"I Don't Know Much About Art, But I Know What I Like." - c/d?

(Check out the "Britart goes up in flames" thread too, NA, it's got some interesting stuff on it)

If the corollory is "anything I don't like shouldn't be displayed / publicly funded" then it is a colossal dud.

I'm really squeamish too but if I see a film* which has too much violence but had some redeeming features I wouldn't say it was 'good' I'd say I hated it but it was skilfully made, or had good dialogue, or something. I'm suspicious of any definition of "good" which != "I like", except perhaps in relation to fresh food.

*If I went to see films, which I don't, much. But I know what I don't like!

We're talking about the phrase and you can substitute the word art for anything. It's one of those expressions 'older' people use.

It's a nice sentiment, and one that artists are often banging on about, but I don't think I agree with it unconditionally.

I am way more likely to bother/want to learn about an artist if my interest has already been piqued by [my liking] their work.

(One exception being theatre-related artists - mostly playwrights - because I studied that in college and often had to find out more whether I liked their work or not.)

(Another exception perhaps music, where I would and still do often find out about one band because of some slight relation to a band I already like. Like the guitarist for band X went to high school with and used to be in a cover band with the singer from band Y, where I already like band Y a lot but have never heard band X.)

Though I have to admit wrt musical artists I am sometimes predisposed to dislike their work if I think the artist his or herself is a cockfarmer. Sometimes this happens even if I heard the music first and liked it before reading/seeing the interview or whatever.

Knowledge is a fine thing, no doubt. I don't intend to dismiss it or belittle it. But blaming the audience (as sometimes happens) for not having the sophistication to enjoy a piece of art is pointless. There is nothing inherently noble or praiseworthy in producing art for a narrow audience of sophisticates. Limiting one's audience is a legitimate choice for an artist, but feeling superior about it is just rank foolishness.

I think Aimless is right that many people consider "knowing about art" to be equivalent to some sanctioned idea of "good taste," and maybe don't realize all of the ways in which "good taste" is not an objective constant but the result of various, often biased aesthetic ideologies. (Which means their own aesthetic notions can be just as valid.)

Even if you take "knowing about art" simply to mean "having a familiarity with the history of art, i.e. the canon," there's an assumption that this familiarity is necessary before one's opinion can be seen as valid. Which also seems unfair.

Although, I dunno, some people might disagree with that sentiment: Are there any threads on I Love Film that aren't marked by endless self-congratulatory remarks on how smart "we" all are and how dumb and passive the "average moviegoer" is?

Is this necessarily any different than blaming the audience for not having the good sense to recognize that some art is crap/fluff/not-worthy or whatever? e.g. Calling out someone who listens to whatever the artist of the week is just because it's what's on the radio/MTV/etc but never listened to band X because they don't know (or care about) where to look/listen.

Though it may not make sense, I can understand why it's done. I mean I'm guilty of it myself. Particularly the version of it I mentioned (as opposed to the one Aimless described).

but i know stuff about things i think are impt that i dont really care about (step forward monet)

and then there is stuff that i just cannot conceive of...can anyone explain fragonard to me ?

(next question--am i a bad/ignorant/ugly/novelist for mourning deeply about the warehouse fire, but when a warehouse of french academic painting goes up in flames thinking--good riddance to bad rubbish--is taste the only thing that seperates me from the avg. daily mail reader ? )

Should you feel inclined, your chastising me for this fact would not make you unique. My mechanic believes I should be spending more time coddling my car. My dental hygienist believes I cruelly neglect my teeth. Various health experts tell me I need more exercise. TV chefs promise me glory, if I would only chain myself to a stove. And yet, I feel I live a reasonably full and rewarding life, with or without flossing after every meal, or listening to band X.

If, by some chance or recommendation, band X enters my life, I will bring to the experience what I can. Should it happen that I greatly enjoy band X, I might devote some of my precious life and time to learning all I can about them and their peers, in an effort to bring more pleasure or fullfillment into my life - although that might leave me less time for flossing.