WHATEVER

A WORTHWHILE EXHIBIT?

“SO, LIKE, WHEN WILL HALIFAX SHOW A WORTHWHILE EXHIBIT?” kd

Of course, the answer to the question presupposes an answer to the embedded question, “What is worthwhile?” but, of course, the answer to that question presupposes an answer to the further embedded question, “What is art?”In other words, something cannot be worthwhile if it is not art in the first place. Let’s tackle the second question first.

So, according to The Concise Oxford Dictionary, “art” means, “human skill as opposed to nature; skilful execution as an object in itself.” The first point, then, is that art cannot be a natural object – say a beautiful sunset – because it is not the product of human skill. The second point comes close to our present concern, i.e., what constitutes “skilful execution?” The COD defines “skilful” as “having or showing skill” but, since the definition is circular, that doesn’t take us too far. So what about “skill” itself? The COD has it as “Expertness, practiced ability, facility in doing something, dexterity” but this just moves the question along to what such “expertness” amounts to. So what does that mean? The COD doesn’t list “expertness” but it does “expertise” which is defined as “expert opinion or skill or knowledge.” It seems that our question, the one relating to “expert skill” puts us back where to we started, i.e., with the question, “What is art?” On the basis of the dictionary definitions, we must sadly conclude that beyond showing “expert skill,” we just don’t know what art amounts to.

This has drastic implications for our first question. When we are referring to art, how are we to determine, “What is worthwhile?” The difficulty is, if we cannot identify what art is then how are we to distinguish that which is worthwhile from that which is not worthwhile? It’s a conundrum. Three options open up, none of which are satisfactory: (1) Art does not exist. It is an illusion harboured only by those who would claim that it does; (2) Art exists but we do not know what it is. We are unable to distinguish art from non-art; (3) Art exists but we are unable to distinguish good art from bad art, the worthwhile from the not-worthwhile. Further, such a distinction, if it is made, cannot be reduced to subjective opinion, i.e., art is in the eye of the beholder. Good art must be distinguishable from bad art on the grounds of commonly-held objective criteria. If it isn’t so distinguishable, then then we must return to our first alternative, that is, that art does not exist.

So, kd’s question, “SO, LIKE, WHEN WILL HALIFAX SHOW A WORTHWHILE EXHIBIT?” falls into the third category which states that art exists but we are unable to distinguish good art from bad art. kd’s question is therefore self-defeating. It is incoherent. We will never know when Halifax will show a worthwhile exhibit since we don’t know what it means – what it would amount to – for art to be worthwhile.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!