Art doesn’t have to be “valuable to the market”
John Green on episode 401 of his Dear Hank & John podcast (Overcast link):
Art doesn’t have to only bring you joy, it could also bring you curiosity or interest or intrigue. But if it brings you something, whatever it beings you, that allows you to keep coming back to it and experience richness from it, like living with it for years. That is good art. That is if the definition of good art. Good art doesn’t have to be valuable to the market.
I love this sentiment. It came up in a discussion of art in general, and that if you want art in your home, you don’t need to spend tons of money on it. The market doesn’t get to determine how good a piece of art is to you. Ask any parent how much joy their kid’s crayon scribbles mean to them and then try to convince them that those scribbles aren’t actually that valuable because the market values them at approximately $0.
This is related to my general distaste for the “I know it’s a bad movie but I liked it” phobia. I don’t like that we often see individual pieces of art has having an accepted and objective value in the world (the Rotten Tomatoes-ification of everything, if you will). Some art resonates with more people than other art, I just don’t think anyone should feel like they need to belittle something they enjoy just because most people don’t seem to appreciate it like they do.