# Criteria for Assessing Art (all mediums)



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I've found my criteria after literally years of searching and pondering what it is I'm about. This goes for all mediums of Art,

1. I feel all Art creates a world for us to engage with, no matter what it is. So my first question is, do I like the world that is being created. For literature, the world is created through the story and the characters. Film, Music and Paintings are pretty straightforward in understanding the concept of how a world is created through these mediums. For example, I don't really care for Mozart much b/c I don't like the colors he uses; they aren't juicy enough for me. However, I do think he is very clever and witty.

On the flip side, take something like the first movement from Beethoven's Sixth Symphony, I love the world that creates, it's beautiful and _vivid_, and really takes you to the pasture mentally while listening. There are other movements of this piece, which I can't recall right now by number, that I don't enjoy the world that is created by it as much b/c it doesn't feel juicy enough.

I call this component of Art Appreciation, _Vivid_.

2. The second component is _Sophistication_. All this means is, do I personally find the work to be classy and high end. Most Classical music I find fits this bill, but not all of it do I enjoy the world it creates, component one mentioned above.

3. The third and final component of Art Appreciation I have devised is _Emotive_. This one is plain and simple, do I enjoy the emotions the work evokes in me. Lots of music fits this bill for me, but the other two components mentioned above are also important to me.

This is such a huge breakthrough for me, as many of you know, I've been changing my stance on, especially music, b/c I couldn't figure out what criteria was laying deep inside my mind. Perhaps some of you will appreciate and utilize this as well, but perhaps not!

Based on this, I'd love some Classical _and_ Non-Classical music recommendations.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

I have about the same criteria, but add uniqueness. I feel like uniqueness is usually seen by most people as horribly bad for any kind of art, but I feel exactly the opposite.

For a non-classical suggestion, have you listened to Bill Evans?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> I have about the same criteria, but add uniqueness. I feel like uniqueness is usually seen by most people as horribly bad for any kind of art, but I feel exactly the opposite.
> 
> For a non-classical suggestion, have you listened to Bill Evans?


Only Kind of Blue. What album do you recommend?


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Only Kind of Blue. What album do you recommend?


I love that album. I think Evans really ties everything together nicely. His live albums Sunday at the Village Vanguard (



) and Waltz for Debby (



) are highly acclaimed, and his studio album Portrait in Jazz (



) which I have on vinyl is highly acclaimed as well.


----------



## endelbendel (Jul 7, 2018)

When you recognize yourself in it. E.g., Robert Walser's comments on paintings. Also, per affective listening to music.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

endelbendel said:


> When you recognize yourself in it. E.g., Robert Walser's comments on paintings. Also, per affective listening to music.


I think all three of the components I listed above could go under the title "Art Appreciation: Recognizing Yourself in Art". For that is at the heart of it.


----------



## endelbendel (Jul 7, 2018)

i heard an interview with Paul Motian in which he identified Portraits in Jazz as a personal favorite. Motian was long time the drummer in the Evans trio.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> I love that album. I think Evans really ties everything together nicely. His live albums Sunday at the Village Vanguard (
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I just put on Portrait in Jazz. I loved the first track, then the second track started up and I didn't find it as colorful. Let me try Waltz for Debby.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

I can't get enough trio cool jazz. I'm really all about small ensembles. I want to be the drummer of a jazz trio someday. I made a post on craigslist but got no responses sadly. I'm not in a very musical place anymore, I used to live in Chicago.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I just put on Portrait in Jazz. I loved the first track, then the second track started up and I didn't find it as colorful. Let me try Waltz for Debby.


There is his own version of "Blue in Green" (which he composed) on Portrait in Jazz which you'd probably be interested in. Waltz for Debby and Sunday at the Village Vanguard are probably my favorite albums of his. They're more acclaimed than any of his studio albums. My favorite tracks from each are the titular "Waltz for Debby" and "Alice in Wonderland".


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> There is his own version of "Blue in Green" (which he composed) on Portrait in Jazz which you'd probably be interested in. Waltz for Debby and Sunday at the Village Vanguard are probably my favorite albums of his. They're more acclaimed than any of his studio albums. My favorite tracks from each are the titular "Waltz for Debby" and "Alice in Wonderland".


I think I prefer the slower Evans tracks in general. The more upbeat ones, while nice, don't pull me in as strongly. Does he have an album of all ballads?


