Super Senior Member
Art: Quality vs. Content
This is an issue I've been mulling over for a while, but it seems like the art world has developed a bad habit of evaluating art based on content and not quality. It's a bad way to go about it because whether or not you like the content of a piece of art is impossible for the artist to decide. That is entirely on you as the viewer, and relies heavily on self-projection. So a piece of art that is extremely well drawn could still be getting mixed reviews just because people might or might not like what it's "of". Art criticisms should primarily be aimed at the artist and how he handled the subject, not what the subject IS. The only way to satisfy a person critiquing on content rather than quality is to draw what they want exactly how they want it, and that is a totally unreasonable demand for a critic to make.
For example: I hate abstract art. But if I were to give a professional critique on pieces done by masters of the movement, I would still give them reasonable ratings. This doesn't mean I like the subject, it simply means I appreciate how it was handled: the technique and skill involved. Of course, there will be exceptions, like blank canvasses or solid colored squares and other crap like that. But I can still look at it objectively, if nothing else.
I think this has a lot to do with why manga isn't respected as an art form: too many people criticizing it for its content, and not its quality. Opinions?