Tiffany Jenkins: The good, the bad and the non-judgmental

Only by forming an opinion about a piece of art can we assess its worth, writes Tiffany Jenkins

The most striking moment on this week’s Start the Week – Radio 4’s flagship ideas programme – was when the BBC’s arts editor, Will Gompertz, could not – or would not – say which artists of the past or the present were good or bad. “I think my personal opinion is not the point,” he said, evading the question put to him by a fellow guest. Is there anything really risible in modern art from the last 20 years?

He should have had an answer. After all, this is a man with a new book out – What Are You Looking At? 150 Years of Modern Art in the Blink of an Eye – which surveys the history of a century and a half of art work, whose job it is to report on the arts, and who used to work at Tate Modern. You would think that he would have something to say about what he rates or hates, or be able to offer an insight or an impression. The last two decades have seen the reign of Tracey Emin, Damien Hirst, and Sarah Lukas. Is he simply neutral on these young British artists? What does he think of the unmade bed, or the shark in a tank? It seems to be a case of: I know what I like but I am not going to tell you.

And yet, Gompertz made two important observations. One – that there is a collusion taking place today between artists, dealers, galleries and curators, which means it is in their interests to promote as excellent work that could do with a bit more critical engagement. We, therefore, get a steady stream of propaganda proclaiming that everything is amazing, because nobody wants to talk it down. And, two, that the public would like to be part of a conversation about what is good, and what is bad, and why. There is a hunger for critical commentary that is not on offer. He refused to proffer a point of view despite identifying this stance as a problem. “There is not enough discussion about what is good and what is bad.” Gompertz – rightly – observed, before he was silent on what is good and what is bad.

But lest this just be a finger- pointing exercise at one man, let me say that he is far from the only one who fails to nail his colours to the mast. We are living in non-judgmental times, when the mantra – “it’s just a matter of opinion” – is what counts. I have heard this so many times and each time it becomes less convincing. I don’t believe that good or bad art is all in the eye of the beholder.

The idea that everyone’s opinion is valid is the wrong approach. For a start, this outlook devalues art. If anything can count as good and everyone’s point of view is valid, then art ceases to have a point. There is no rational to what is included in the Turner Prize or any art gallery if everything is subjective. This kind of relativism is a problem for anyone wanting to get to grips with any kind of art. Besides, there are standards and ways to assess art work. The way to work out if something is good or not is not a science, of course. It is not all that simple, but it starts with looking and, crucially, comparing.

Assessing the quality of the work is an act that draws on knowledge of the particular tradition. For example, is the painter better than what came before? With their technical ability and their skill, are they more successful at encapsulating an idea with a brush stroke? And how do they relate to or change the cannon of great work? In addition, in assessing a piece, we have to be open to what is new and innovative, as well as aware of our own taste which we should develop and which requires some work. Finally, the most important question to ask of the piece is does the artist communicate a truth that feels right? It is then essential to test one’s own view against another’s. Art critics and commentators – and you and I – must discriminate between what we like and dislike and be able to stand these positions up. They must be argued for and defended.

Agreement and disagreement shows that our likes and dislikes are not just our personal opinion. This isn’t an objective test or a scientific proof; but it is something that is tested, discussed and shared in public. The power of judgment rests on a potential agreement with others. Trying to make the case for an artist holds the possibility of winning agreement. This helps to build up a common culture of what is considered valuable, and what should be disregarded.

Anything else just treats art with indifference. Good art is more than just one’s point of view, and our reticence to say so is down to cowardice. Cowardice about the art work, mixed up with a dose of fear about the public: that they won’t agree with you, or the feeling that maybe they are a little bit too thick to engage intelligently.

The reluctance to state and defend an opinion reveals a lack of genuine interest in art and an absence of confidence in other people.

For if someone is truly engaged in art they will argue the case for a painting, installation, or performance with others. Anyone really interested in culture tries to persuade their friends, family and others around them of something’s worth; and they do so by explaining what they like about it.