Being skilled just means consistently making things of high quality.
Just… no. I am not talking about some vague thing such as “being skilled at writing”, which you might be able to paraphrase as “consistently writing things of high quality”. The kind of skill that I have in mind which might confer value on a work of art is basically the ability to do something very non-trivial which need not in any way involve a value judgment. A very simple example would be to paint something with realistic lighting.
How is a painting exercising the creator’s skill of painting something with realistic lighting (skill of the creator) any different from a painting having realistic lighting (quality of the creation)? A painting having realistic lighting is not observer-relative, but the importance of realistic lighting is. You can’t objectively call the painting “good”, you can only say it has realistic lighting. And given how many things there are that you can objectively grade a painting on, it’s all too easy to only talk about the good qualities of paintings you like and the bad qualities of paintings you dislike.
In my experience, virtuosity is often roughly measured by the answer to questions like “what fraction of the population could have achieved this goal?” or “how many hours of practice were required to gain the necessary skills for this?”, depending on the circumstances in which the word is used. I suppose that’s fairly objective, although not precise. If painter A could paint both X and Y, and many painters B, C, D… could paint X but not Y, that is some evidence that painting Y is more ‘excellent’ than X in some way that goes beyond preference.
It can also be used as a self-compliment on the part of an audience member; in this usage, it is implied that one must have a great deal of experience with the medium in order to appreciate the work.
Just… no. I am not talking about some vague thing such as “being skilled at writing”, which you might be able to paraphrase as “consistently writing things of high quality”. The kind of skill that I have in mind which might confer value on a work of art is basically the ability to do something very non-trivial which need not in any way involve a value judgment. A very simple example would be to paint something with realistic lighting.
How is a painting exercising the creator’s skill of painting something with realistic lighting (skill of the creator) any different from a painting having realistic lighting (quality of the creation)? A painting having realistic lighting is not observer-relative, but the importance of realistic lighting is. You can’t objectively call the painting “good”, you can only say it has realistic lighting. And given how many things there are that you can objectively grade a painting on, it’s all too easy to only talk about the good qualities of paintings you like and the bad qualities of paintings you dislike.
In my experience, virtuosity is often roughly measured by the answer to questions like “what fraction of the population could have achieved this goal?” or “how many hours of practice were required to gain the necessary skills for this?”, depending on the circumstances in which the word is used. I suppose that’s fairly objective, although not precise. If painter A could paint both X and Y, and many painters B, C, D… could paint X but not Y, that is some evidence that painting Y is more ‘excellent’ than X in some way that goes beyond preference.
It can also be used as a self-compliment on the part of an audience member; in this usage, it is implied that one must have a great deal of experience with the medium in order to appreciate the work.