Is Art Subjective? And If So, Should We Return To Objective Standards

>>2455831
There is no way you made what's in that picture

>>2455832
i did, i spent like 40 hours sculpting it in my garage, my lesbian art teacher ms shone is a cunt tho.

File: Ein_Hauch_von_Tüll.jpg (15KB, 307x213px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 307x213px

>>2455831
>i made this in art class

https://youtu.be/lNI07egoefc

here you go

File: IMG_002.jpg (71KB, 550x733px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 550x733px

>>2455832
>>2455834
My version you fuck heads.

>>2455835
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-07e6L93pF4

Try and watch this, this bitch thinks she is muh talented.

>>2455831
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHw4MMEnmpc

watch this, great redpill on modern art

File: 1344713454845.jpg (25KB, 426x325px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 426x325px

>>2455831
Depends. Do you see the main question as "art VS not art", or "good art VS bad art"?

Personally, I think the notion that something has to be intrinsically good to be art is silly. Not only does it imply that art cannot be bad, but it also requires argument over the quality of a work before even getting to whether or not it's art at all. Much easier to roll with the assumption that art is anything requiring creative intent to produce, and THEN argue over quality.

File: averageface.jpg (201KB, 1370x1240px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 1370x1240px

i think beauty is objective, that there exists some perfect configuration of shapes out there, whether or not anyone knows what it is, that would make something of pure beauty.

there is an archetypical face made out of all of the average faces we see in the course of our lifetime, we check other people's faces against it.

take a look at pic related, it's thousands of photos taken of people blended together, notice they're all attractive. (if you deny this, you're lying.)
if someone has seen and could remember every possible human facial configuration, they'd know the what the perfect face is and be able to objectively tell you how beautiful a person is by comparing them to it.

an art piece depicting this face would objectively be more beautiful than one that doesn't.

>>2455839
For something to be art requires demonstrable ability. A pianist that can't play scales can never be a concert pianist. But (((they))) changed what is 'accepted' as art.

>>2455831
We are limited by biology therefore subjectivity is limited.

>>2455831
>Should We Return To Objective Standards


When did art ever have objective standards? Please try and make sense.

>>2455838
Yes, everyone should watch this video

Also go buy Ayn Rand's Romantic Manifesto. Does a great job of critiquing modern art.

File: WHOEVER CONTROLS DUNE CONTROLS THE SPICE.gif (1MB, 394x193px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 394x193px

>>2455831
yes we should return to objective standards that anyone can look at and recognize as art. Art shouldn't make the audience think, that's not art that's literally just shilling cultural marxism to make people feel nihilistic thus deeper seep into darkness and treat other humans shitty

>>2455831
How is that depth in the eyes created? Are the irises just deep holes?

>>2455839
Art became bad when Art became easy to produce. Any 300 pound feminist can smear their period blood on a canvass and call it "Art" while living off government NEET buck.

>>2455847
Art became bad with the coming of capitalism and the destruction of the traditional aristocracy and the patronage system.

File: 1488412920182.gif (776KB, 450x450px) Image search: [Google]

776KB, 450x450px

>>2455831
I wonder (((Who))) has destroyed art time and time again.. I wonder (((who))) on earth could have made art degenerate and disgusting and shitty... Couldn't be the same ethnic group every time throughout history... I mean no (((Coincidences))) here

Yes
No you can't

>>2455848
This guy gets it

Hope you're a first grade student because you understood nothing about art.

You're talking about a classical concept of beauty in art, but we've surpassed that long ago.

It's not that your work is not "artistic", but it dates from 2k years ago and it's not interesting anymore.

Try doing something "new" and attractive to the people.

File: 1337621351794.jpg (163KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 600x600px

>>2455852
>Try doing something "new" and attractive to the people.
>art is entirely about novelty and popular appeal

>>2455849
why do they destroy art

File: 1474301699974.jpg (53KB, 564x635px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 564x635px

>>2455852
>Try doing something "new" and attractive to the people.
kill yourself as hard as you can

>>2455854
Envy

The problem with art in our era is that everything is either derivative or a rehash of previous works, like movies and music and literature, or else completely senseless with no real content at all, like modern "art".

It's just a sign of the era that we live in. Our golden age of explosive creative energy is gone. Everything meaningful our culture had to say has already been said, and now all we can do is mimic and make references to the past. After the collapse, when a new culture rises, they'll create new things we never even imagined were possible.

>>2455853
It isn't but if you want to be recognised and live from it what do you expect? Art is about appealing to the soul/mind of people, but you can't expect this by copying something that millions of art students did already.

You can still explore classical concepts but it's hard near impossible to do anything new or better because a lot of people did it before.

