Hmm.. well I normally make a point of listening, but I have money to spare.
I dunno. Kant's seems reasonable. Most pre-modern art and some modern are that just has inherent aestetic aspects that I think can be appreciated in a neutral setting. Admittedly, this is probably worse than a neutral setting. That isn't to say it would be recognized as great art, but I think it could at least be typically recognized as good. More context/training is probably required to recognize it as great.
Modern art is often divorced from aestetics which makes intent and context much more important.
I'm focusing on context here because obviously the intent of the artist was still there. The intent of the listner might not be, but I'm guessing intent refers more to the artist than the listner.
no subject
I dunno. Kant's seems reasonable. Most pre-modern art and some modern are that just has inherent aestetic aspects that I think can be appreciated in a neutral setting. Admittedly, this is probably worse than a neutral setting. That isn't to say it would be recognized as great art, but I think it could at least be typically recognized as good. More context/training is probably required to recognize it as great.
Modern art is often divorced from aestetics which makes intent and context much more important.
I'm focusing on context here because obviously the intent of the artist was still there. The intent of the listner might not be, but I'm guessing intent refers more to the artist than the listner.