Art isn't "subjective"

Erik Twice wrote: but these people tend to indeed say that "art is subjective" when they wouldn't say that about any other areas of knowledge.

Have you not come across the science wars? The cruz of that whole argument was precisely about whether objectivity was attainable or even desirable. (The science wars are also worth looking at because it all gets hilariously petty at times. I also like the way it makes hardened New Atheists suddenly decide that maybe NOMA isn't such a bad concept after all).

That aside, the idea that interpretation is subjective is standard in the arts and, to a lesser extent, the humanities.

Erik Twice wrote: Since when is your personal taste a measure of quality? Beethoven's 9th and Tropic of Cancer are good whether you like them or not.

That's merely an assertion, not an argument. What you need, if you're going to argue that you can objectively quantify the quality of art, is to define some specific methods that you believe will allow you to do so. There are several different ones that people have used, but they all come with their own problems.

The technical competence needed to produce the work. This, for me, is probably the strongest approach. There's a good argument that you are able to judge this on objective grounds. However, it runs into problems when it comes up against art that doesn't prioritise technical competence, or even sets itself up in opposition to the concept. Outsider art for example, although the underlying principle there is "authenticity", which is an even more nebulous and problematic concept.

The overall popularity of the work. This is even more easily quantifiable then technical competence, at least with commercial works. It makes sense in terms of its own internal consistency as well. However, it's unpopular specifically because it really does reduce everything down to mass appeal. I find that those most insistent on the idea that you can objectively judge the quality of art absolutely don't want to leave it to the fickle tastes of hoi polloi. Partly because it would give strength to populist arguments like "why don't we shift arts funding to sports, as the latter is far more popular".

Allow a small number of "tastemakers" to judge the quality of art. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? That's the real issue with this. It solves the problem of not having any way of judging art objectively, but generally raises the issue of self-selecting elites and why, specifically, they have the competence to take this role on.

Those are the main ones I can think of. Do you hold to one of those or do you have your own suggested method of judging this? Because to claim that you can judge art objectively is only a valid position if you can get into the specifics of how you propose to do so. Without that, you have objective art being valued by subjective methods. Which leaves you in the same position you're criticising.

Nobody's work is diminished because they were made with commercial expectations.

"Nobody" is a bit strong. I wouldn't say it's always the case. The ceiling of the Sistine Chapel is no less impressive a piece because it was work for hire. But to argue it's never a factor is a step too far for me. Even at a very basic level, it can lead to an artist prioritising a commercially viable piece of work over a potentially better one.

As always, Dorothy Parker puts this better then I ever could.

Everything’s great, in this good old world;
(This is the stuff they can always use.)
God’s in His heaven, the hill’s dew-pearled;
(This will provide for the baby’s shoes.)

I had a whole lot to say about this, but then I just said to hell with it and deleted everything. There is no point in discussing fine art with anyone that thinks that the greatness of a piece of artwork is a function of a person's taste. If you don't understand how "Piss Christ", a Rothko, or a Pollock are art and a cool picture of a pirate or whatever isn't, it's a waste of breath to argue about art. It would be like me trying to argue about what is of isn't quantum physics. It's shocking how few people understand the value and function of fine art in all cultures. It's downright shameful that fine art is denigrated and ridiculed by these same people that just don't get it and never will.

Michael Barnes wrote: I had a whole lot to say about this, but then I just said to hell with it and deleted everything. There is no point in discussing fine art with anyone that thinks that the greatness of a piece of artwork is a function of a person's taste. If you don't understand how "Piss Christ", a Rothko, or a Pollock are art and a cool picture of a pirate or whatever isn't, it's a waste of breath to argue about art. It would be like me trying to argue about what is of isn't quantum physics. It's shocking how few people understand the value and function of fine art in all cultures. It's downright shameful that fine art is denigrated and ridiculed by these same people that just don't get it and never will.

But isn't it a little arrogant to ask of other people to understand art just as they should understand quantum physics? I've found that unless one stops applying their personal expectations to everybody, one will forever be disappointed.

I have no expectations beyond failure for myself so I am constantly surprised by everyone around me.

Michael Barnes wrote: I had a whole lot to say about this, but then I just said to hell with it and deleted everything. There is no point in discussing fine art with anyone that thinks that the greatness of a piece of artwork is a function of a person's taste. If you don't understand how "Piss Christ", a Rothko, or a Pollock are art and a cool picture of a pirate or whatever isn't, it's a waste of breath to argue about art. It would be like me trying to argue about what is of isn't quantum physics. It's shocking how few people understand the value and function of fine art in all cultures. It's downright shameful that fine art is denigrated and ridiculed by these same people that just don't get it and never will.

Absolutely!

Also know that humans share 98% of their genome with the house pig and 99% with the chimp; so human "intelligence" is really only hidden somewhere in that 1%. A chimp can peel a banana but the pig can't - that's covered by 1% of intelligence. We tend to confuse education with intelligence; it's really just training. Most people lack the proper training to "understand" art.

Schweig! wrote: A chimp can peel a banana but the pig can't - that's covered by 1% of intelligence.

I thought that was covered by opposable thumbs and not intelligence.

It's true that art is not precise and mechanical like math or science, but that doesn't reduce art to the level of pure subjectivity. There are actual standards by which art is judged. This goes for music, literature, sculpture, and so on. Ignorance of those standards does not constitute a refutation of those standards. How the standards are applied with respect to a given work of art can be somewhat subjective. And sometimes a work of genius can utterly defy the standards and break new ground.

tscook wrote: I have no expectations beyond failure for myself so I am constantly surprised by everyone around me.

This is shockingly depressing. I have continual expectations of excellence from myself. I'd rather fail constantly knowing that I always yearned to attain excellence rather than expect mediocrity and be constantly impressed with my abilities.

Your philosophy seems to be one of being happy with mediocrity due to low expectations. Shit, if you look at Washington, this is the pinnacle of your mindset: we expect douchebaggery and failure and we end up with failures and douchebags. When something like the DOMA ruling comes down, we're ecstatic, when in fact we should've been blatantly appalled that it could be allowed to exist in the first place.

To say that art is subjective isn't to denigrate it or to drag it down to the level of Pop Idol. It's the opposite. By recognising that art is subjective we also recognise that it has something unique to say to the human condition.

Shellhead wrote: It's true that art is not precise and mechanical like math or science, but that doesn't reduce art to the level of pure subjectivity. There are actual standards by which art is judged. This goes for music, literature, sculpture, and so on. Ignorance of those standards does not constitute a refutation of those standards. How the standards are applied with respect to a given work of art can be somewhat subjective. And sometimes a work of genius can utterly defy the standards and break new ground.

There are no standards that are universally accepted, even if you limit it to recognised academics within the field. Even something as simple as "does art aim to be beautiful" is highly contentious. In that, I'd see art theory as closest to philosophy if you're looking for similar disciplines.

ThirstyMan wrote:

Schweig! wrote: A chimp can peel a banana but the pig can't - that's covered by 1% of intelligence.

I thought that was covered by opposable thumbs and not intelligence.

Not even opposable thumbs as raccoon can handle it and their thumbs aren't actually considered opposable. They make up for it with high manual dexterity.

What were we talking about again?