The “I like it.” “I don’t like it.” criteria for what is art can be valid, but only for that one person. How can you decide what is art in a more universal sphere.
Back in January last year I was ranting about gatekeepers and critics eviscerating Art. My whole point is that the idea that someone other than the ‘appreciator’ SHOULD dictate what is art and what is good taste is WRONG.
Too many instances of some galleryist proclaiming themself an arbitor of Art, taste, or value actually flies in the face of what art is.
The philosopher L. Ron Hubbard in his seminal series of essays on Art says “Art is a word that summarizes the quality of communication.” So Art is a communication and how good is that. How good does it have to be?
In the essay Art, More About he says how good the technique must be: “Technical expertise itself adequate to produce an emotional impact.” Are you writing a sad song, is it good enough to make the listener feel blue, can it make the listener cry?
How do you know what effect is evoked? From the essay Art and Communication “True art always elicits a contribution from those who view or hear or experience it. By contribution is meant ‘adding to it’.”
So how can a ‘gatekeeper’ tell anyone about art? Clearly all they can tell is their opinion and everyone knows an opinion’s relation to anatomy. However within the framework of a communication of sufficient technical execution to elicit a contribution there is now a way to at least talk about a piece to another from a common ground. And it may still be I like, I don’t like but one can now judge how much.
Next I want to look at some work through this viewpoint.