Art isn't "subjective"

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.

Subjectivity is fine. The real problem: people are terrible at being subjects.

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.

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.

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.

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!