After presenting this to the class:
- What would you change in your own award, and why?
Another group separate people by age group and access them separately, I think that’s a good idea. Also, our group focus on the intention of the artist, but in the class discussion, I realize that the value of an artwork is actually more dependent on the audience world. An artist might unintentionally create something that deeply connects to the audience and might changes people for the better. So intention should not be an important criterion.
- What did you realize about others’ awards? Questions you might raise?
So the main “unsolve” questions that repeatedly come up in our discussion are:
How to measure emotion? A lot of us said that good art is able to raise emotion among many people. I believe in oneself, it’s easy to know how strong is one’s emotion, it’s just hard to accurately describe it to others——except using art. So that’s kind of a dead loop.
How to ensure that the judges are unbias? Who should be qualified as an expert? Or if we are getting public voting, which platform? In extension to the public voting, are popular art equal to good art? All these questions finally come together back to the very beginning: What is good art?
But then I wonder if no one knows what is good art, then how does arts award in real life survive? Maybe good art doesn’t have to be “good” universally, or “good” objectively. If I think it’s valuable to me, then it’s valuable to me. Even if it’s meaningless to others, it’s still valuable to me. So art awards are not actually trying to decide what’s good, they are more like the recommendation list on your music app.