Front Page

Content

Authors

Game Index

Forums

Site Tools

Submissions

About

KK
Kevin Klemme
March 09, 2020
35176 2
Hot
KK
Kevin Klemme
January 27, 2020
20840 0
Hot
KK
Kevin Klemme
August 12, 2019
7430 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
December 19, 2023
3986 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
December 14, 2023
3509 0
Hot

Mycelia Board Game Review

Board Game Reviews
O
oliverkinne
December 12, 2023
2080 0
O
oliverkinne
December 07, 2023
2587 0

River Wild Board Game Review

Board Game Reviews
O
oliverkinne
December 05, 2023
2258 0
O
oliverkinne
November 30, 2023
2501 0
J
Jackwraith
November 29, 2023
3022 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
November 28, 2023
1973 0
S
Spitfireixa
October 24, 2023
3699 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
October 17, 2023
2627 0
O
oliverkinne
October 10, 2023
2463 0
O
oliverkinne
October 09, 2023
2295 0
O
oliverkinne
October 06, 2023
2511 0

Outback Crossing Review

Board Game Reviews
×
Bugs: Recent Topics Paging, Uploading Images & Preview (11 Dec 2020)

Recent Topics paging, uploading images and preview bugs require a patch which has not yet been released.

× Talk about other nerd culture stuff in here.

Art isn't "subjective"

More
29 Jun 2013 21:07 #155432 by Erik Twice
"That's like, your opinion, man."

I fancy myself a critic, as I like art, and I fancy myself stupid, for I like artists so I tend to be protective of both and there are fewer things that harm them more than the idea that art is subjective, that there's no reason or procedure to it and that nothing is ever "better".

People don't realize it but when they cover everything with the same blanket, they are saying that artists and their work don't really matter. That it doens't matter if you study color theory or spend hours working on in-betweens and composition because it's all subjective, that you don't really need it.

This is downright assinine to me. When I see my friends draw, sing and paint, I'm humbled. That's some difficult shit and people don't realize it. That's why people expect starving artists, what they do isn't seen as valuable to them. Why do you think people complain that "games are too expensive" and measure their worth in the number of included meeples? Because they don't value them.

And this is all bullshit to me.



Don't mind the terrible writing, give me your thoughts!
The following user(s) said Thank You: ubarose

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
29 Jun 2013 21:46 - 30 Jun 2013 02:23 #155433 by scissors
Replied by scissors on topic Re: Art isn't "subjective"
.
Last edit: 30 Jun 2013 02:23 by scissors.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
29 Jun 2013 22:01 - 29 Jun 2013 22:03 #155435 by Schweig!
Replied by Schweig! on topic Re: Art isn't "subjective"
I do believe you have the wrong definition of subjective. Subjective doesn't meant that all art is the same and that no one piece of art is better than another. Subjective means that people value different art differently. Which, if you consider one goal of art is triggering emotional responses in people, shouldn't surprise.
Last edit: 29 Jun 2013 22:03 by Schweig!.
The following user(s) said Thank You: ubarose, Gary Sax

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
29 Jun 2013 22:10 - 29 Jun 2013 22:11 #155436 by repoman
Replied by repoman on topic Re: Art isn't "subjective"
The attitude that you describe is the same one that allows a crucifix in a jar of urine to be called art while the work of Lyndsey Look is dismissed as overwrought child's play.

Really it's an offshoot of the intellectual poison that is Relativism. Truth cannot be known so there is no truth. If there is no truth then there is no good or bad. There is no better or best. All of existence is bull shit....blah blah blah.

It is a coward's philosophy. He does not wish to be judged and found wanting therefor no judgement is valid. It's crap.
Last edit: 29 Jun 2013 22:11 by repoman.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Erik Twice

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
29 Jun 2013 22:13 #155437 by Erik Twice

Schweig! wrote: I do believe you have the wrong definition of subjective. Subjective doesn't meant that all art is the same and that no one piece of art is better than another. Subjective means that people value different art differently. Which, if you consider one goal of art is triggering emotional responses in people, shouldn't surprise.

You can replace "art" with "quality of art" to obtain a better approximation of my complaints but these people tend to indeed say that "art is subjective" when they wouldn't say that about any other areas of knowledge.

But don't think too much about it, I'm more concerned about testing the idea itself than the terminology right now :)

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
29 Jun 2013 22:53 - 29 Jun 2013 23:02 #155438 by Schweig!
Replied by Schweig! on topic Re: Art isn't "subjective"

repoman wrote: The attitude that you describe is the same one that allows a crucifix in a jar of urine to be called art while the work of Lyndsey Look is dismissed as overwrought child's play.

Really it's an offshoot of the intellectual poison that is Relativism. Truth cannot be known so there is no truth. If there is no truth then there is no good or bad. There is no better or best. All of existence is bull shit....blah blah blah.

It is a coward's philosophy. He does not wish to be judged and found wanting therefor no judgement is valid. It's crap.

If you are FOR judgemental attitudes, then why do you complain about someone looking down on the work of Lyndsey Look?

Erik Twice wrote: You can replace "art" with "quality of art" to obtain a better approximation of my complaints but these people tend to indeed say that "art is subjective" when they wouldn't say that about any other areas of knowledge.

It pretty much applies to any cultural aspect where taste is involved. Music is subjective, humour is subjective, food is subjective ... Again I believe you must have the wrong definition of subjective.

