The Eye of the Beholder - Only If Money Goes Where Mouth Is

I subscribed to a couple of rock music magazines back in the 80s. Frequently the magazines had polls about who the best band was, the best guitarist, the best singer, etc. I was a musician, and I loved all permutations of heavy metal and hard rock. Of course I had my opinions as to who and what was "the best." And every time the poll results came out I was aghast at the choices for top picks. How could they?! How could they not recognize that so-and-so is a better guitarist? ...that he's faster, more virtuostic, flashier? And best bands: Are you kidding? Why would you pick them?

Over time I thought a lot about results like that. I concluded that the musicality, such that it was (manifested more quantifiably in airplay and album sales), and overall performance (manifested in concert success) trumped so-called technical ability. I could now get on board with the reasoning of why the winners won. If the band is selling records better than anybody else and/or selling out concerts more than anybody else how do such benchmarks not constitute a standard of "bestness". In a simpler way, music that people actually want to listen to should certainly fare better than flashy music qua flashy music.

Which brings us to today: I participated in an art contest recently (having entered some oil paintings). It was a little online thing of which the winnings were little more than a pat on the back. I thought I should win, but no, I didn't prevail.  And yes, I can appreciate how this diatribe might look a tad like sour grapes. It doesn't mean my point is without merit.

The thing is: The victor is just like the bands and guitarists I thought should have won 30 odd years ago. Technically the work was well done. It's full of meticulous detail; it's dark; it's disturbing. My contention, however, is that it is not the sort of work that people actually want to hang on their walls. They'd say, "Yeah, that's very good," but then they'd go and buy something a little more easy on the eyes. Like my stuff.

You see, this time around, the voters were the guitarists, as it were (see above), not the actual record buyers and concert goers (figuratively speaking). Yet art really should only be judged by prospective buyers (including artists, if they're truly considering buying said pieces), by the people who decide what to put on the wall--not pretentiously criticism-prone artists already in the field, who are apt to judge based on sheer technical ability (as happened in my aforementioned contest). A pretty good litmus test to inform the judgment might well be: "How much do I want that in my living room?"

The answer to that question should be the beginning and end of how well a creative work should do.