Good intentions vs. artistic quality?

I have been wrestling with this issue this week and would like to know what you all think:

What is the criteria to judge a mural, a dance piece or even an abstract painting that is meant for social change? Are the good intentions of the artists more important than the artistic quality of what they produce? Is there even a need to separate art between socially-engaged and not?

Tags: Social change, aesthetics, artist, artists, culture, evaluating art

Favorite

0 members favorited this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Post

Permalink Reply by John Sherrill Houser on September 25, 2010 at 4:25pm

My opinion may be redundant in this montage of comments, but my "good intentions" are to produce the highest quality artistic expression of which I am capable. Apart however, from the all important aesthetic qualities, "art" can serve a variety of secondary purposes. It may be decorative, without being particularly meaningful, it can convey satire, social comment, spiritual inspiration, secular propaganda, humor, etc, all without detracting from, or adding to, what ever aesthetic qualities it might hold.

I believe our lives are grounded and formed by our existence in the material world (yes, I am philosophically a materialist). No matter how abstract the work, I think, we are moved by how a work reacts upon our memories of fundamental life experiences. The most non-objective work cannot escape unconscious associations with such formless things as the color and movement of fire, the swirling mist, the burst of an ocean wave. etc. and moves us because of these associations. aesthetic qualities are the means of increasing the power of a work to move both the creator and the sensitive viewer, but at the same time these qualities may enhance other non-aesthetic goals.

So perhaps the question of how a work of art should be judged should be defined first in the criteria used in making the judgment.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by RG Associates on September 27, 2010 at 10:46am

Nico, can you please elaborate on the first sentence of your question for us to more exactly appreciate the context, or is term 'meant for social change' being loosely employed here as somewhat of a a generalization?

I believe that your describing even a fictitious scenario could help us better focus upon a response that might fuel and/or satisfy your pondering and 'wrestling' with it.

Your Feedback Is Also Appreciated!
--