> trying to optimize specifically for that difference instead of for the thing-in-itself.
I think of (and accuse works of!) this as the trappings of quality. Some extremely successful high quality art piece will use a technique effectively, and then people will copy the technique but not make it actually work. Like, having an unclear ambiguous ending to a story can be really impactful, but now that's a very trendy thing to do even when it doesn't really work, and I like to point and say that it's get the trappings of profundity without the actual profundity
"Another type of sincere, elite bad taste comes from people noticing how peopke experience tasteful art differently than non-tasteful art, and trying to optimize specifically for that difference instead of for the thing-in-itself."
I like this idea, it seems like what you're getting at is a kind of aesthetic cargo cultism. In that sense, the mistake of the bad artist is to copy the contingent rather than the necessary features of great art - as in the examples of inaccessibility, focus on signifier rather than signified, and lack of mass appeal. Or to see necessary features as sufficient - even if all great art is novel art, not all novel art is great.
I think this works on the same principle as the other type of bad criticism you mention. The editors of the magazine have a heuristic: lots of bad poems tend to be about clichéd subjects like the moon; this poem is about the moon, therefore it's bad. If you are editing poetry magazines, this is probably a pretty useful heuristic, though obviously isn't foolproof. Whatever the case, just like inaccessibility etc. were proxies for great art, here 'the moon' is a proxy for bad art.
Once you have this underlying idea I think it might be possible to organise a variety of empirical claims about art criticism, whether historical or sociological. For instance, you could say that a particularly prevalent proxy in modernism was novelty; with clearer eyes we can probably see that lot of what was produced in the early 20th century was lauded at the time not because it was good but because it was new; that was that era's particular pathology. Perhaps transhistorically elite proxies are more likely to be about form or reception, whereas 'common' proxies are more likely to be about subject, because whereas the former require some effort and abstraction the latter are patent and obvious. We could even make empirical claims about proxy analysis itself. Namely, I think the bay area blogsphere is especially inclined to account (often exhuastively account) for aesthetic judgements in terms either of heuristics gone wrong I.e. proxies (people only think this is good because it is inaccessible etc) or simple status signalling. Scott seems to think that those things can't fully account for aesthetic judgement in the case of poetry, though.
But I wonder: if originality, inaccessibility, focus on signifier over signified, and lack of mass appeal are all more or less reliable proxies, what are they proxies for? What is that 'greatness' in great art? Do we have to rest content saying 'you know it when you see it' or 'it's something ineffable' or 'there's no cut and dry formula for it'? Those answers have always really dissatisfied me. I'm not even sure what kind of claim we're making when we say X art is great. Is it just a description of our own mental state (happiness, intense emotion, curiosity, catharsis, or whatever we value in art), with an attendant implication that something in the work itself would be likely to give rise to that state in others? How strong is that implication - are we saying that those who don't see the greatness only do so for dullness of perception or lack of discernment, or does the cop out 'taste is subjective' mean that there's no real basis to prefer one work over another? Apologies if you've already answered this in another essay, but I'd be keen to hear your thoughts.
Sorry for the splurge of words. I've been thinking about this issue quite a bit, if I get the time perhaps I'll do a piece on it. Thanks again for the essay
I -think- there's an underdiscussed aspect of this discourse that you touch on here, that there's two sides to criticism-of-art coin: there's criticism that's Love of the Thing, interested in picking it apart to enjoy how its components make part of the whole, and criticism that's mixed gatekeeping/filtering for the non-enthusiasts. There's probably a mix of leisure time/attention constraints and art oversupply that necessitates a critic as being a guarantor of quality, but where this becomes friction/confusion on taste is that the critics are often not themselves guaranteed to be enthusiasts versus the position of critic being a status marker and so their preferences are more likely to be unhinged from actual quality.
>>"Hm, a quality of great art is that it’s not exhausted by the first viewing or the first reading, it always has more to give,” and they respond to that observation by making something that is inaccessible on first viewing/reading.
. . . frustrating when density, ambiguity, or obfuscation is used like a spike strip under the wheels of a reader's pursuit of meaning, as if difficulty - however artificial - makes a piece deeper or more profound.
I’m trying to grasp your point about novelty. To my mind, trendiness is the opposite of novelty. It’s the thing that everyone else is doing right now. As someone with ADHD (and other weird neurodivergencies), seeking and creating novelty is a big part of why I read and write at all. It certainly isn’t all I’m after in a piece, but it has a high priority. For me, the biggest problem with novelty is that too much of it can slip into the inaccessible category, because most readers (even snooty lit fic readers) prefer recognizable tropes and the comfort of familiarity. But I guess I can see how trying for novelty, when it’s not a natural inclination, might result in trendiness.
yeah, i basically think people are really bad at reaching directly for novelty when they’re making things. or….at least….i am……….but like, it’s a known thing that all eg experimental poetry tends to sound the same. i think trying directly to get novelty is less likely to work well than just, trying to do honest good work in or about a new technological or social environment, does that make sense?
Fair enough. I guess I don’t consciously seek novelty either. I just can’t help going there. I have to make an effort to reign in the weirdness so that it’s not too idiosyncratic for readers to connect with.
> trying to optimize specifically for that difference instead of for the thing-in-itself.
