Is the value of art relative?

[Calden]

I've been going over this question for a while and I can't come to a concrete decision. In my head I know why Chopin is better than Britney Spears, but if someone hates classical music and loves Britney Spears, who am I to tell them they're wrong. I know a critic could talk about the history of music, the intricacies and difficulties of the composition, the cultural impact, etc; but it's comparing two completely different things. I want to believe the answer is no, the value of art is not relative, but I can't back it up. Does anyone else have thoughts one way or the other?

[jonathanschley]

it's all relative. i'm sure you think a bunch of best of WAYWT pics that people completely lose their shit over look totally stupid. i know i do sometimes. it's just like differing cultures, who are we to tell terrorists they are wrong. it's what they believe is right, social relativism right there.

[Halifamous]

Wow, a thread even stupider than the poop thread. This truly is the nadir of our collective times.

[alexryb]

Wow, a thread even stupider than the poop thread. This truly is the nadir of our collective times.

From my experience,

this topic is far too deep for Sufu.

[Fuuma]

it's all relative. i'm sure you think a bunch of best of WAYWT pics that people completely lose their shit over look totally stupid. i know i do sometimes. it's just like differing cultures, who are we to tell terrorists they are wrong. it's what they believe is right, social relativism right there.

The word you were looking for is "cultural relativism" and it doesn't apply to the best of WAYWT, unless you were raised in New Guinea with no contact to the outside world so don't front; riding the special bus didn't leave much space for you to learn how to properly use irony.

[Calden]

it's all relative. i'm sure you think a bunch of best of WAYWT pics that people completely lose their shit over look totally stupid. i know i do sometimes. it's just like differing cultures, who are we to tell terrorists they are wrong. it's what they believe is right, social relativism right there.

Seriously, terrorists? WTF?

Wow, a thread even stupider than the poop thread. This truly is the nadir of our collective times.

Halifamous, thanks for the neg rep. You're effervescent attitude and constructive criticism is always appreciated. Nadir or bust!

From my experience,

this topic is far too deep for Sufu.

I think you're on to something.

[DüM]

Supreme is not relative.

[Guest]

Supreme is life itself

[highfructosecorn]

Its more about the artist than the art. If the artist is able to consistently put together something that appeals (not necessarily aesthetically..) to a group that collectively has money, then the art has value. Whether the value comes from a single person (royalty) or a large group (teenyboppers..) doesn't matter. The point is at some point the artist gets discovered and then continues to deliver.

FOR INSTANCE, my 5th grade spin art is totally better than jackson pollock, but i am poor because the spinner motor burned out.

[the Repeater]

"Value" is a term that represents monetary worth or replacement for thereof.

Appeal for a specific worth is subjective, but value for an artwork relates only to how collectible it is. If an artist or artwork is not collectible, it does not have intrinsic or potential to escalate in value, and is only worth subjectively what the buyer will pay for it.

Art is no different than objects, antiques, or relics as far as worth goes; its value is what the collecting market will pay for it, and does not reflect any further depth to the specific work other than that.

[thomparetta]

The Repeater is right. If we're speaking in monetary terms, the value of art is determined by the collectibility, mass appeal, and opinion of highly esteemed critics.

If your question regards what deems art to be art, as opposed to how much a piece of what is already considered art can fetch at auction, you should look into aesthetics. Although, a little tip: the common opinion of many of todays aestheticians deems the category of art to be an amorphous entity which expands and constricts to allow or disallow new offerings by artists. Thus no concrete definition of art could exist.

For example, Duchamp's Pissoir expanded the practical concept of art by taking an everyday appliance and placing it in an artistic context.

regarding your question of Chopin and Britney Spears, once you deem both to be art they can only differ in genrification or personal preference. The only way to trump one to the other, beyond subjectivity, would be to exclude Britney Spears from your concept of art, and operate on the assumption that since it is not art it can not be compared to art objectively.

[the Repeater]

Music is subjected to a different set of variable than art, as its appeal and success depends on the approval of the masses, whereas art's success depends on the approval of scholars, the "cultural elite" (bourgeois) and collectors.

[Corbin Law]

ive always been a strong supporter of what most people deem: shit art. because it is shit art. for as long as there are middle class people buying very detailed but ultimately pointless paintings of landscapes and animals the shit art is proving itself worth. I say art is relative and it is thanks to this shit art that what i deem as good art other individuals can also deem as good art because of the common shitty ground of the shit art.