In other times and places, the evaluation of art took into account the form of the piece, the quality and detail in its craft(ing), the way it praised God or gods, its utilitarian usefulness (think historical artifacts like swords, fiddles, jewelry or whathaveyou) and the way it defined truth and beauty. I think that a lot of these qualities have ceased to be important in how we talk about art. Instead, our museums and books and galleries and CDs are becoming clogged with art that sacrifices aesthetic quality and does little more than exist as a mirror in which one sees his/her reflection. In short, art is valuable only if one can identify with it in a highly personal, emotional manner.
A certain degree of self-identification is good, I suppose, but when it becomes the sole criterion with which we evaluate art, much of the excitement, usefulness, and, well, fun of experiencing art is lost. Art ceases to be educational and informative in a broad, cultural manner - it simply exists to affirm one's sense of self.
Anyways, the reason I bring this up is because I came across a conservative but really great article on ALdaily today that wrestles with this idea and coherently vocalises some of my recent musings on the matter. It's called "Art for Inclusions' Sake" and it evaluates the current cultural diversity policies of various bigtime museums in the UK. Such policies, it argues, may be a result of good intentions, but ultimately have a low opinion of the minority artist and the minority audience and encourage a self-indulgent engagement of art. Here's an excerpt:
"Today's cultural policy actually has much in common with the nineteenth century brand of bourgeois philistinism that the 'men of culture' were rebelling against. According to the philistines, the only standard of cultural value was the amount of pleasure it gave to the individual. On this basis, English philosopher Jeremy Bentham decided that: 'Prejudice apart, the game of push-pin is of equal value with the arts and sciences of music and poetry.' Another trademark of the philistines was the celebration of everyone having their own opinion. Matthew Arnold satirised this 'doing as one likes', as he called it: 'the aspirations of culture', he said, 'are not satisfied, unless what men say, when they may say what they like, is worth saying…'. In Bentham's pleasure principle, we can see something of cultural diversity policy's emphasis on making visitors feel 'valued'; in 'doing as one likes', we can see the celebration of diversity. The common assumption is that culture is merely about individual preferences and pleasure."
A certain degree of self-identification is good, I suppose, but when it becomes the sole criterion with which we evaluate art, much of the excitement, usefulness, and, well, fun of experiencing art is lost. Art ceases to be educational and informative in a broad, cultural manner - it simply exists to affirm one's sense of self.
Anyways, the reason I bring this up is because I came across a conservative but really great article on ALdaily today that wrestles with this idea and coherently vocalises some of my recent musings on the matter. It's called "Art for Inclusions' Sake" and it evaluates the current cultural diversity policies of various bigtime museums in the UK. Such policies, it argues, may be a result of good intentions, but ultimately have a low opinion of the minority artist and the minority audience and encourage a self-indulgent engagement of art. Here's an excerpt:
"Today's cultural policy actually has much in common with the nineteenth century brand of bourgeois philistinism that the 'men of culture' were rebelling against. According to the philistines, the only standard of cultural value was the amount of pleasure it gave to the individual. On this basis, English philosopher Jeremy Bentham decided that: 'Prejudice apart, the game of push-pin is of equal value with the arts and sciences of music and poetry.' Another trademark of the philistines was the celebration of everyone having their own opinion. Matthew Arnold satirised this 'doing as one likes', as he called it: 'the aspirations of culture', he said, 'are not satisfied, unless what men say, when they may say what they like, is worth saying…'. In Bentham's pleasure principle, we can see something of cultural diversity policy's emphasis on making visitors feel 'valued'; in 'doing as one likes', we can see the celebration of diversity. The common assumption is that culture is merely about individual preferences and pleasure."