yves Klein.
Possibly only one pot of paint this time but it is one of the most beautiful paintings I have had the privilege to view.
It gives me the same feeling that someone else might get from a cloudless blue sky or a flat-calm azure ocean.
I repeat myself, I know - but there is no right answer to art, nor intrinsic beauty or lack thereof.
However, I can't help notice finite statements, that are impossible to justify, are being used as proof of conclusion.
In relation to the Newman:
"You use the terms intrinsic value and intrinsic beauty. The piece you site has neither." (sic)
In general:
"the cigarette butts work is easily understood as being deeply inferior to a Rembrandt"
I personally believe that the Newman is quite beautiful.
The artisan ability of the artist may not be deemed as skilful as an 'old master' but that is not the only metric upon which art is judged.
Cigarette butts might not be your personal thing but we're not comparing apples to apples here.
Are the abstract works of Naum Gabo or Henry Moore inferior to Canova or Rodin because they're not figurative sculpture?
Or is it the lack of perceived effort that singles the anecdotal 'butt-art', (and indeed the Newman) out for criticism?
Where is the inferiority line drawn?
Duchamp, Pollock, Rothko, Koons?
Tony touched upon it earlier by mentioning the 'power' in art - art is about how it makes the viewer (or listener) feel and not necessarily the style or the manner of the creation of the art.
Figurative art appeals to some, whilst impressionist or abstract art appeals more to others.
As Rembrandt has been cited often in this discussion, I delved a little into his story.
He was generally appreciated in his own country but criticised in Italy and France (for a century or more) as his style didn't conform to the 'accepted conventions' of the French Royal Academy, which had set ideas of what constituted 'good art'.
Were the critics right?
Certainly not in my eyes, I would gladly swap a dozen of their 'right' paintings for a Rembrandt but to them his works were a mess of blurry daubs.
Likewise, the beauty of nature has been raised as proof of intrinsic beauty but then conflated with created art,
Below is a painting by Yves Klein.
Possibly only one pot of paint this time but it is one of the most beautiful paintings I have had the privilege to view.
It gives me the same feeling that someone else might get from a cloudless blue sky or a flat-calm azure ocean.
I repeat myself, I know - but there is no right answer to art, nor intrinsic beauty or lack thereof.
- Posts
- 7,643
- Likes
- 26,498
Tony C.
··Ωf Jury memberMichael –
It seems to me that you and Al are, at times, presenting reductio ad absurdum arguments. Of course preferences are equal in the abstract sense, as everyone is entitled to their own. But when works of art are judged to be extraordinary by nearly everyone, and stand the test of time, it can be assumed that the widespread preferences and strong reactions do, in fact, have meaning. Such preferences can also be explained, minimally by experts, so it is not simply a matter of individual preferences, but powerful united reactions to certain artworks. The reason that virtually everyone would choose the Rembrandt in my extreme hypothetical has nothing to do with luck, or marketing advantages. There are intrinsic reasons why one work is obviously more beautiful, and/or emotionally moving than the other.
Of course I understand that there are markets at work, and that some artists, especially in contemporary society, enjoy the advantages of promotion by the "right" galleries and critics, etc. But part of the reason that the distinction between mature and immature markets is important is that there are ongoing reassessments in the latter, so those artists and works that have benefitted from such advantages are typically debated and reassessed. Here is a useful, related article on Basquiat, entitled Dont believe the Basquiat hype. Basquiat, of course, is very well known, considered by many to be "important", and his works have sold in recent years from a few thousand dollars to $110 million:
https://www.thestar.com/entertainme...06/dont-believe-the-basquiat-hype-review.html
When you assert that "statistical rarity or popularity doesn't change the value of the held opinion", that would be only in a narrow sense.
I would say that this is, at best, well overstated. The Vogels certainly didn't drive the market, and whatever influence they may have had didn't have any meaningful impact until much later in their period of collecting. While it may be true that some collectors value works that were once owned by the Vogels more highly than others by the same artist(s), that is simply a superficial market tangent, like a watch collector showing preference for a double-branded Türler Omega.
