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.
Honestly, I think most people believe there is such a thing as a real standard of aesthetics — thus you hear “good music” versus “bad music”, “good literature” versus “bad literature”, “good taste” versus “bad taste”, etc. Witness the entire occupational field of criticism, and people who trust their evaluations. Not to mention awards like the Nobel Prize for literure or the Oscars. Of course, I think if you challenge people to define what makes “good” whatever better than “bad” whatever, it ultimately comes down to a) what’s popular, b) what some expert(s) thinks c) their own personal tastes.
Personally, I don’t think there is an objective standard. There may be standards for certain aspects, like complexity, or diversity, and slightly more relative aspects like clarity of message, or emotional impact (which could be objectively measured but would likely vary from one group to another). However, while those things may be objectively measurable, their *value* isn’t. Is complexity inherently better than simplicity? Is a work with a message which is clear to everyone inherently better than a work which is ambigious/open to interpretation? I think the answers to that are a matter of personal preference, and therefore they cannot be used as objective standards.
Personally, I take the term “over-rated” as another subjective assessment, but then I think all assessments are inherently subjective (this includes the realm of science, as scientific observations are based on subjective interpretation of sensory data just like everything else).
When I say I feel something is “overrated” what I mean is “a lot of people seem to like it, but I totally don’t see why….”
I think we’d be a lot healthier as a species if there were some disclaimer “everything this person is saying is a subjective opinion” were flashing over everyone’s heads all the time.
I like it!
As usual, all agreed.
agreed: I should have said “is there anyone (who seriously thinks about these things) who believes in universal aesthetics”, etc.
Monkey Likee?
p.s.
Congratulations on your shit.