There Are No Absolute Guidelines for Judging in Art

"If I state what I think, and I always do then with certainty, one of two results will follow. one) I'll be right, and this will clarify things for others. or two) I'll exist wrong and someone volition correct me - at which indicate I can revise my opinion and no longer be mistaken."

This article is inspired by a number of deep debates and especially i intense conversation with my good friend Charles Philip Brooks. Equally a true friend must, he called me on my very strong assertion that we could compare Soutine and Rembrandt - not just "The Slaughtered Ox", just Rembrandt's late work in general. Given that I've tackled almost every way at one time or another, I felt confident in my comparison. But he very kindly explained in his charming southern manner that such claims could very easily be interpreted by people who don't know me every bit big-headed, naive, or dogmatic (Not his verbal words). He suggested, and rightly so, that if I was going to continue to utilize such business firm language, then I had to accept a damn good argument to back information technology upward. Very true. Frankly, I didn't care if I was wrong. I was, and am, looking for sound logic based upon the most objective information that I have bachelor. And if someone demonstrates logically that a detail assertion is incorrect, I tin and will consider their point of view carefully and alter my stance accordingly. In this vein, Charles pressed me on the topic, and for the first fourth dimension, I clarified to him (and to myself) the reasons why I felt they could be compared. Why visual fine art should stand on it'due south own visually; why nosotros can compare and judge paintings side by side, and particularly why we can and should beginning condone context and attempt to regard the piece lone, with no strings attached. Context can be assessed later, and I'll get to that.

Yes, this is an overwhelming and often unpopular job, only something that I've been concerned with for some time now: forming objective criteria for analyzing and judging art, at least as objective as we can get given that we can't possibly footstep outside of ourselves and our condition every bit humans. I'thou not trying to build an exact science out of the assay, comparison, and understanding of art, and I don't believe information technology will ever be ane - thankfully. But, in my previous experience teaching art, I often find myself striving for some kind of criteria to analyze and describe the work, which wasn't entirely "wishy washy". How to you teach an art pupil? How do yous requite them value for their money without qualitative tools and without pedagogy disquisitional thinking? How do you or they know what is necessary for them to learn? Like explaining such an unstructured field, creating universal criteria is an equally massive task. Merely, I believe it is worthwhile and I believe it tin be done. Why, you might ask, can you exercise this when and so many others before have tried and ... well, non failed, but non quite succeeded? Historical perspective.

I have the benefit of a great accumulation of history, science, philosophy, art, and it'due south all at my finger tips. And I was lucky plenty (role luck, part hard work) to attain - and continue to build on - an education providing the ability to tackle and process such a task and to accept been built-in in an historic period where I have the internet, and the ability to sort through the mountains of data that information technology provides. I'1000 approaching this offset from the perspective of a painter and teacher, secondly from the perspective of philosophy, third from a scientific perspective, and fourth from an art historical angle. Yes, this is a chore which speaks of and demands groovy conviction, simply don't mis-understand me. I don't believe I am greater than those who have tackled information technology before, only in the right fourth dimension, place, surrounded past the right people, and given the correct resources. I'm not the offset to propose this. I'm not inventing the wheel. I'm just trying to synthesize and streamline other approaches into a more objective and clear system. And then, on that note, let usa get straight to the foundations.

Earlier I begin I experience it'southward necessary to define the term "Art" so that nosotros all know what I'chiliad talking about here. When I refer to "Art" I am referring to two definitions. I'm speaking of the original significant of "ars" in ancient Rome, or "tekhni" in Greek, passed down from at least ancient Hellenic republic: which is synonymous with skill, beauty, emotion (the concept being only part of the whole) and is the basis for Odd Nerdrum'due south definition of Kitsch as well as the definition of Fine art used by many of the contemporary realist movements . A nd I'1000 speaking also of the contemporary definition of "Fine art" whic h is primarily the concept.

What is the purpose of Art? This is largely debatable. But virtually answers you lot will hear have something to do with a desire to feel connected - with each other, with a deity, or to exit something of ourselves behind when we dice. Almost answers seem to have a common root in communication. And if we look at the origins of Fine art: cave and rock paintings 40,000 years ago, small sculptures like "Venus of Willendorf", or even early installation fine art: Stonehenge (I'm half serious). Nosotros tin can easily conclude that some kind of advice is intended, for these are all symbols or signifiers of something.

