Please ignore my capitalisation of Romance, Hec. I was more stapling my hand to my forehead that referring to a particular genre.

David, you know I am the elitistest elitist that ever elited, but, I'm gonna have to call this opinion crazy, my fren.

Good lord, that's way more of a consensus opinion than a crazy one. It's not an outlier opinion, that's right down the middle.

You thinking a work sucks does not make it any less a work, and doesn't actually say anything about whether the work successfully gets across a point to people other than you.

First of all, "a work" is not necessarily artful. Because somebody made it doesn't make it art. Getting a point across is not even necessarily a criteria. "A poem should not mean but be." Again, a common consesus aesthetic judgment.

And even if a work objectively sucks: you haven't explained why suckitude and art are mutually exclusive.

Because I am drawing a distinction between "art equals things which humans make" and "art equals really good things which people make." So the notion of quality is the distinction (cf., "original/execution" graph). Bad art is art which fails in either originality or execution or both. When it fails in that way it fails to meet the standard for Art.

I was more stapling my hand to my forehead that referring to a particular genre.

But that's where that gesture comes from. Anyway, whether it's a false stereotype or not it still has tremendous currency as a myth. Rock stars try to live that way every day. Except for the sensible ones, I suppose but they are failing at Rock Stardom.

it still has tremendous currency as a myth

Enh. Still makes me puke. I've watched that myth hurt people. I don't think I've ever seen it help.

I don't think I've ever seen it help.

I didn't say it was helpful, just resonant.

David, who is your arbiter of what's good art?

I didn't say it was helpful, just resonant.

I never said it wasn't resonant, so if you were indeed making an a argument counter to mine there was some misunderstanding.

Bad art is art which fails in either originality or execution or both. When it fails in that way it fails to meet the standard for Art.

By your consensus-of-quality logic, a novel may increase and decrease in quality over the course of years, and be art one year (and in the literary canon) but not the next. All those artists who didn't get discovered till after they died didn't improve as artists upon dying, did they? And theatre that the Victorians adored, that we think of as hackneyed and masturbatory now, that stuff doesn't stop being art, does it?

David, who is your arbiter of what's good art?

Every culture generates its own standards. Dana is more than willing to explain why Achilles is a hero instead of a total prick to the ancient Greeks.

Here's what I'm against: it's all subjective. That's pure bullshit. Everybody here knows what they mean when they describe something as well-written. Whether they've bothered to articulate what their standards are or not, they have some sense of those standards.

Those standards are culturally and historically derived and (necessarly) subject to argument and disagrement. In essence, every new movement in the arts is part of that argument. When you displace the previous dominant cultural strand you're asserting other values. The Impressionists advance one set of aesthetic values over the academic art that preceded them. Cubism posits different values. Abstract Expressionism makes a different case.

Punk disagreed with sixties rock music. Hip Hop reframes the argument entirely. And so on.

But to say that there are no standards is both disingenous and completely ignorant of art history.

a novel may increase and decrease in quality over the course of years, and be art one year (and in the literary canon) but not the next.

That is exactly what happend to Chandler, Hammet, Dickens and Austen. None of which were considered anything but popular art in their time.