Are there absolutes in art?

[Josh]

Mark and I debated this question last night, and let me warn Mark to read through this post carefully, because, after hearing some of his good arguments, my position has shifted slightly.

The question is whether there are absolutes in art. For example, is there ever a time when one has the right to say that all people should appreciate Artwork A? Or is it strictly a matter of opinion?

I'm becoming more and more open to the idea of there being room for debate and disagreement over such matters, but I maintain the following points:

1. There are some absolutes when it comes to craftsmanship. If a carpenter makes a table that has legs of varying lengths, and therefore the table is so slanted that nothing will stay on it, then it's a poorly made table. Plain and simple. Likewise, there are certain things in music, film, etc. that separate poor art from fine art.

2. If art reflects the truth and beauty in God, then there must be some absolutes in this area, as well. For example, Iona's "Treasure" reminds us not to worry because God provides for us. This is praiseworthy. How can a Christian listener argue that, if nothing else, the intentions of the song are honorable? What is being said here simply cannot be debated very well; you can only debate the way in which it's being said.

Just some points to get the ball rolling. Let me know what you think.

[Vlad!]

Just some points to get the ball rolling. Let me know what you think.

I think these are well-stated points, and (scarily enough) I agree with you on most of the main issues.

However, I would point out that not everything is absolute, not by a long shot. To continue your table example, the slanted table is indeed poorly made. But what if the table itself was level but the style of carving wasn't something that you liked? Others may still like that style, so to say that it is poor craftsmanship would be wrong because that is really just your opinion.

I do need to qualify the above, though, because in this culture it always gets taken too far: if the table is gaudy, hideous, or badly carried-out, it is still legitimate to criticize the table. While some might conceivably like clashing colors, asymmetric angles or badly-done designs, these are things that can be objectively pointed to as criteria for a well-made table. So it's important to determine what is a defect in craftsmanship or execution (and therefore should be critcized) and what is well-executed art that you simply don't like.

[Emericana]

I almost trapped myself replying here. I was originally going to say "There are absolutes when something is supposed to be done a certain way, such as a table", but then I remembered how formulaic most music is today. I guess there is an absolute to some degree: if a creation (your table, for instance) cannot serve its purpose, it's useless. Things like music do not have this restriction, because they have no defined purpose.

So I guess I think that no, there are no absolutes in art. Every work of art will be enjoyed by someone, right? Maybe I'm off base here...what do you pholks think?

[Josh]

Keep in mind that I'm not talking about personal preference. You're more than welcome to like or dislike the aforementiones table, and it's fine if you enjoy it despite its failure to function properly. But that doesn't change the fact that, technically speaking, it's still a poor table, your opinion aside.

 

[Emericana]

Right, but can art function improperly? Sure a table can, but a table is designed for a specific purpose. Maybe I'm just wrong.

[Vlad!]

I should have replied to your second point as well. I ran into this during the Downhere debacle last week: their stance was 'how dare we criticize the outpourings of someone's soul?'

I have to say, this is a silly comment. I am a horrible singer. Even if I am praising God joyfully, my attempts at making music are not going to be very pleasant. The fact that I'm praising God is good, but that doesn't mean I should make a CD out of it and sell it! Once a singer decides to market the 'outpourings of his/her soul' for commercial purposes, I would say they become valid targets of critcism.

I guess there is an absolute to some degree: if a creation (your table, for instance) cannot serve its purpose, it's useless. Things like music do not have this restriction, because they have no defined purpose.

If I buy music, I want it to sound good, so I don't wince when a bad chord is hit. I often want it to say something meaningful, so I'm not just listening to mindless drivel. I like catchy beats and fun tunes that make me want to sing along or (if I'm in the car) exceed the speed limit (er, was that out loud?). And if an album doesn't do that, it's not serving its purpose. This is an objective standard, of course, but it is one of many examples of how art does indeed have a purpose, and some art serves it better than others.

[Emericana]

I'm going to have to do a little thought collecting before I go any further in this, because as you can see, I suck at debating.

[Vlad!]

That's fine; thought is good ;]

[Emericana]

I decided I agree with you.