Building on the supposition that the shared primary purpose (among many others which might vary from civilization to culture) of Art is communication, we come immediately to an impasse. Considering each individual person has different experiences in life, they take different contexts and meanings for things. Thus, even the best communication is imperfect. It is impossible to understand exactly the intention of someone else and exactly what they mean. But perhaps this is the reason why Fine art is so necessary and powerful. Through information technology we tin detect other means, or multiple means of communicating. Culture gives us an additional context for significant, but as civilisation changes from one geographic surface area to another, and as it changes over time, outset subtleties are lost, and then more than and more becomes incomprehensible. Then civilization is shifting, and context is shifting... does that mean that pregnant is constantly shifting? Yeah and no.

There is something that nosotros universally share, regardless of where or when we were born, regardless of our gender or language, or ethnicity. We are all human. We have basic needs and desires. Nosotros have a mutual human being nature that has not fundamentally changed in tens of thousands of years. We all understand, or have an overlapping understanding of food, sex, death, fear, anger, dear, comfort, happiness, longing. When we visit a foreign state where we don't speak the language, the offset things we empathize revolve around these elements. My first feel of communication in France was at the farmer's market, selecting the perfect tomatoes. (And they were amazing tomatoes). The woman continuing abreast me tried a sample and the pure pleasure was evident on her face. Sure, this is still western civilization. But the same is true for those newly discovered tribes in Brazil or southeast Asia, who, at the fourth dimension of their discovery, hadn't had contact with any other cultures for thousands of years. Nonetheless, they share the same basic understandings. If we come across a bear in the wood continuing on its hind legs and roaring, we all recognize that this is a sign of danger. Of grade emotions are more complicated than such basic instinctual understanding. But emotions are kickoff based upon instinct and then altered from experiential input. We are genetically predisposed to these universals, and though we are a very flexible species and our deportment can be altered and programed past civilization and individual experience, our deepest desires, fears, and passions are shared and universal to humanity.

So, here is where I brainstorm my search for objective criteria. Without context. Genetics are an expression of the laws of nature and physics, and as considerately as is humanly possible, we can measure, quantify, and depict them. And as near considerately, we can written report, quantify, and empirically depict attributes and universal qualities of human being nature and the human experience - many of which we share with mammals. I won't go into the science, simply it is sufficient here to bespeak out that information technology exists. Though genetics may change over a very, very, long fourth dimension; for our purposes concerning Art, on a human scale - on a mammalian scale, these things are applicably constant and stable.

Of grade, it begins to get tricky when we move to Art, because past the very nature of communication, nosotros crave at to the lowest degree 2 people. We require customs and civilization at least on a basic level. But any anthropologist volition tell you that cultures are built upon the foundations of human nature and their interaction with the particular environment in which they alive. Form follows role first. And then, form may vary and evolve - based on the initial function. And so, if we effort to stay aware of our own cultural and individual biases and dogmas, which misconstrue our perception (not always in a bad style) then we can sympathise some of the bones elements of human nature and of culture, and for our purposes, communication.

Considering of human demand, in that location seem to be several purposes for communication. The obvious is, of course, conveying pregnant. But we too require other needs of advice, for case the well-existence we receive from just feeling continued with someone. Communication seems to serve the purpose of both providing data and various kinds of emotional gratification. This nuanced line between the ii seems to be where Art lies, in the verse of our common connection. Strip away all context, and that which is left, is the thing that is Art. What I'yard proposing here is similar to the idea of New Criticism, which I've merely very recently discovered.

Context, by definition, is something on the outside, imposed upon the field of study. The universal human experience is something on the inside. It is the subject area of communication. Everything has context, but we cannot judge something based upon its context. The human relationship is analogous to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. You cannot simultaneously measure both the position and velocity of a subatomic particle. What I'm getting at is that context is relative to the perspective of the viewer, whether the viewer is in the same culture or time period as the artist. Further, there is the question of what context is relevant. Is what the artist had for breakfast relevant? So, context is entirely dependent upon the knowledge of the viewer and is projected upon the actual piece. I'm not saying understanding the context intended by the artist (equally far every bit nosotros can empathise intention) is meaningless. I'm simply saying that context cannot stand on its own. Information technology requires something to refer to for meaning to take place, and the value of the context is absolutely dependent upon the communicative efficacy of the work itself.