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

36, you're a romantic. I don't care for Mozart either. I'm a big Bill Evans fan. I recommend the late 70s albums You Must Believe In Spring, and I Will Say Goodbye. And listen to a tune called Elsa from the Evans/Cannonball Adderley album Know What I Mean. And try Black Narcissus by Joe Henderson.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

starthrower said:


> 36, you're a romantic. I don't care for Mozart either. I'm a big Bill Evans fan. I recommend the late 70s albums You Must Believe In Spring, and I Will Say Goodbye. And listen to a tune called Elsa from the Evans/Cannonball Adderley album Know What I Mean. And try Black Narcissus by Joe Henderson.


I just put on "You Must Believe In Spring". So far so good! I hope it keeps up, I'd love to add some Evans to my collection.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I think I prefer the slower Evans tracks in general. The more upbeat ones, while nice, don't pull me in as strongly. Does he have an album of all ballads?


I don't recall. I haven't listened to him very much lately. Perhaps his later albums when he was becoming extremely depressed and self-destructive, such as You Must Believe in Spring (



).


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Another beautiful jazz ballad by McCoy Tyner.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

I was beaten to the punch!


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I just put on "You Must Believe In Spring". So far so good! I hope it keeps up, I'd love to add some Evans to my collection.


Be sure to listen to track no.5, The Peacocks. It's a gorgeous tune!

Also, the 1962 Evans album Moonbeams is all ballads. It's a great album!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

starthrower said:


> Be sure to listen to track no.5, The Peacocks. It's a gorgeous tune!
> 
> Also, the 1962 Evans album Moonbeams is all ballads. It's a great album!


I need an album full of compositions and improvisation like "The Peacocks".


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I just put on "You Must Believe In Spring". So far so good! I hope it keeps up, I'd love to add some Evans to my collection.


You Must Believe in Spring is great. Especially for a fan of M*A*S*H. For something different from Evans, try Conversations with Myself (best through headphones). I also like the two duet albums he did with Jim Hall.

After Evans, the trio I listen to most is Keith Jarrett/Jack DeJohnette/Gary Peacock


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Here's another beautiful Evans tune played by John McLaughlin on nylon string guitars. He simply states the melody here. For the full tune with piano solo see the Moonbeams album I mentioned.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Speaking of Jarrett, this little tune is just magical and beautiful!


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

The McCoy Tyner album, which I own and need to spend more time with, reminded me of Joe Henderson's tribute albums, one to Miles and one to Billy Strayhorn. Both are great.

Edit - the two Henderson albums are So Near/So Far and Lush Life.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

The McCoy was beautiful.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Another tune I never tire of is Jim Pepper's Witchi-Tai-To. It's been recorded many times.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

This is one of Jim's beautiful renditions.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

starthrower said:


> Speaking of Jarrett, this little tune is just magical and beautiful!


I love his album, The Klhon (spelling?) Concert. Beautiful!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Here is an Indian song in the Tamil language that my family speaks that I absolutely love. It's one of two Tamil songs I really love that I've been exposed to:


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I love his album, The Klhon (spelling?) Concert. Beautiful!


Me too! Treasure Island is my pick for one of the most beautiful jazz records ever! The chemistry among these truly special and unique musicians is pure magic. It just oozes soul. Charlie Haden's bass sound on this record fills up the entire room with good vibes.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Okay, I've got one more. The famous Thad Jones ballad, A Child Is Born. There are many fine recordings, but I like this early 70s electric version by Eddie Harris. Stanley Jordan also recorded a beautiful solo guitar version on his debut album.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

starthrower said:


> Speaking of Jarrett, this little tune is just magical and beautiful!


I just put on this album on Spotify, sounding awesome so far!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Can someone recommend a Sibelius Symphony based on what I've made clear in this thread to the best of my ability?


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Can someone recommend a Sibelius Symphony based on what I've made clear in this thread to the best of my ability?


No.2 Bournemouth Symphony/Paavo Berglund


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

starthrower said:


> No.2 Bournemouth Symphony/Paavo Berglund


I'll listen to this after I finish up Kind of Blue. I'm hoping to read Hamlet tonight, I must be in bed by midnight and take a shower at 11:30 PM, so I'm hoping to stop music by 8!

Can I do it????