I think of (and accuse works of!) this as the trappings of quality. Some extremely successful high quality art piece will use a technique effectively, and then people will copy the technique but not make it actually work. Like, having an unclear ambiguous ending to a story can be really impactful, but now that's a very trendy thing to do even when it doesn't really work, and I like to point and say that it's get the trappings of profundity without the actual profundity
Thanks for this really thoughtful essay.
"Another type of sincere, elite bad taste comes from people noticing how peopke experience tasteful art differently than non-tasteful art, and trying to optimize specifically for that difference instead of for the thing-in-itself."
I like this idea, it seems like what you're getting at is a kind of aesthetic cargo cultism. In that sense, the mistake of the bad artist is to copy the contingent rather than the necessary features of great art - as in the examples of inaccessibility, focus on signifier rather than signified, and lack of mass appeal. Or to see necessary features as sufficient - even if all great art is novel art, not all novel art is great.
I think this works on the same principle as the other type of bad criticism you mention. The editors of the magazine have a heuristic: lots of bad poems tend to be about clichéd subjects like the moon; this poem is about the moon, therefore it's bad. If you are editing poetry magazines, this is probably a pretty useful heuristic, though obviously isn't foolproof. Whatever the case, just like inaccessibility etc. were proxies for great art, here 'the moon' is a proxy for bad art.
Once you have this underlying idea I think it might be possible to organise a variety of empirical claims about art criticism, whether historical or sociological. For instance, you could say that a particularly prevalent proxy in modernism was novelty; with clearer eyes we can probably see that lot of what was produced in the early 20th century was lauded at the time not because it was good but because it was new; that was that era's particular pathology. Perhaps transhistorically elite proxies are more likely to be about form or reception, whereas 'common' proxies are more likely to be about subject, because whereas the former require some effort and abstraction the latter are patent and obvious. We could even make empirical claims about proxy analysis itself. Namely, I think the bay area blogsphere is especially inclined to account (often exhuastively account) for aesthetic judgements in terms either of heuristics gone wrong I.e. proxies (people only think this is good because it is inaccessible etc) or simple status signalling. Scott seems to think that those things can't fully account for aesthetic judgement in the case of poetry, though.
But I wonder: if originality, inaccessibility, focus on signifier over signified, and lack of mass appeal are all more or less reliable proxies, what are they proxies for? What is that 'greatness' in great art? Do we have to rest content saying 'you know it when you see it' or 'it's something ineffable' or 'there's no cut and dry formula for it'? Those answers have always really dissatisfied me. I'm not even sure what kind of claim we're making when we say X art is great. Is it just a description of our own mental state (happiness, intense emotion, curiosity, catharsis, or whatever we value in art), with an attendant implication that something in the work itself would be likely to give rise to that state in others? How strong is that implication - are we saying that those who don't see the greatness only do so for dullness of perception or lack of discernment, or does the cop out 'taste is subjective' mean that there's no real basis to prefer one work over another? Apologies if you've already answered this in another essay, but I'd be keen to hear your thoughts.
Sorry for the splurge of words. I've been thinking about this issue quite a bit, if I get the time perhaps I'll do a piece on it. Thanks again for the essay
Ah just realised that your previous essay was on precisely my last question. Whoops!
I -think- there's an underdiscussed aspect of this discourse that you touch on here, that there's two sides to criticism-of-art coin: there's criticism that's Love of the Thing, interested in picking it apart to enjoy how its components make part of the whole, and criticism that's mixed gatekeeping/filtering for the non-enthusiasts. There's probably a mix of leisure time/attention constraints and art oversupply that necessitates a critic as being a guarantor of quality, but where this becomes friction/confusion on taste is that the critics are often not themselves guaranteed to be enthusiasts versus the position of critic being a status marker and so their preferences are more likely to be unhinged from actual quality.
>>"Hm, a quality of great art is that it’s not exhausted by the first viewing or the first reading, it always has more to give,” and they respond to that observation by making something that is inaccessible on first viewing/reading.
. . . frustrating when density, ambiguity, or obfuscation is used like a spike strip under the wheels of a reader's pursuit of meaning, as if difficulty - however artificial - makes a piece deeper or more profound.
I’m trying to grasp your point about novelty. To my mind, trendiness is the opposite of novelty. It’s the thing that everyone else is doing right now. As someone with ADHD (and other weird neurodivergencies), seeking and creating novelty is a big part of why I read and write at all. It certainly isn’t all I’m after in a piece, but it has a high priority. For me, the biggest problem with novelty is that too much of it can slip into the inaccessible category, because most readers (even snooty lit fic readers) prefer recognizable tropes and the comfort of familiarity. But I guess I can see how trying for novelty, when it’s not a natural inclination, might result in trendiness.
yeah, i basically think people are really bad at reaching directly for novelty when they’re making things. or….at least….i am……….but like, it’s a known thing that all eg experimental poetry tends to sound the same. i think trying directly to get novelty is less likely to work well than just, trying to do honest good work in or about a new technological or social environment, does that make sense?
Fair enough. I guess I don’t consciously seek novelty either. I just can’t help going there. I have to make an effort to reign in the weirdness so that it’s not too idiosyncratic for readers to connect with.