I take your point about sunsets, but you are simply saying that context is important (or crucial). If there were dozens of artists who appeared every year who painted and wrote music almost exactly like Rembrandt and Mozart, then the works of the originals would, of course, be similarly de-valued. But we live in a world in which beautiful sunsets are almost unanimously considered to be beautiful, and in which artists considered to be great have produced works that are exceedingly rare and powerful in certain respects. So to argue that the perceptions might, or would change within radically different contexts, doesn't seem to me to move the conversation forward.
It seems to me that you and Al are, at times, presenting reductio ad absurdum arguments. Of course preferences are equal in the abstract sense, as everyone is entitled to their own. But when works of art are judged to be extraordinary by nearly everyone, and stand the test of time, it can be assumed that the widespread preferences and strong reactions do, in fact, have meaning. Such preferences can also be explained, minimally by experts, so it is not simply a matter of individual preferences, but powerful united reactions to certain artworks. The reason that virtually everyone would choose the Rembrandt in my extreme hypothetical has nothing to do with luck, or marketing advantages. There are intrinsic reasons why one work is obviously more beautiful, and/or emotionally moving than the other.
Of course I understand that there are markets at work, and that some artists, especially in contemporary society, enjoy the advantages of promotion by the "right" galleries and critics, etc. But part of the reason that the distinction between mature and immature markets is important is that there are ongoing reassessments in the latter, so those artists and works that have benefitted from such advantages are typically debated and reassessed. Here is a useful, related article on Basquiat, entitled Dont believe the Basquiat hype. Basquiat, of course, is very well known, considered by many to be "important", and his works have sold in recent years from a few thousand dollars to $110 million:
https://www.thestar.com/entertainme...06/dont-believe-the-basquiat-hype-review.html
When you assert that "statistical rarity or popularity doesn't change the value of the held opinion", that would be only in a narrow sense.
Similarly with your example of the Vogels. At some point in history, the Vogels became a valuable part of the story, & I suspect that each artwork they collected is now more famous & lauded, simply because they owned it.
I would say that this is, at best, well overstated. The Vogels certainly didn't drive the market, and whatever influence they may have had didn't have any meaningful impact until much later in their period of collecting. While it may be true that some collectors value works that were once owned by the Vogels more highly than others by the same artist(s), that is simply a superficial market tangent, like a watch collector showing preference for a double-branded Türler Omega.
I take your point about sunsets, but you are simply saying that context is important (or crucial). If there were dozens of artists who appeared every year who painted and wrote music almost exactly like Rembrandt and Mozart, then the works of the originals would, of course, be similarly de-valued. But we live in a world in which beautiful sunsets are almost unanimously considered to be beautiful, and in which artists considered to be great have produced works that are exceedingly rare and powerful in certain respects. So to argue that the perceptions might, or would change within radically different contexts, doesn't seem to me to move the conversation forward.
- Posts
- 6,622
- Likes
- 21,397
M'Bob
·I will just say, taking a step back, that I’m really impressed by you guys. To be able to talk about the nuances of watches and art with equal facility is indeed impressive.
The art issue is like holding water in one’s hand: much of it can’t be contained. There are no absolutes, just generalities. Yes, you can say that if one person thinks it’s art then it is, but in general, this is not true.
What gets lost in this idea that anyone who puts pen to paper is a writer, bangs a drum is a musician, of dabs paint on a canvas is an artist if one other person thinks so, is that it denies one of the fundamental qualities of what these all have in common: they are communication media. They tap into our humanity, they evoke common responses that connect us.
Now, the obvious flaw in my argument is that once something is created, is has to be appreciated by one person (or a small number) first, before it has the chance to be disseminated. In addition, to put further holes in my point, if something in its embryonic stages gets squashed until later, and then is massively adored, the people at the earlier time could argue it wasn’t art at that juncture. So already, we see the era of creation plays a role. More variables...
But, since we need to put some parameters around this elusive topic, we could maybe posit the following: if a piece of art is appreciated and deemed beautiful by different cultures, over long stretches of time, by large numbers of people, and by those educated in the arts and those that know nothing about it, and would have a high monetary value across different societies, could we not say, in a simple, non-exclusive way, that we are getting close to something that has intrinsic beauty and importance?