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

starthrower said:


> No.2 Bournemouth Symphony/Paavo Berglund


I loved it, thanks! (But, I have got caught listening to a live Concert by Phish tonight, so looks like Hamlet will have to wait until tomorrow night!) That's ok, yesterday was a big reading day for me, I finished The Canterbury Tales and read Beowulf too, both were fantastic!


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Fredx2098 said:


> There is his own version of "Blue in Green" (which he composed) on Portrait in Jazz which you'd probably be interested in. Waltz for Debby and Sunday at the Village Vanguard are probably my favorite albums of his. They're more acclaimed than any of his studio albums. My favorite tracks from each are the titular "Waltz for Debby" and "Alice in Wonderland".


How about Two Greens make a Blues?


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

First, it shoud be "(all media)" -- the plural form of medium. 

Second, in a similar vein, Goethe suggested people ask three questions of an artistic experience:
1) What is the artist trying to say?
2) How well did he say it?
3) Was it worth it?
Somewhat simplistic, but a good start.

Third, I haven't listened to McCoy Tyner in years, but I did have and enjoy Keth Jarrett's Cologne concert a lot until suddenly I didn't need to listen to it anymore.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Liszt's Transcedental Etudes, Prokofiev's War Sonatas, Scriabin's Black Mass Sonata, are as sophisticated and brilliant as anything musically, even if they sound vulgar in a way.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

How about Liszt's Années de Pèlerinage?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I'll check those out Phil & Fred.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I've found my criteria after literally years of searching and pondering what it is I'm about. This goes for all mediums of Art,
> 
> 1. I feel all Art creates a world for us to engage with, no matter what it is. So my first question is, do I like the world that is being created. For literature, the world is created through the story and the characters. Film, Music and Paintings are pretty straightforward in understanding the concept of how a world is created through these mediums. For example, I don't really care for Mozart much b/c I don't like the colors he uses; they aren't juicy enough for me. However, I do think he is very clever and witty.
> 
> ...


Your system is interesting. It is clearly a very personal one. It also seems to fit well with what I know of your tastes.

I am trying to work out what mine would be. So far I have only thought that mine would keep changing (developing, I hope) and is led by what I have enjoyed - rather than defining it (I am not saying your system defines your taste). I'd also be interested in how others might define their tastes.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> Your system is interesting. It is clearly a very personal one. It also seems to fit well with what I know of your tastes.
> 
> I am trying to work out what mine would be. So far I have only thought that mine would keep changing (developing, I hope) and is led by what I have enjoyed - rather than defining it (I am not saying your system defines your taste). I'd also be interested in how others might define their tastes.


I'm very much about definition and method. I try to find the deepest underlying values so that it will last forever; ie what is at the root of who I am and what I stand for.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

If one might wish to develop a criteria to assess art, I would suggest being familiar with the broad field of what is already considered great art, in music, painting, sculpture, dance, literature, whether you agree with those assessments or not, and then work  backward from there where the quality of certain works are not as readily apparent. Otherwise, it can sound like some very ill-considered opinions based upon too limited a field, making an intellectual problem out of what should be a pleasure. Visit Michelangelo's _David_, shout out that it's ugly or a poor work of art in the cubicle where it is, and see how far that gets you. It suggests that even the public has some type of an objective standard of what constitutes great art or it wouldn't be so highly regarded by the general public from the streets as well as by those steeped in art. Whether one interprets art on a purely subjective basis, the public has already voted down through the centuries on the quality of certain works, and so, challenge them at your own personal risk. Nevertheless, no one has ever been obliged to like anything, even something as magnificent as Michelangelo's _David_. I think the only thing that could be said against it is that it might not be the great art that one is looking for or it somehow doesn't meet one's personal needs at the time. But I wouldn't view that as being Michelangelo's fault. It's called gratitude.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Larkenfield said:


> If one might wish to develop a criteria to assess art, I would suggest being familiar with the broad field of what is already considered great art, in music, painting, sculpture, dance, literature, whether you agree with those assessments or not, and then work  backward from there where the quality of certain works are not as readily apparent. Otherwise, it can sound like some very ill-considered opinions based upon too limited a field, making an intellectual problem out of what should be a pleasure. Visit Michelangelo's _David_, shout out that it's ugly or a poor work of art in the cubicle where it is, and see how far that gets you. It suggests that even the public has some type of an objective standard of what constitutes great art or it wouldn't be so highly regarded by the general public from the streets as well as by those steeped in art. Whether one interprets art on a purely subjective basis, the public has already voted down through the centuries on the quality of certain works, and so, challenge them at your own personal risk. Nevertheless, no one has ever been obliged to like anything, even something as magnificent as Michelangelo's _David_. I think the only thing that could be said against it is that it might not be the great art that one is looking for or it somehow doesn't meet one's personal needs at the time. But I wouldn't view that as being Michelangelo's fault.