The question: "How well does the work communicate" can exist clarified to ask "How well does it speak to our shared experience. How deeply and clearly does it fulfill the needs that nosotros crave of communication"? Thus, the most objective means of judging the success of an artwork is past judging how well it communicates to our shared human qualities, in the language that nosotros all intuitively understand to the deepest core of our being. How well does information technology connect us? It is difficult to ask both for depth and clarity... depth entails nuance, and clarity requires specificity. Then we take to develop some basic guidelines, or principles by which we can gauge a particular piece of work'due south success in fulfilling our emotional and intellectual needs.

I call up we can break it down into 3 bones principles: skill, emotion, and content. The emotional component and the content are obvious, as they direct fulfill our needs vis a vis communication. Skill, is more of an indirect but absolutely necessary principle. Some degree of skill is necessary to convey pregnant and create emotional resonance. But the more nuanced the meaning, the more than nuanced the emotive content, the more skill is necessary to convey information technology. This is not a quality judgment. Goya'south "Saturn Devouring his Son" is a very successful piece with two principal emotional meanings: disgust and empathy. We don't need to know Greco-Roman mythology to experience the affect of this painting. We need no context other than the fact that nosotros are homo, that we are alive. What we recognize is another man being, twisted and tortured by experiences and powers across his command. Somehow the madness in the eyes of Saturn can seduce us to imagine that we, ourselves, are unwillingly compelled to do something that we then revile, that we so deeply detest, that information technology twists our physical trunk to an almost unimaginable extent. Almost. This tension between compulsion, disgust, and empathic agreement is a powerfully harmonic combination. The technical skill is more than sufficient to enable the exact balance of expression and recognizable form/symbolism. The brilliance comes in the specific remainder of all these elements. If you compare it to Rubens' painting of Saturn with the same championship, we may find ourselves amazed past his skill and subtlety. But the empathy is not quite in that location. The skill is moving and cute in its own right, but the emotional/psychological content (every bit conveyed by the facial expression and posture, amid other compositional elements) contains only a single note: disgust, and therefore is less successful. Observe I said: less successful. This piece is withal highly successful in terms of unifying our three criteria in an effective combination. Just information technology is not as successful every bit Goya. It's not very authentic to say good or bad, what nosotros require is a relative scale.

Yeah, cultural elements: narrative meaning, iconic significant, subtle complexities of context in society and the life story of the artist tin can and exercise enrich and add together to the value and the power of the slice. Civilization and teaching can contribute subtlety and nuance, and often the greatest works exercise this every bit well. But context alone is bereft and is e'er shifting similar the sand. Context tin can only communicate and then much, and it is very poor at fulfilling the emotional component of advice. Thus, it must be built upon a strong root, to concur fast to the rock beneath the sand that is our common human being bedrock. The greatest works communicate on many levels, but the fundamental level is to communicate our fundamental selves. The esoteric is not entirely without value, but it is secondary.

I will only briefly touch on beauty because that is another very complex field of study which we should discuss in improver to this, only not within this article. Beauty is certainly hard to define, only if we look at it empirically, we tin can observe a significant overlap in people's subjective opinions of what beauty is. Our ideas of beauty are also malleable, given our cultures and private experiences. Beauty of some kind that, at to the lowest degree partially, meets our overlapping sense of dazzler is intertwined with skill, emotion, and concept and volition be a natural conclusion of the effective harmony between these elements. I think it possible to build upon the framework here to effort to define nearly objective ways of analyzing and agreement the idea of beauty and many other elements in art.

