Ploafmaster General

Q: Is there such a thing as intrinsic artistic value, and, if so, how do we gauge it?

A: Mugs, why did you have to ask not only a serious question, but a deeply philosophical question which requires me to think on a day like today?

No matter. I’ll resort, as is my habit, to the Merriam Webster dictionary to set the working definition of “intrinsic” in this post:

1 a : belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing [the intrinsic worth of a gem] [the intrinsic brightness of a star]

So essentially by intrinsic we mean something inherent to an object. In these terms, we might then ask whether art has value simply because it is art. Though the language be clarified, the question certainly is not; we need to understand what art is at its core, what constitutes value or artistic value, and how value is determined. This will in turn address the second portion of the question - “…and, if so, how do we gauge it?”

For art I’ll (over)simplify a bit with Webster again:

4 a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced

That seems to be the most succinct and appropriate description of what we’re discussing here. We’re not talking about the art of motorcycle repair. We can also rule out things that are beautiful by chance such as sand dunes, snow storms, and patterns caused by spilled paint. As for value, I’ll sum up the rather tangled definitions available and assume, for the sake of this post, that when we say that something has “value” we mean something is desirable to at least somebody.

I’m going to rebuild the complete question here, one last time. We are trying to determine whether creative output is at all desirable to anybody by the simple fact that it is somebody’s creative output.

And after all that verbosity I say that yes, art does have intrinsic value.

The key word in our definition of art is conscious. Whether by self-motivation or indentured servitude, somebody wants the creative output. Do they want the art for investment? Do they want the art for status? Do they want the art as a symbol of self-expression? Do they want the art for propaganda purposes? In each case the creative output is the result of somebody’s desire. The artist may wish to express feelings for country or beloved, while the patron may wish for immortality through a bronze sculpture. A novelist may wish to subversively criticize the established social structure, while a despotic leadership may wish for a unifying symbol of nationalistic pride. The point is, at least one person has some desire to fulfill which initiates intentional use of creative abilities resulting in creative output.

That being said, I don’t believe we can concretely measure intrinsic artistic value. The desirability of creative output is subjective - different people attribute different levels of desire. Critical value may be measurable, but the innate desirability of art is left to the artist and/or observer. For instance, the five people reading this entry may not care much about it, nor may they consider it good writing in general or good writing as far as Daniel Warshaw’s writing goes. But I value this post because it provided a venue for me to organize some otherwise unsorted thoughts on a topic very important to me.

Oi…Still reading after all that? Well that’s it for this week. Post your questions for the next Ask Dan in the comments section, and I’ll answer one next week!

Ciao,
Daniel