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.

They were popular what? What is that noun there?

They were popular what? What is that noun there?

Popular art which, as you well know, references something closer to artisanship. Craft.

Do not play the game of sophistry with me, oh Nuttykin. If you want to make the case against Low/High Art distinctions that's one thing, but if you want to deny critical standards altogether I'm going to presume you're fucking with me.

Also, I will amend my previous comment to say that the artistic worth of Chandler, Hammet, Dickens, Austen has changed over time. They are not treated as simply entertainment anymore but their intrinsic artistry has been recognized outside the context of their era.

Really? Do you want to run a tally on American writers of the 20th century? You don't think you'll come up with a higher tally of suicide, mental illness and alcoholism than the general population? Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Faulkner, Plath, Styron...

Writers who committed suicide is a big list.

I don't have a list of every human being who died over 100 years and all their demographic data. And I don't think you do, either. If we can expand the sample beyond "people famous enough to have pages on Wikipedia", this UK analysis has the highest suicide rates for male vets and female gov inspectors. (Female artists are on the list, between teachers and health care workers of various kinds.) In the US, white female artists are mentioned again, along with white male physicians and black guards. That piece mentions a second study which found higher rates for those in "mining, business and repair services, wholesale and retail trade and construction." Overall, I'd say that economics and politics have lot more to do with suicide rates than chosen careers.

OK, my turn to get pretentious. Warning: A long-winded (for me) rant to follow, and I'm going to break it up over several posts for easier consumption.

I was at a party in Chelsea in the early 90s, and there was a group of artists there. As the night went on, and the artists got more and more stoned, I listened to their conversation. For several hours straight, they talked about only three things: How smart they and their friends were, how talented they and their friends were, and how cool they and their friends were.

Now this was during an economic downturn, and making a living as an artist in NYC must have been very tough. I realized at the time that they were trying to convince each other, and themselves, that they were doing something worthwhile with their lives.

I realized later that what they were talking about had broader implications, and that what we know as art is something that exists along several axes: Intelligence, Talent/Technical skill, and Coolness. There is also a fourth axis, Empathy, but guys don't sit around late at night talking about how empathic they and their friends are.

The thing to remember is that the Intelligence and Talent axes are absolute. Given any artist, it theoretically possible to rank the artist's intelligence and talent empirically. The Coolness and Empathy axes, however, are relative to the observer. I believe two people can look at a piece of art, and have wildly different views about how cool and empathic the art is, and they could both be valid. This makes me a cultural relativist.

You really can't judge whether something is art or not without examining it on the four axes. As far as Michael Bay is concerned, I think we all can agree that there is little that intellectually challenging about his work, and that he would rank low on the Intelligence axis. His technical skill is good; not everyone can deliver movies with nine-figure budgets. But there is little that is truly outstanding about his skills, he would rank at or just below average among his peers in Hollywood.

Coolness and Empathy, however, are much more complicated subjects, and if you go back and read through the thread, these are mostly what we're talking about here. I'm going to discuss both in posts below.

Coolness is a very complicated subject, and my Theory of Cool is not fully developed, so please bear with me.

My working definition of Coolness is: The ability to signify membership of a culture, and the ability to drive the culture in a new direction. As mentioned before, the recognition of Cool is relative to the observer.

While you might not identify with the culture that Michael Bay represents, (I certainly don't), it's easy to assert that the films of Michael Bay have had a huge cultural impact to a certain segment of the population, and that his films have been greatly influential on films that have proceeded it. So it is quite valid to consider a Michael Bay film to be Cool, especially if you consider yourself to be a part of the "Explosions are Cool" culture.

By that measure, a Michael Bay film could be considered to be art.

OK, I have to leave for work now, so more about Empathy later.

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.

Please explain to me how standards can be subject to argument and disagreement and not be subjective.

Because you really can't have it both ways.

Relatedly, has anyone else seen My Kid Could Paint That? Because it's a very well put-together little movie, and addresses many of these very points.

Hmm, it occurs to me that bubble gum music isn't all the different to music than Michael Bay is to movies. Is bubble gum music art? Some of it? None of it? All of it?

Just throwing that out there (like a bomb).

I am wondering if something that David is not clearly articulating (sorry to put words in your mouth - correct me!) is that he sees a difference between art as determined by the standards of our current mainstream/elite culture - we have relatively objective standards of what is art, although there are envelope-pushers and debates around the fringes - vs the subjectivity of defining art when viewed in the long run of human history and/or human culture (i.e. an ancient Greek would not see Mondrian as art, nor would a rural Papua New Guinean native.)

I think it's all subjective, but then, I'm an anthropologist.

Also, wrt to Harry Potter, I was being flippant; it occurred to me that perhaps Harry Potter is the 'reference to Nazis' of online conversations about defining art.

Also, wrt to Harry Potter, I was being flippant; it occurred to me that perhaps Harry Potter is the 'reference to Nazis' of online conversations about defining art.

Shall we call that "flea's law" then?