I'm not bothered by what is already considered great, I only care about what I consider great. I haven't come across much sculpture I really enjoy, though.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Try Sibelius No.4. It's darker than No.2 but I love it. It has an air of mystery about it.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

I've heard Liszt's music described as emotionless virtuosity, but I totally disagree, at least in the case of Années de Pèlerinage. It's so beautiful. It may be my favorite solo piano piece of all time, which is saying a lot because I'm not usually a big fan of solo music. Gaspard de la Nuit is up there also, but maybe surpassed by Feldman's For Bunita Marcus and Triadic Memories (not recommending those though, but I'll mention that I attended a beautiful free performances of both those pieces and it was wonderful).


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> I have about the same criteria, but add uniqueness. I feel like uniqueness is usually seen by most people as horribly bad for any kind of art, but I feel exactly the opposite.
> 
> For a non-classical suggestion, have you listened to Bill Evans?


For me, uniqueness would fall under assessing the work as a picture; do you like the colors being utilized, for all Art has color. If you find them bland, then that's your assessment.

In novels, characters, verbiage and plot all go into the color that makes up the painting.
In films, the characters, verbiage, plot, set and costume design all play into it's color.
In music, it's the instruments used, how they are played, the notes, chords etc that make up the whole picture.
In paintings, the literal colors used, technique utilized, subject matter etc all go into what makes up the world of an individual work.

Again, if you find the colors bland, then it isn't unique ENOUGH for you, since Uniqueness does lay on a relative scale rather than being an objective measure.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> For me, uniqueness would fall under assessing the work as a picture; do you like the colors being utilized, for all Art has color. If you find them bland, then that's your assessment.
> 
> In novels, characters, verbiage and plot all go into the color that makes up the painting.
> In films, the characters, verbiage, plot, set and costume design all play into it's color.
> ...


That's an interesting comparison. You may be misconstruing my use of the word, but I like your thoughts. By unique, I mean something that is unlike anything else or most things (which is my interpretation of what modernism is, which hasn't been refuted yet) which challenges my perception of art (not like a rock labeled as art or feces in a tin can though).

In the case of visual art, I love abstract painting. My favorite painter is Mark Rothko. There's a lot of variation of styles in abstract art. I don't really like random abstraction like Pollock though (I actually do like some his paintings though). Rothko has a very deliberate style of abstraction which is very unique as far as I know. "Post-painterly abstraction" is probably the closest thing I know about, but it's still very different from Rothko. I don't like representative art as much because by definition it's not about creating something unlike anything else.

My health essentially makes it impossible for me to read books without a struggle, but what intrigues me the most is, again, modernist writing like James Joyce and Marcel Proust. I own Ulysses and In Search of Lost Time, though I've only read a few pages of each, but I like what I've read. I've also read a few pages of Finnegan's Wake which is available for free online, and that is very interesting to me. I also enjoy the poetry of Frank O'Hara. Those three writers seem very unique, but I don't really know enough to say that.

For music, naturally, Feldman seems very unique. The ensembles, tonality, rhythm, structure, etc. of his music are usually unlike anything else in any style of music (just because I haven't completed any serious works though ) except he uses the traditional tools of the trade to do it.

I like to experience new, strange ideas and ways of thinking. It's almost like art as a drug, a way to change your perception into something abnormal, rather than art as a representation of something or as easily discernable ideas. I can imagine all of the artists I mentioned being ridiculed by others, so I'm preparing myself for the worst! That's not the only kind of art I enjoy though, just my favorite.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

I think I've said this before, but the only criterion I have been able to come up with for identifying a great work of art is:
One that possesses more "greatness" than others.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

MarkW said:


> I think I've said this before, but the only criterion I have been able to come up with for identifying a great work of art is:
> One that possesses more "greatness" than others.