Something like Damien Hirst's "The Impossibility of Death to the Mind of Someone Living" has a smashing deal of meaning and remarkably, some minor degree of emotional resonance, held within its context. However, though this work is influential and historically important, information technology's communicative ability volition exist short lived even if it is physically preserved for thousands of years. The time will come when much of the context surrounding is forgotten, just a fraction being recorded in history, and then it will be just a dead shark. A symbol of perchance terror, consumption, and our ain mortality. A certain amount of logic might atomic number 82 1 to conclude, that equally the work of the random acts of evolution: Nature or God - this is Fine art. Only further than that, all subtlety is lost and this will not be the only object inspiring these question in our minds. Then, relative to our time it is very successful in fulfilling by and large the conceptual portion of our communicative need to a small, esoteric group, but compared to many other pieces, and given the span of history, it disappears into mediocrity.

I don't speak of historical relevance, nor of influence. These are values placed upon the context of a piece and are non addressed here. This is not a criteria for judging the context, but the physical object or the experiential element (in the case of theater or music) of the piece itself. Of grade the clarity of comparison varies co-ordinate to the nature of the pieces compared. Information technology is more difficult to compare Rothko with Peter Bruegel that information technology is Bruegel with Bosch, but in terms of bones principles it is possible. I'yard not saying this is an absolute separation. In that location are indeed overlaps. Like all dichotomies, this is merely a useful tool for analysis.

So now, perhaps we tin can compare a few fundamentals, but it begs the questions: is this meaningful, is this relevant? Why? My answer is to say: because communication is a human being necessity. Nosotros are social creatures and we need the fulfillment emotionally and psychologically, and we need the content both psychologically and practically. Comparison gives us clarity, obviously in the making and understanding of Art, just also in understanding ourselves and each other. Rational comparison is the basis of the scientific method. Refusing comparing, in the brusk term may be easy and immediately practical, but in the long term it drives us further apart past creating a chasm between our perceptions and understanding of each other and ourselves; thus fostering misunderstandings both pocket-size and major. By extension, advice and Art are the foundation of social interaction and therefore civilization. Comparison helps to strengthen the stone upon which it was built, and quite only, enrich each individual human experience. The value comes not in the fact that we tin can compare these works, but as a point of departure. The value lies in what nosotros can acquire from such comparisons about the work, the nature of communication, and ourselves. We can begin to build an understanding of the relationship of these elements.

Without honest objective comparison (again, as objective as we can exist), nosotros are likely to fall further and further into the relativism of Postal service-modernistic philosophy. Fine, some might say, but the end upshot of this amongst other things, is the devaluation of all art and the subtle skills of communication. How is that? Well, if all things are equal and tin't be compared, and then by logical extension all things are every bit meaningless. If all things are Art, so nothing is Art. Value is relative and depends upon a hierarchical relationship.

Why is something more or less valuable? Because information technology is more or less successful at fulfilling its principal purpose.

These criteria: skill, emotion, content - seem to be as stable and objective equally nosotros tin become (until someone smarter, or with more than information comes forth to clarify this hard subject - and if you're out there and reading this, please fill up me in!) Culture changes, contexts shift, and our perceptions can be colored and blurred by learned behavior and life experiences. But the roots of homo experience and man nature are the same, and as long every bit humanity as we know it is around, these criteria will agree. Human art is nearly human communication, so, we cannot brand whatever claims about ultimate "truth". Just the work itself, in guild to be the most successful, should first take the qualities within itself - devoid of context - and speak to each person who experiences the work. It must fulfill their impulse for advice, it must stir their longing and speak to them. It must show us that we are not alone.

Again, this is non a value judgment. Though I personally have fabricated my ain subjective value judgments autonomously from this theory and volition exercise so in the futurity. Just this is simply a valuable tool of analysis which we can build on. The result is that there seem to be ii options. We tin split the classical arts of painting and sculpture from the larger contemporary fine art globe and judge them primarily on these criteria, whether nosotros telephone call it "Kitsch" or something else. Or we tin can begin to use these tools of assay to contemporary fine art (at to the lowest degree visual art) instead of ambiguously judging visual languages based on solely their context, by using the subjective tools of linguistic assay, which focus on verbal and written forms of communication (we tin thank Foucault for that).

The elementary analytical tools that I've outlined are almost objective. The conclusion reached from those tools is debatable, and up to yous.

pegueroprithey.blogspot.com

Source: http://artbabel.blogspot.com/2010/04/judging-art-almost-objectively.html

Share this post