The art issue is like holding water in one’s hand: much of it can’t be contained. There are no absolutes, just generalities. Yes, you can say that if one person thinks it’s art then it is, but in general, this is not true.
What gets lost in this idea that anyone who puts pen to paper is a writer, bangs a drum is a musician, of dabs paint on a canvas is an artist if one other person thinks so, is that it denies one of the fundamental qualities of what these all have in common: they are communication media. They tap into our humanity, they evoke common responses that connect us.
Now, the obvious flaw in my argument is that once something is created, is has to be appreciated by one person (or a small number) first, before it has the chance to be disseminated. In addition, to put further holes in my point, if something in its embryonic stages gets squashed until later, and then is massively adored, the people at the earlier time could argue it wasn’t art at that juncture. So already, we see the era of creation plays a role. More variables...
But, since we need to put some parameters around this elusive topic, we could maybe posit the following: if a piece of art is appreciated and deemed beautiful by different cultures, over long stretches of time, by large numbers of people, and by those educated in the arts and those that know nothing about it, and would have a high monetary value across different societies, could we not say, in a simple, non-exclusive way, that we are getting close to something that has intrinsic beauty and importance?
- Posts
- 27,359
- Likes
- 69,758
Archer
··Omega Qualified WatchmakerTony,
The bias of your positions in this discussion is leading you to inject things into my posts that aren't there. At no time was I speaking about the artists in this, as I've already stated. These are people's perceptions of the artist and art, so it is always from the viewer's point of view.
The perception of intrinsic beauty, the perception of skill, the emotional power is all personal perception. I admit "diversion" wasn't the best choice of words here, and you seem to have focused on that rather than the actual point.
I did not imply any such thing. These are, in your own words "master works" so they are obviously master works to you...
The bias of your positions in this discussion is leading you to inject things into my posts that aren't there. At no time was I speaking about the artists in this, as I've already stated. These are people's perceptions of the artist and art, so it is always from the viewer's point of view.
The perception of intrinsic beauty, the perception of skill, the emotional power is all personal perception. I admit "diversion" wasn't the best choice of words here, and you seem to have focused on that rather than the actual point.
It can't have been a "diversion" given that one relates to those who perceive the art, and the others to the artists and artworks themselves. I have attempted to refine terms, or use some additional ones, in order to make my views more clear, but the word "taste" was always applied to the viewer, so the others, used in reference to the artist and/or works, are in a different vein entirely.
If you mean that my descriptions of art and its impact on viewers have included various terms, yes, that's true. But a "diversion"? That makes no sense, as the terms that I have used are all consistent in the context of their references.
I did not imply any such thing. These are, in your own words "master works" so they are obviously master works to you...
Perhaps you didn't clearly indicate it, but when you say this (bold emphasis mine):
"If these works were so obviously master works, why isn't this recognized straight away?"
you are implying that I somehow asserted that they were, since their inception, "obviously master works". And I didn't.
But to answer your question, it may well be that certain works were recognized as such by a certain percentage of viewers, but also that some works require time in order for them to be fully appreciated. This happens in other areas as well, including philosophy and mathematics. Not all "great" or "important" treatises and theorems were immediately considered to be so.
- Posts
- 27,359
- Likes
- 69,758
Archer
··Omega Qualified WatchmakerYou are making an assumption that these two things are intimately related. Why does the recognition have to be immediate? As Tony said, the concept is not invalidated if takes some time, for some people, to see something that had always been there.
Again, I am not. I am asking if they are truly master works, have intrinsic beauty, and all the other loosey-goosey, firm as half set jello terms that keep getting used here, does it take time for the recognition to happen?
And if it takes time, what does that say about the works now that Tony doesn't find important? Is he missing the boat by relying on the current consensus of experts, collectors, etc.? Why does it take time and a consensus for things that are so obviously "great" or insert your term of choice here, to be recognized as such?
