Art

When two objects of art are in different categories, are they judged by the same criteria? Compare a modern pop song and something written by Mozart. Or <i>Citizen Kane</i> compared to the latest Ben Stiller movie? Andy Warhol compared to Rembrandt. I've heard critics argue that even a dumb movie is good, because that's what it was intended to be. If everything is judged by a different criteria, then the adjustable criteria could allow for all objects to be judged highly.

Comments

A good question. Every human production seems to have criteria according to which it can be judged successful or unsuccessful. For example, the 'latest Ben Stiller' movie is intended by its makers to make people laugh (at the right times), feel good, and thus buy cinema tickets and DVDs. The consumers are by and large happy to agree with this set of criteria. A product that matches its criteria is 'successful'. A film that everyone agrees is a comedy, but at which no one laughs, is unsuccessful.

One problem arises when there is disagreement about success: one critic finds a movie funny, another finds it boring. Another problem is when more than one set of criteria are in use: the director wants to make a film about an issue, but the studio wants to sell tickets. Ben Stiller wants to play a serious role, but his public just want him to be funny. A comedy is deemed funny by many, but is condemned by others as demeaning to some group (thus, it is ‘unsuccessful’ according to criteria that include issues of respect, compassion or understanding).

So, a dumb movie that was intended to be dumb is successful. ‘Success’ is an ‘adjustable’ measure, as you say, and everyone accepts that. But being successful and being ‘art’ are two different things. Whatever is meant by ‘art’, it will not mean success according to adjustable measures of success.

Read another response by Douglas Burnham

Read another response about Art