- Posts: 2300
- Thank you received: 2650
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.
Art isn't "subjective"
- Erik Twice
- Topic Author
- Offline
- D8
- Needs explosions
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!
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
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.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Erik Twice
- Topic Author
- Offline
- D8
- Needs explosions
- Posts: 2300
- Thank you received: 2650
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.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.
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.
If you are FOR judgemental attitudes, then why do you complain about someone looking down on the work of Lyndsey Look?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.
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.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.
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.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- engineer Al
- Offline
- D6
- Mama mia!
- Posts: 895
- Thank you received: 734
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Posts: 1897
- Thank you received: 1268
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.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
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...
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Erik Twice
- Topic Author
- Offline
- D8
- Needs explosions
- Posts: 2300
- Thank you received: 2650
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.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.
Nobody's work is diminished because they were made with commercial expectations.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).
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- SuperflyPete
- Offline
- Salty AF
- SMH
- Posts: 10733
- Thank you received: 5119
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
With commercial success people become lazy - they stick to tried routines to remain lucrative.Erik Twice wrote:
Nobody's work is diminished because they were made with commercial expectations.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).
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.