This all goes back to the Vogel's, where Tony insists that their choices would inevitably be seen as great, where I don't believe that is the case. The market, for whatever reason has come to recognize then as such, but even Tony recognizes that being in the right place at the right time was a factor (luck) so I am not convinced of the inevitability of the choices being what they are today.
- Posts
- 6,622
- Likes
- 21,397
M'Bob
·Again, I am not. I am asking if they are truly master works, have intrinsic beauty, and all the other loosey-goosey, firm as half set jello terms that keep getting used here, does it take time for the recognition to happen?
And if it takes time, what does that say about the works now that Tony doesn't find important? Is he missing the boat by relying on the current consensus of experts, collectors, etc.? Why does it take time and a consensus for things that are so obviously "great" or insert your term of choice here, to be recognized as such?
This all goes back to the Vogel's, where Tony insists that their choices would inevitably be seen as great, where I don't believe that is the case. The market, for whatever reason has come to recognize then as such, but even Tony recognizes that being in the right place at the right time was a factor (luck) so I am not convinced of the inevitability of the choices being what they are today.
All been asked and answered. We’re going in circles here.
- Posts
- 27,359
- Likes
- 69,758
Archer
··Omega Qualified WatchmakerCigarette butts might not be your personal thing but we're not comparing apples to apples here.
Are the abstract works of Naum Gabo or Henry Moore inferior to Canova or Rodin because they're not figurative sculpture?
Or is it the lack of perceived effort that singles the anecdotal 'butt-art', (and indeed the Newman) out for criticism?
Where is the inferiority line drawn?
Duchamp, Pollock, Rothko, Koons?
Tony touched upon it earlier by mentioning the 'power' in art - art is about how it makes the viewer (or listener) feel and not necessarily the style or the manner of the creation of the art.
Thank you - you have articulated some of what I'm getting at here.
Let's take Tony's example of the "cigarette butt" art, from an anonymous unskilled artisan, with zero backstory and change it up a bit...
Let's say that instead of dying how he did, Pollock died of lung cancer from smoking. Let's say that he understood his diagnosis and the cause, and just before he died he made a piece of art to reflect on this and warn people of the dangers of smoking. Kind of like pulling a "Yule Brenner" if anyone remember the PSA he did when he knew he was dying and told people not to smoke.
Let's say this this piece of art with what Tony believes are randomly glued butts were actually placed "precisely" by Pollock, but Tony simply doesn't recognize this precision.
This work and the story behind it has a profound impact on popular culture, Pollock's estate gives permission for it to be widely used in anti-smoking campaigns, and the rate of smoking drops because of all this.
Do we now see this Tony generated example in the same way Tony describes here?
"I rather doubt that any but a tiny percentage of people might agree that because it is theoretically possible that such a change in preference could take place on a mass scale, the two works are therefore somehow indistinguishable in terms of their intrinsic beauty, emotional power, or the level of skill required to create them."
This is why the example put forward as Tony did, is spurious. Without the same deep understanding and study of a particular work, understanding of the artist and the meaning behind the work, the bias that is already inherent in the art world would obviously reject it as Tony says it would, but maybe not for the reasons Tony believes...
- Posts
- 27,359
- Likes
- 69,758
- Posts
- 7,643
- Likes
- 26,498
Tony C.
··Ωf Jury memberLet's take Tony's example of the "cigarette butt" art, from an anonymous unskilled artisan, with zero backstory and change it up a bit...
I'm well ahead of you on this, Al, as I was aware of the possible objection when I first used the example. Yes, such a work could be a statement about smoking, and in that context, could possibly be deemed "important". But it would be a pure, simplistic political statement, and would only likely resonate beyond a tiny number of viewers if it were produced by a well-known artist (as you admit). It could also as easily be produced by a non-artist. Goya, in sharp contrast, was a master at making political statements through art, as his works required absolutely exceptional technical skill, and were, no matter how disturbing the message, in a sense remarkably beautiful. Their impact was far greater than the potential of a relatively simple gimmick like the one that you propose.
I'll add that I never suggested that no one would ever make the less obvious choice, and even with a tiny minority seeing something "important" in the cig butts, my related point stands. I also could have chosen to use countless other examples that wouldn't be open to such a "clever" objection.