What you are complaining about is a general lack of appreciation for fine arts by society at large. Which is all too understandable because art by definition involves the non-trivial. Fine arts only benefit a society indirectly. No person was ever satiated or warmed by, say, a exquisite stone sculpture. Throughout history only civilisations which could afford luxuries also created art of cultural value. (Whereas mass art celebrated in tyrannical, communist regimes is almost universally kitsch.) Art will never achieve the same appreciation as craftsmanship or work in general by any society and why should it (for the listed reasons)? I share the sentiment in that I believe art only gains real quality if it was created without commercial interest in mind (including professional artists who are usually just obnoxious). That's also why I do not regard commissioned illustration as art, for the same reason that the programming code I write at work isn't the same as the poetry I write at home.
Last edit: 29 Jun 2013 23:02 by Schweig!.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
29 Jun 2013 23:06 #155439 by engineer Al
Ridiculous. Art is nothing but subjective. If it wasn't we would all listen to the same music, and love the same authors. Repoman, for example, thinks Coltrane is a poor sax player and Vonnegut is not a good writer. Is he wrong? No. As ridiculous as his opinions are to me, he is not impacted by these artists the same way that I am and he is entitled to his very subjective opinion.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
30 Jun 2013 00:05 - 30 Jun 2013 00:05 #155441 by the_jake_1973
Art is subjective, be it audio, visual or the written word. What I think is bad art is certainly not what someone else thinks is bad art. My opinion certainly has no bearing on the art education of a particular artist. The only bad art is one that does not elicit a response from the audience. If there is no response, good or bad, then the artist has failed.

The very definition of what Art is is as unique as there are people viewing it, listening to it, or reading it. To say that art is objective also brings into mind that there is a codified ranking of artistic work. Terrible.

I do want to make a distinction between an artist's contribution to the art world at large and their work itself. While I recognize Picasso's place and contribution to the art world, I would rather hang a Peter Max in my home.
Last edit: 30 Jun 2013 00:05 by the_jake_1973.
The following user(s) said Thank You: ThirstyMan, wice

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
30 Jun 2013 00:15 - 30 Jun 2013 00:19 #155442 by eekamouse
It's subjective and objective at the same time. I agree with the sense of the OP though. You should be able to intelligently show "proof" of your opinion when discussing paintings, games, movies, etc...

That's really the only thing I think you should be able to count on in a quality critical work. Does the critic back themselves up. If their critique is full of anecdote, fine. But, as long they are honest with their approach and clear with all of the anecdotal baggage they are bringing to the work, most folks should be able to get something out of it.

However, there are some that go full bore "Post Modern" on everything and slip into that relativistic attitude of, "Yes... yes... but what would a native Alto Tarauacá Indian think of Guernica by Picasso?!?" Rehhh.. Who gives a rip! Actually... I would be quite interested in what a Alto Tarauacá Indian thought of it, but really that's just shifting Guernica into a new context. It doesn't mean it's value changes or lessens within the original Modern Art context that it was created and experienced in 1930s and 40s Europe. Hell... I might as well be the Alto Tarauacá Indian at this point. I have tenuous links at best to the Spanish Civil War which it depicts.

It looks monstrous. It also looks like a pagan orgy. I don't know. I guess it comes down to what the art was trying to accomplish. I think Guernica accomplished quite a bit.

Anyone ever seen Five Easy Pieces? Those intellectual assholes at the end? That's amazing. Such death exuded in their criticism of music. Recommended. Movie is a bit slow at times though.

-edit-

Still... you can be objectively critical of art as well. Why did he use black and white pain? Why is this stroke smooth and this one part of a collaged layer of strokes and media? Why are the bodies dismembered? etc... etc... Why did they user worker placement to do simulate XYZ? Blah blah blah... Then you start from there I guess and work your way to theme? Or you can just as easily work the other direction...
Last edit: 30 Jun 2013 00:19 by eekamouse.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
30 Jun 2013 01:35 #155444 by Not Sure
Replied by Not Sure on topic Re: Art isn't "subjective"
Saddest Friday Freakout ever.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Ska_baron, engineer Al

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
30 Jun 2013 08:35 #155453 by Erik Twice

engineer Al wrote: Ridiculous. Art is nothing but subjective. If it wasn't we would all listen to the same music, and love the same authors.

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.

Schweig! wrote: I share the sentiment in that I believe art only gains real quality if it was created without commercial interest in mind (including professional artists who are usually just obnoxious).

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

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
30 Jun 2013 12:01 #155455 by Juniper
Replied by Juniper on topic Re: Art isn't "subjective"
Subjectivity is fine. The real problem: people are terrible at being subjects.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Hatchling

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
30 Jun 2013 13:49 #155457 by SuperflyPete
Even in a world where talentless hacks like myself are allowed to exist, I still offer that this is the single most ridiculously inaccurate and straight up bullshit thesis in the history of theses. The Opinionated Gamers have more accurate and thought provoking ideas.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
30 Jun 2013 14:26 #155459 by Schweig!
Replied by Schweig! on topic Re: Art isn't "subjective"

Erik Twice wrote:

Schweig! wrote: I share the sentiment in that I believe art only gains real quality if it was created without commercial interest in mind (including professional artists who are usually just obnoxious).

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

With commercial success people become lazy - they stick to tried routines to remain lucrative.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
30 Jun 2013 15:04 #155461 by bomber
Replied by bomber on topic Re: Art isn't "subjective"
Isnt art about the struggle to find and display some truth about the world, and is all about the artists struggle and expression of that. Whether anyone else likes it or not has nothing to do with that, so I don't see an either/or here. Subjective it can be, it doesn't matter if someone spent a lifetime learning their craft, you can appreciate the skill and effort but still think it's shit. That's subjective. You can read a book that might be the work of genius, and still think its shit. You can listen to music thats been crafted by someone whos devoted a lifetime of skill and practice to be able to create it, but it can still sound shit to some people and amazing to others. The consumption of art is not the same as the art itself, nor anything to do with what the art represents, which is entirely internal to the artist. At least thats how I understand it.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Moderators: Gary Sax
Time to create page: 0.281 seconds