How can a subjective assesment of a work be “over-rated?”
I suppose a bigger question (perhaps worthy of another discussion) would be: “Is there any worth in purporting concrete aesthetics?”
Personal opinion gives one likes and dislikes, and one can create a guide or method to assessing art, but on what concrete base can you really trust a criticism?
Point in fact: Impressionism vs. Representationalism
At the rise of impressionism, it was widely regarded as “poor” judging from the critical guides of representational art (and contemporary critics). This ruling of the art elite was overturned and then applied againt represtationalism (too accessible, etc): Up into the current day, many late representational artists (such as Bouguereau) were/are derided for their representationalism. i.e. the “rules” have changed. (But who gets to create these rules?)
Given that basis, I pose that the very idea of calling something “over-rated,” is approaching an oxymoron. While the work may seem innaccessible to you, or you may deem the work common, or purile, or mundane against a large group of admirers is only you disagreeing with a large group. And we all know that the fallacy of “ad populum” doesn’t make things correct or great, but it does describe the popularity or “rate”ing.
To use the term “overrated” assumes a concrete scale of rating=(absolute)worth: A concrete “real” value. An elite is formed by those who share your aesthetics, backed by whatever criteria those groups purport to adhere to.
Yes, this is all semantics, and I understand the root of saying something is overrated does not necessarily follow my interpetation above. Still, is there anyone who really believes in universal aesthetics?
If you do, can you posit some support for it? I’d love to read an argument in favour.