Do we now see this Tony generated example in the same way Tony describes here?
"I rather doubt that any but a tiny percentage of people might agree that because it is theoretically possible that such a change in preference could take place on a mass scale, the two works are therefore somehow indistinguishable in terms of their intrinsic beauty, emotional power, or the level of skill required to create them."
No, "we" don't. I've addressed your hypothetical above, and the problems with it. Furthermore, with that hypothetical you have addressed only one of the three points in my quote. Would the cig butts work require more skill than a Rembrandt? No, in fact vastly less. Would it be more beautiful? No, not in any normally accepted use of the word. There would again be no comparison.
Individuals cam claim to respond emotionally to any work of art, but that in no way leads to the conclusion that all art is somehow equal. Long ago on this thread I made the obvious points that a work could be beautiful, but also unimportant, or important, but not at all beautiful. It could evoke strong emotions, but be simplistic, and lack any kind of visual beauty. Etc.
Ultimately, you're claiming that no value judgements are possible because there is always someone who may disagree, and that is, to my mind, a reductio ad absurdum argument.
Edited:
- Posts
- 27,359
- Likes
- 69,758
Archer
··Omega Qualified WatchmakerUltimately, you're claiming that no value judgements are possible because there is always someone who may disagree, and that is, to my mind, a reductio ad absurdum argument.
Skip all the rest, because this is again where you are either not getting it, or are willfully ignoring it.
I'm not arguing that that no value judgements are possible - in fact I'm claiming all values are simply judgements, and not "intrinsic" to the work...
- Posts
- 5,460
- Likes
- 8,495
- Posts
- 5,460
- Likes
- 8,495
Peemacgee
·Would the cig butts work require more skill than a Rembrandt? No, in fact vastly less.
Would it be more beautiful? No, not in any normally accepted use of the word. There would again be no comparison.
Individuals cam claim to respond emotionally to any work of art, but that in no way leads to the conclusion that all art is somehow equal.
Define 'skill' in art.
The 'cig butts' may take a great deal more intellectual skill than a bloke that is handy with a paint brush.
Define beauty in art
Whilst the old adage of 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder' was previously dismissed as simply personal choice, this is in fact the crux of the matter.
All art is in fact equal, in that it is the intent of the artist that is the essence of art.
How it is received and perceived is an entirely different matter.
- Posts
- 6,622
- Likes
- 21,397
- Posts
- 27,359
- Likes
- 69,758
Archer
··Omega Qualified WatchmakerIf you can’t distinguish it from what a child could render, then it’s not high skill. If asked to, and shown, I could render the blue painting above. If asked to, and shown, I could never replicate a Veronese.
This is a very narrow definition. Is the skill simply applying the paint to canvas? Or is it much more than that?
- Posts
- 6,622
- Likes
- 21,397
- Posts
- 7,643
- Likes
- 26,498
Tony C.
··Ωf Jury memberI'm not arguing that that no value judgements are possible - in fact I'm claiming all values are simply judgements, and not "intrinsic" to the work...
No, Al, you're the one who is not getting it. I'm speaking of value judgments based on widely held understandings of aesthetics (such as beauty), not individual value judgments in the sense that you mean. There is overwhelming agreement about the beauty and/or power of certain works, and you have been attempting to argue that those agreements have nothing to do with the intrinsic qualities of the works. Yet the intrinsic qualities are precisely what catalyze such powerful, and uniform reactions.
Edited:
- Posts
- 7,643
- Likes
- 26,498
Tony C.
··Ωf Jury memberDefine 'skill' in art.
The 'cig butts' may take a great deal more intellectual skill than a bloke that is handy with a paint brush
The thought behind a work is absolutely of value, but lol! at your example.
All art is in fact equal, in that it is the intent of the artist that is the essence of art.
Just because all artists have personal "intent", it doesn't follow that all art is "equal". That's basically the same as Al's assertion that because viewers are free to perceive art in any way that they like, there can be no reasonable claim of intrinsic beauty or power in one individual work that exceeds that of another.