That implies objectively superior Art when compared with objectively lesser Art which is a concept I don't agree with at all. To me, Art is 100% subjective and personal taste.

All Art has the capacity for having grand effects on it's audience in different AND similar ways depending on the Art and how the individual interprets it and how they utilize it.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> That's an interesting comparison. You may be misconstruing my use of the word, but I like your thoughts. By unique, I mean something that is unlike anything else or most things (which is my interpretation of what modernism is, which hasn't been refuted yet) which challenges my perception of art (not like a rock labeled as art or feces in a tin can though).


So you want the worlds created by your Art to be highly unlike the majority of what's around in an effort to constantly challenge your perceptions...?


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> So you want the worlds created by your Art to be highly unlike the majority of what's around in an effort to constantly challenge your perceptions...?


That's a good way to put it, though it isn't an effort, it's just what I'm drawn to. I also like art to even be unlike other modern/avant-garde art. For example, atonal music (which I do enjoy) isn't very unique since there are a lot of people who use the technique. Also, it keeps the structure of past music and adds another structure to it. I prefer less-structured art, but not completely structureless. I like deliberate abstraction. Deliberation and abstraction might be good words to add to my list, but abstraction might be included under uniqueness.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I just had another revelation, if ALL art creates a world and getting rid of the pretentious "high class, sophisticated" element, the only thing that matters is if I have feelings for it or not.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> That's a good way to put it, though it isn't an effort, it's just what I'm drawn to. I also like art to even be unlike other modern/avant-garde art. For example, atonal music (which I do enjoy) isn't very unique since there are a lot of people who use the technique. Also, it keeps the structure of past music and adds another structure to it. I prefer less-structured art, but not completely structureless. I like deliberate abstraction. Deliberation and abstraction might be good words to add to my list, but abstraction might be included under uniqueness.


Everything has the ability to loose it's novelty due to over saturation.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> That implies objectively superior Art when compared with objectively lesser Art which is a concept I don't agree with at all. To me, Art is 100% subjective and personal taste.
> 
> All Art has the capacity for having grand effects on it's audience in different AND similar ways depending on the Art and how the individual interprets it and how they utilize it.


I have on my refrigerator a family picture one of my grandsons drew and gave me when I was in the rehab center with a broken tib/fib. I love the picture -- more than I love, say, Donatello's David. But there is no one -- including me -- who will say that the Donatello is not the "greater" artwork. Whether that greaterness is subjective or objective, neither I nor anyone else, can say.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

MarkW said:


> I have on my refrigerator a family picture one of my grandsons drew and gave me when I was in the rehab center with a broken tib/fib. I love the picture -- more than I love, say, Donatello's David. But there is no one -- including me -- who will say that the Donatello is not the "greater" artwork. Whether that greaterness is subjective or objective, neither I nor anyone else, can say.


Michaelangelo did the "David" statue. You are denying yourself your taste by saying something you love more is lesser to something you love less.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Michaelangelo did the "David" statue. You are denying yourself your taste by saying something you love more is lesser to something you love less.


Maybe one of the problems in relying exclusively on your own aesthetic compass is that you can miss a lot of worthwhile stuff, perhaps including Donatello's David:









Very different to Michaelangelo's but also very worthwhile.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> Maybe one of the problems in relying exclusively on your own aesthetic compass is that you can miss a lot of worthwhile stuff, perhaps including Donatello's David:
> 
> View attachment 106724
> 
> ...


I had no idea! Thanks for enlightening me.  (Though, I don't care for it, I prefer the heroic Michelangelo one better)


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I had no idea! Thanks for enlightening me.  (Though, I don't care for it, I prefer the heroic Michelangelo one better)


Actually, I do too. It's just that this (or another) thread was categorizing greatness by comparing three David statues.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> You are denying yourself your taste by saying something you love more is lesser to something you love less.


Well, we just have different criteria. I don't know whether artstic quality is subjective or objective, but I believe it exists. Even a David I don't particularly like is greater than a stick figure family, in the same way a Beethoven symphony is better than Twinke Twinkle Little Star, or a Jackson Pollack is better than a five-year-old's paint splatters. Aestheticians have been arguing about this for years.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

MarkW said:


> Well, we just have different criteria. I don't know whether artstic quality is subjective or objective, but I believe it exists. Even a David I don't particularly like is greater than a stick figure family, in the same way a Beethoven symphony is better than Twinke Twinkle Little Star, or a Jackson Pollack is better than a five-year-old's paint splatters. Aestheticians have been arguing about this for years.


