At the beginning of class I put up a painting by Franz Klein and asked if it was art. Opinion was divided on the question.
Those who thought it was art reasoned that it's an interesting piece that invites different interpretations. Others thought it used shapes and contrast in interesting ways. A few said that the novelty of the piece was intriguing. Others said that, even thought they didn't like the painting, they were willing to call it art, simply because anything painted by a person could be seen as being art.
In other words, they give credence to the idea that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder."
Those who thought it wasn't art reasoned that it looked as if it hadn't taken much time at all to make, and that art required time. It also seemed lacking in detail and craft.
Next I put up Michaelangelo's painting of Plato and Aristotle and asked if it was better art than Klein's piece.
Most of the class felt it was because it represented reality better, obviously took a lot of time, and showed great craftsmanship. We created a spectrum of art that ranged from "snore" on the bottom to "changed my life forever" at the top. Most students put Michaelangelo much higher up on the spectrum than they put Klein.
So, though most students were unwilling to say one painting or the other was not art, they were willing to put different art pieces on a spectrum. Which means that we must have some criteria for what differentiates better art from worse art. And this idea goes against the idea that beauty is completely in the eye of the beholder.
In the coming term we're going to be exploring what we can do to find our criteria for judging literature and establish it reasonably.
