I have thoroughly enjoyed this debate on good taste/art and the like, but I must point out that we are 8 pages in and no one has directly addressed OP's question (unless I have missed it). Don't shoot me ladies and gents, just want to hear your opinions on that!
😀
don’t you come in here, at the end of an argument, and try to talk sense......😝
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.
You use the terms intrinsic value and intrinsic beauty. The piece you site has neither. But then if I agree with you, and others do, we have consensus.
...and you.
What makes this worth $40 million in terms of it's "intrinsic value"?
I understand the market believes it's worth this much, but that is not intrinsic value, but market value...
While you initially call it about taste, you then divert from that to include things like skill and "emotional power", which I assume is the impact a work of art makes on the audience or society at large.
You put a well known master up against an unnamed work with no background on the intent of the work, what statement it is making, etc. This is why I don't accept this type of argument or comparative examples, because one is loaded with a history of reverence, and the other has nothing behind it - this is intentional I know, but it makes the argument somewhat spurious to me.
This is false, Al. I used "taste" to characterize what the Vogels displayed.
The Barnett Newman example is a straw man. I never argued that all artists whose work is highly valued in terms of dollars are necessarily great, or important. Though undoubtedly an interesting figure, I don't consider him an artist that is comparable to the great artists whose work has been valued highly by viewers, critics, and scholars alike, over far greater periods of time.
When I speak of "intrinsic" value I am never referring to monetary value.
Well known masters reached their status over long periods of time. Some of them struggled throughout their professional lives and were only recognized widely post mortem. So to argue that they have an unfair advantage when juxtaposed with contemporary, or less well known older artists, is not really accurate, although I understand your point.
But yes, I have used extreme examples because if you aren't able to accept that there are profound intrinsic differences in beauty and power between the two, then the argument is essentially stopped in its tracks. But if, as I would suggest would be the case with most people, you would agree that the cigarette butts work is easily understood as being deeply inferior to a Rembrandt, then we can continue from there.
Not in the post I quoted above, Tony. The Vogel's aren't mentioned there. You used "preferences" as an indication of "taste" between the two extreme examples you put forward,
Of course he can't be considered to be great over the same time as someone who may have been born and died hundreds of years before. So the time over which someone is revered can't be used as "proof of greatness" in my view, because if that "greatness" was truly "intrinsic" to the work, it would not need time as proof.
Perfect - the fact that these people were only considered masters after they died, should tell you something. Why were they not recognized immediately for their talents? If these works were so obviously master works, why isn't this recognized straight away?
It's exactly the same thing, Al. The Vogels displayed remarkable taste, and any viewer choosing between my two examples would also be displaying their own tastes. I never used the word "taste" in reference to artists – only to viewers/listeners.
You're just being argumentative here, Al. And below (another straw man), as I never claimed that "great" works were necessarily instantly recognizable.
This argument has bothered me since you first used it. While you initially call it about taste, you then divert from that to include things like skill and "emotional power", which I assume is the impact a work of art makes on the audience or society at large.
You put a well known master up against an unnamed work with no background on the intent of the work, what statement it is making, etc. This is why I don't accept this type of argument or comparative examples, because one is loaded with a history of reverence, and the other has nothing behind it - this is intentional I know, but it makes the argument somewhat spurious to me.
A better comparison would be another artist from the era who can paint with equal skill, takes on similar subjects, yet doesn't have the fame. To me, this is where your arguments for "greatness" or whatever the term of the day is, fall apart. I don't think anyone can deny that there are very talented artists out there who's works are not held in such reverence, but there's no good reason for it when you look at the works on their face value. As you said earlier in the thread, being in the right place at the right time, has a lot to do with this...luck unless you are believer in fate.
But to me here is the cigarette butt work in a real life example...
Barnett Newman's "Voice of Fire" at the National Gallery of Canada. Painted in 1967, purchased in 1990 for $1.8 million, it is now valued at over $40 million. It is acrylic on canvas, is 213 inches X 94 inches, and consists of 3 vertical stripes.
"intrinsic beauty, emotional power, or the level of skill"
Okay intrinsic beauty? Not really...I mean I like stripes but are these the best stripes I've ever seen? Better than pink and green together, but is there real beauty there?
Level of skill? Roller and two cans of paint...
Emotional power? Mostly puzzlement and then outrage that money was spent (taxpayer money) for this work. Oh and the controversy that ensued when they found out it was originally hung upside down by the gallery, although I personally cut them some clack on this one - unless there is a "this side up" instruction on the back, I can see how this mistake was made.
I've seen this work in person at the gallery, so for those who insist that this isn't about the flavour of the day and all that, just one question:
What makes this worth $40 million in terms of it's "intrinsic value"?
I understand the market believes it's worth this much, but that is not intrinsic value, but market value...
So how was I "false" then? I never said the taste was about the artist, so I don't know why you are trying to say I did.
While you initially call it about taste, you then divert from that to include things like skill and "emotional power"
You can continue to use the "straw man" label if you choose, but I clearly never indicated that YOU said that greatness was instantly recognizable.