I think it comes down to what criteria you are using to assess. Does it take more skill to create the David than to draw stick figures, yes. Do you love the stick figure drawing more than Don's David, yes. Which one is better? Well, one is better at requiring more skill, and the other is better at grabbing your heart. You could make a value judgement on stating your criteria for stating which is the better work by which requires more skill, or you could make a value judgement by stating which one you prefer based on which one grabs your heart more. Or you could say they are both equally good at achieving different things, ie, you value both the skill level and what grabs your heart value judgements equally.

It's really just about understanding what values are driving your assessments.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I had no idea! Thanks for enlightening me.  (Though, I don't care for it, I prefer the heroic Michelangelo one better)


I've seen both. This by Donatello is much smaller and very very beautiful. It seems very hard to compare with Michaelangelo's statue.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> That implies objectively superior Art when compared with objectively lesser Art which is a concept I don't agree with at all. To me, Art is 100% subjective and personal taste.
> 
> All Art has the capacity for having grand effects on it's audience in different AND similar ways depending on the Art and how the individual interprets it and how they utilize it.


Your position is an extreme version of a fairly widespread view. Probably it is only in fairly recent times (the last 30-50 years) that it has become so common. I wonder - I mean no insult here and do not wish to demean your position (which is also one I go some way towards subscribing to) - if there is an element of narcissism in it?


----------



## Guest (Aug 14, 2018)

What is it about Donatello's David that is so great? (Serious question.)


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

MacLeod said:


> What is it about Donatello's David that is so great? (Serious question.)


Well, I happen not to like it very much, but I felt that to use Michaelangelo's was like bringing out the sledge hammer.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I think it comes down to what criteria you are using to assess. Does it take more skill to create the David than to draw stick figures, yes. Do you love the stick figure drawing more than Don's David, yes. Which one is better? Well, one is better at requiring more skill, and the other is better at grabbing your heart. You could make a value judgement on stating your criteria for stating which is the better work by which requires more skill, or you could make a value judgement by stating which one you prefer based on which one grabs your heart more. Or you could say they are both equally good at achieving different things, ie, you value both the skill level and what grabs your heart value judgements equally.
> 
> It's really just about understanding what values are driving your assessments.


We could discuss this all day and not get anywhere, but I think that if a Beethvoven symphony were not qualitatively better than a cat walkiing across a piano keyboard, there's no point in having artists. You might enjoy driving a Yugo, but you won't find many people who consider one "better" than a Lexus, or a house of straw "better" than one of bricks -- even on the African veld.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> What is it about Donatello's David that is so great? (Serious question.)


Don's David looks like a homosexual version of the man in question. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but I don't like how feminized Don's version is.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

MacLeod said:


> What is it about Donatello's David that is so great? (Serious question.)


I don't know but I do find it very beautiful - perhaps in its proportions. But I am the world's worst art critic.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

MarkW said:


> We could discuss this all day and not get anywhere, but I think that if a Beethvoven symphony were not qualitatively better than a cat walkiing across a piano keyboard, there's no point in having artists. You might enjoy driving a Yugo, but you won't find many people who consider one "better" than a Lexus, or a house of straw "better" than one of bricks -- even on the African veld.


Well, I can see like you stated, we will just go in circles. But just for the sake of elucidating, a straw house may be a fun and creative way to feed a horse. For living in, if you want it to last a long time and be resilient to various weather conditions, then brick is definitely better. If you are looking for a unique hut (home) to utilize for shelter on a day at the beach, then the straw house is definitely better; because it is far less utilized, it is more unique compared to the norm.

Do you at least understand my point, even if you don't agree with it?

When we have competitions, we derive criteria by which to assess a winner of who accomplishes the criteria best. There can be objective winners and losers and better and worse based on the criteria, but at least in Art, that doesn't mean something isn't great based on a different set of criteria.

This way of thinking keeps you respecting others people's opinions and not putting anything in a superior light.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Don's David looks like a homosexual version of the man in question. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but I don't like how feminized Don's version is.


