What's so good about bad art
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 4079831 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Per Algander (0000-0002-2333-106X, Umeå University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2024 |
| Volume | 19 |
| Issue | 11 |
| Publication date | 2024-11-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Philosophy Compass (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1747-9991 • E-ISSN: 1747-9991 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/phc3.70015 |
| OpenAlex | W4404437997 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 34 |
Some artworks are aesthetically better than others. But can bad artworks have certain merits in virtue of being bad? Can something be so bad that it is good? In this paper I distinguish several interpretations of the question and consider whether contemporary theories of aesthetic value can render such a claim true. I also present a handful of desirable features which a plausible theory of the value of bad art should satisfy
Aesthetic Perception and Analysis · Art History and Market Analysis · Ethics, Aesthetics, and Art · Psychology
The Strike of the Demon
The Oxford Handbook of Value Theory
A Distinction in Value
Admiration, Appreciation, and Aesthetic Worth
Appreciating Bad Art
Bad Art and Good Taste
Two Distinctions in Goodness
Aesthetic and Nonaesthetic
On Liking Aesthetic Value
The Nature of Intrinsic Value
On the Aesthetic Ideal
In Defence of Moderate Aesthetic Formalism
Aesthetic Experience Revisited
The Aesthetic Enkratic Principle
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |