The Value of Art

            As I was leaving for class on Wednesday, September 28^th, I was informed by the guy that’s been renovating the apartment at the top of the stairs that a locksmith would be coming later to change the front door lock, so we’ll all be getting a new key.

            At College and Ossington there is an A&W, and it has a sign on the outside that reads, “Good Food Makes Good Food”. Doesn’t that mean that their cooks are also edible?

            I was slightly overdressed this time with leather jacket and long pants, and the jacket is not something I could take off and stuff in my backpack, because it’s just too big.

            Our lecture was on the value of art.

            First we had a review question to answer with our iclickers. I always get these things wrong. It’s a good thing we are only marked for participating.

            What is the value of art?

            He projected the image of the controversial “Voice of Fire” painting that hangs in the National Gallery in Ottawa. In 1990 our government spent $1.8 million of our tax money on a painting that consisted of three vertical stripes of different colours.

            The value of art is not found in how much it cost, how much it entertains us, its history, or its ability to educate. What is its value just for being art?

            He projected the image of an outdoor sculpture In Halifax that he found when he searched for “ugly sculpture”. He asked us vote with our iclickers on whether it was good or bad art.70% thought it was bad art. He asked for a comment from someone that liked it, so I raised my hand. I said it has a good form, and added that it looks like a penis that is vomiting and eating its own vomit. A young woman two seats away said, “Ewww!” Someone else said they like it because it’s funny.

            He then projected the image of an American Abstract Expressionist painting by Jackson Pollock.

            The Empiricist view is that good art makes us feel good and bad art makes us feel bad. He told me earlier that I was an empiricist. Based on that, I don’t think so.

            An Aestheticist’s view is that good art aesthetically delights while bad art aesthetically disgusts. When we develop taste we develop a distinctive feeling and not just mere pleasure.

            A Cognitivist says that good art enriches understanding, while bad art does not. Some literature, for instance, is not about taste, but craft, like good shoemaking.

            He projected the image of a barren red hill, at the bottom of which was a red grave with a cross stuck in the mound and a sad dog waiting beside it. Devlin offered that it doesn’t make us feel good. But then again, we can enjoy feeling bad, frightened or sad.

            Empiricism does not pick out a distinctive value that could be replaced with another.

            Aestheticism explains that the value of art actuates taste that is not replaceable by something else. Art can be valuable and abhorrent at the same time. This explains the distinction between pop art and fine art. Most pop songs are not aesthetically interesting. What about conceptual art like Fountain or paintings with words on the canvas?

            Non-aesthetic content such as sentiment can affect value.

            He projected the image of a photo of a black and white photo of a baby in a white woolen cap. The content is mundane and sentimental rather than deep or complex. The image does not say anything important. But if the baby picture had a story behind it, it could increase its aesthetic delight.

            Aestheticism can’t explain conceptual art, but maybe we have too narrow a concept of aesthetic delight. Aesthetic delight cannot be formed by content. A deeper worry is that it seems to be a purely intellectual component.

            The title of a work can have value, and intention can inform aesthetic delight.

            A Cognitivist would say that art is a craft that engages our intellect. But this doesn’t explain art’s distinctive value. Philosophy and science can also engage us intellectually. The Cognitivist would answer that art is a distinctive means to engage our intellect. But a cognitivist can’t explain aesthetic value.

            These three systems cannot be hybridized because they conflict.

            We can say there isn’t one value. Some we can measure in one dimension and some in another.

            When I got home I saw my next-door neighbour outside, waiting for the locksmith. He told me that the whole reason for changing the locks was because the guy on the third floor that was evicted hadn’t given his key back.

            That afternoon, Jonquil came in from out back, crying in the hallway, but wouldn’t come in. I went out and patted her a bit and then she came in to eat. She went to the ledge of my small eastern window and sat there for an hour or so, until I heard a loud noise and she started crying again. She’d knocked over my garbage can and was limping at the other end of the room. She was lying on her side and whining. She really looked like she was dying. Finally she quieted down and went to the bathtub to sit there.

            The landlord’s brother came and gave me a new key for the front door and asked for my old one. I liked the fact that my daughter had an extra key to the place where she grew up, but I knew I wouldn’t be able to get away with asking for an extra key, since she obviously isn’t living here any more.

            I finished watching the complete Honeymooners series. I think it was special not only because it was funny, but also because it was dark and even a little depressing. There were always the empty threats from Ralph of doing violence to Alice, and on top of that, the geometry of his violent gestures was always off. When he would mime punching her and exclaim, “Bang! Zoom!” The punch was always in one direction and the gesture he would make of her flying to the moon as a result of the punch was always in the opposite direction.

            I also recently finished listening to the entire David Bowie studio discography. The solid quality of his body of work through the 70s and 80s is extremely impressive. To consistently produce songs that were not only innovative, but also sounded good over a period of two decades was, I think, unprecedented. I can’t think of anyone else that did it in history. Not even the Beatles matched that achievement. His 90s and 21^st Century work however, though still interesting, didn’t have the aesthetic of his previous creations. He leaned heavily on overproduced material, and even when he came up with a good song, like for instance, 1999’s “The Pretty Things Are Going To Hell”, which could be done much better as a straight rock and roll song, he technoed the shit out if it.

            Jonquil went back outside at some point that evening but didn’t return. She’s showing the signs of being in her last days.