David _was _a boy. And is it really that feminised? With his insolent pose and his foot on Goliath's huge head? Of course, Michaelangelo and Donatello were both gay. And, also of course, there is a very wide spectrum of gay styles and behaviour.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> David _was _a boy. And is it really that feminised? With his insolent pose and his foot on Goliath's huge head? Of course, Michaelangelo and Donatello were both gay. And, also of course, there is a very wide spectrum of gay styles and behaviour.


I don't see the arrogance. It feels very feminine to me in his pose.


----------



## LezLee (Feb 21, 2014)

The Pat Metheny/Charlie Haden album is lovely. My favourite track is 'The Moon's a Harsh Mistress'

https://m.youtube.com/results?search_query=pat+metheny+the+moon's+a+harsh+

My favourite Bill Evans album is 'Everybody Digs Bill Evans' - 'Peace Piece' is beautiful.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

LezLee said:


> The Pat Metheny/Charlie Haden album is lovely. My favourite track is 'The Moon's a Harsh Mistress'
> 
> https://m.youtube.com/results?search_query=pat+metheny+the+moon's+a+harsh+
> 
> My favourite Bill Evans album is 'Everybody Digs Bill Evans' - 'Peace Piece' is beautiful.


I already love the Pat from the first notes!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> Your position is an extreme version of a fairly widespread view. Probably it is only in fairly recent times (the last 30-50 years) that it has become so common. I wonder - I mean no insult here and do not wish to demean your position (which is also one I go some way towards subscribing to) - if there is an element of narcissism in it?


Well, Art appreciation is all about oneself and one's own interests, so yes, I suppose it is narcissistic, and I think it SHOULD be.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Well, I can see like you stated, we will just go in circles. But just for the sake of elucidating, a straw house may be a fun and creative way to feed a horse. For living in, if you want it to last a long time and be resilient to various weather conditions, then brick is definitely better. If you are looking for a unique hut (home) to utilize for shelter on a day at the beach, then the straw house is definitely better; because it is far less utilized, it is more unique compared to the norm.
> 
> Do you at least understand my point, even if you don't agree with it?
> 
> ...


Yes, I get your point of view. I just personally find it flawed. But then, so do you with mine. 

Back in Neolithic times, when I worked in a college arts center, I heard one adage from one of the art museum staff about an amateur art show and competition being sponsored there. "You choose the judges, you've chosen the winners." Kind of like the Supreme Court. 

cheers --


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> Maybe one of the problems in relying exclusively on your own aesthetic compass is that you can miss a lot of worthwhile stuff, perhaps including Donatello's David:
> 
> View attachment 106724
> 
> ...


What a masterwork. Hugely influential for years and years and Michelangelo was well acquainted with it. Hard to imagine it was done as far back as 1430. Glad to see it mentioned!


----------



## derin684 (Feb 14, 2018)

As it was told before, we all have different criteria. But I think we can all agree that one criteria of assessing art is that it makes us think. And what I mean by thinking is to somewhat "phliosophize" it. The other ones are derived from this common one.

In music, it is the difference between what people call "pretentious noise" and an artwork.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

derin684 said:


> As it was told before, we all have different criteria. But I think we can all agree that one criteria of assessing art is that it makes us think. And what I mean by thinking is to somewhat "phliosophize" it. The other ones are derived from this common one.
> 
> In music, it is the difference between what people call "pretentious noise" and an artwork.


I pretty much agree with that, but I've seen a lot of people here say that it's bad to think about art, and that being easily accessible is what makes art good, which I think is a bit silly. I like art that challenges my mind, not in a way that I need to try to "force" myself to enjoy though.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

LezLee said:


> My favourite Bill Evans album is 'Everybody Digs Bill Evans' - 'Peace Piece' is beautiful.


That's a great album and a great track. My favorite track from that album is the first one, "Minority". I think he does both cool jazz and post-bop extremely well.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

derin684 said:


> As it was told before, we all have different criteria. But I think we can all agree that one criteria of assessing art is that it makes us think. And what I mean by thinking is to somewhat "phliosophize" it. The other ones are derived from this common one.
> 
> In music, it is the difference between what people call "pretentious noise" and an artwork.


I don't exactly follow what you are saying? Especially your last line confuses me. Could you restate please?


----------



## Guest (Aug 15, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I've found my criteria after literally years of searching and pondering what it is I'm about. This goes for all mediums of Art,


I can go with the idea of the world the artist creates - though perhaps not so literally as suggested by your example of Beethoven's 6th. That's why in movies, for example, I prefer the worlds created by the Coen Bros to the one created by Scorsese; preferring Frank Capra to the one created by Tarantino etc etc.

I can also go with 'emotive', in its broadest sense - art that moves or stimulates me, whether emotionally or intellectually.

But I'm not sure about 'sophistication'. That seems to have less to do with the art itself and more to do with others' perception of it.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

MacLeod said:


> But I'm not sure about 'sophistication'. That seems to have less to do with the art itself and more to do with others' perception of it.


It could refer to something intricate and skilled also I think.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

I think you'd like this. It's quite modernist and unique but also has a romantic style. It could help you appreciate more modern music. Alban Berg also makes modern (atonal) music with a romantic style. You may enjoy his violin concerto:






If you enjoy opera, you may like Wozzeck, though I think it sounds much more modern. It's my favorite opera:






Speaking of opera, another one of my favorite's is Monteverdi's L'Orfeo, which is one of the first operas from before the Baroque era:


----------



## derin684 (Feb 14, 2018)

Fredx2098 said:


> I pretty much agree with that, but I've seen a lot of people here say that it's bad to think about art, and that being easily accessible is what makes art good, which I think is a bit silly. I like art that challenges my mind, not in a way that I need to try to "force" myself to enjoy though.


I think that not thinking about art is still a way of thinking. It's their philosophy and their way of assessing art.


----------



## derin684 (Feb 14, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I don't exactly follow what you are saying? Especially your last line confuses me. Could you restate please?


I tried to make an analogy. The last paragraph stands mostly for atonal-contemporary music, since there are lots of people who call it pretentious noise. What I meant by that is just a pretentious noise wouldn't make you think(that is, to somehow philosophize it), but music can.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

derin684 said:


> I think that not thinking about art is still a way of thinking. It's their philosophy and their way of assessing art.


I agree with that, but some people have said that if music makes you think then it's pretentious intellectual garbage.


----------



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

I have a criteria, and I can tell when something fits it, but I don't suppose I can really express it. When I truly appreciate a piece of art as being something actually significant, something that is more than it's properties, all I can say is 'that's _it_'.


----------



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> I think you'd like this. It's quite modernist and unique but also has a romantic style. It could help you appreciate more modern music. Alban Berg also makes modern (atonal) music with a romantic style. You may enjoy his violin concerto:


I'm inclined to say that 2nd Viennese School reached its twin peaks with Schoenberg's Piano Concerto and Berg's Violin Concerto. Lush, beautiful works. I've really liked that Rautavaara for a while now, too. Have you checked out some of Scriabin's late piano sonatas e.g White Mass?. Fantastic stuff:


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> How about Liszt's Années de Pèlerinage?


Just put this version on: 




I was listening to a different version, and it sounded awful, but I knew it was the players fault, and not the compositions fault.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Just put this version on:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Bravo. For some, it may take a lifetime to tell the difference between the quality of a performance and the quality of a composition, and they mistake one for the other and may never seek a better performance, such as Arrau's. What interests me here is that Arrau is playing a Liszt composition that I would consider of_ less_ quality than Arrau's performance - that it can work that way too.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Larkenfield said:


> Bravo. For some, it may take a lifetime to tell the difference between the performance and the composition, and they mistake one for the other and never seeks a better performance, such as Arrau's.


Thanks!  My ear has always been pretty good since I took Suzuki Piano Lessons and that's what it trains the most over theory, and it's always getting better since I listen to music daily.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

That's a beautiful performance, but it's about 2 hours and 20 minutes short! I've actually only listened to the first and second suites, so I'm a bit of a poser. I mostly listen to the first part since it's what I'm most familiar with. I'll hear it all eventually though.... Here's a nice performance of the first part:






I feel like he can write a solo piano piece as rich as a symphony.


----------



## jenspen (Apr 25, 2015)

As for art "making you think" - not quite the criterion I'm searching for but ... 

Provisionally: The "art" that lasts tickles the left side of the brain too.


----------



## derin684 (Feb 14, 2018)

Fredx2098 said:


> I agree with that, but some people have said that if music makes you think then it's pretentious intellectual garbage.


It still supports my theory. That's still another way of making philosophy about art.


----------



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Just put this version on:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh, Liszt's cosmic hangovers! More scales than an Atlantic Tuna! Take it away!


----------