I'm not the kind of artist who likes some modern conceptual art so I get the feeling you have about this.

>>2455855
Go die by rapefugee

>>2455852
>surpassed that long ago
>barely even a single century
>long ago

Hello from /pol/

>>2455858
Mátate a ti mismo, Schlomanolo

>>2455909
What are you trying to argue, ignorant trash? You're just a peasant to me and my bloodline.

>>2455946
Kys

>>2455831
Poor shitposting in an attempt to make a point aside, I have never seen somebody advocating for objective standards actually outline any. Why could this be?

Define "Art".

I despise all forms of "I am an individual. Look at me!" art, yet I admit that "art" is by definition is the subjective expression of beauty. Twin brothers with the exact same DNA, social background, and education could have different standards of art. So go fuck yourself you fucking faggot for wanting the entire fucking universe to abide by your fucking art standards.

>>2455832
>missing the point this hard

How's life from that 20 point IQ brain like?

>>2455854
BEACAUSE THEY ARE EEEEEVIL RATS

>>2455840
post modernists on suicide squad

It's subjective has objective qualities

File: SonOfSaul.jpg (32KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 512x512px

>>2455840
Does "beauty" only mean something that is pleasant to look at, and therefore more uplifting?

Can a work of art that is depressing therefore not be beautiful?

This is 4chan, so i'm not sure what you're view on the holocaust is, but Son of Saul was an incredibly well directed and haunting envisioning of part of the life of one Sonderkommando, and I would regard this as a beautiful work of art. It's fucking depressing, but it's beautiful.

Here is the flaw in your logic: you said that "an art piece depicting this face would objectively be more beautiful than one that doesn't."

Look at the picture I have uploaded, and compare it to the one I have given you the link to: http://www.wonderslist.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Amber-Heard-Most-Beautiful-Woman-2016.jpg

Which is the more beautiful photograph?

You might say that both are beautiful but in different ways...

>>2455831
>>2455838
I agree there is too much disassociation with art from beauty.
>>2455858
>It isn't but if you want to be recognised and live from it what do you expect? Art is about appealing to the soul/mind of people, but you can't expect this by copying something that millions of art students did already.

Can you be more specific? Appealing is the soul/mind of the people is good. But are you referring to the depth of appeal or the range of appeal? I assume you mean both, but then you have to define the standards for that too.

For example, if we are talking about the range of appeal, that means Beyonce and John Green are good artists.

If we are talking about the depth of appeal, how do you articulate something like that not just for the individual, but for a group?

>>2455841
art:
>the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

This is a perfect definition.

In a fit of autism, you've failed to realise that it's possible to make general statements about what something [art] is.

File: hb_2005.100.157.jpg (153KB, 1192x1500px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 1192x1500px

>>2456557
>Does "beauty" only mean something that is pleasant to look at, and therefore more uplifting?

I don't think that's what he's saying.

>Can a work of art that is depressing therefore not be beautiful?

No.

>Here is the flaw in your logic: you said that "an art piece depicting this face would objectively be more beautiful than one that doesn't."

True.

>Which is the more beautiful photograph?

None. One is in context to a film and the other is glamour shot.

The criteria for beauty in a photograph has elements such as composition and technique.

>>2455840
>art can only depict beauty

This is why I hate subjective fags, they define art by what they like/dislike, i.e feelings.
Any art (skill) requires an artist to perform it, an artist who has an skill which is acquired and honed with practice.

No matter if you are a painter, singer, writer, sculptor, doctor, martial artists, you need to practice to acquire enough skill to the even be called one (artist), and art can only come from artists.

And sense skill can be objectively measured, art is thud is objective.

OP's sculpture is competent, and that fucking whore of a teacher doesn't know what the fuck is she talking about, fuck her and fuck you.

File: Monet - Le Pont Japonais.jpg (3MB, 4500x3408px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4500x3408px

>>2456710
Technique can be mesured. But the value of art is not about technique; the technique, the artist uses it to work toward his goal, his vision, with aim to incite a certain feeling to the audience.
But this feeling will be different within every man, and will vary even more in different times and locations in which people have grown with a certain tradition.
So yeah, subjective.

>>2455840
That's not objective.

None of the faces are attractive. I'm not even attracted to women (nor men).

File: Albert Bierstadt - Among the Sierra Nevada Mountains.jpg (3MB, 3993x2387px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3993x2387px

I'll post some art I saved

>objective
End this meme.

In any case, Pomo is shit and inherently reductionist and anti-life.

>>2455840
objectivity isn't the average of subjective judgments you dingo

Cringe thread.

People who attack Modern Art don't know anything about it seeing as Modern Art literally refers to art from 1860-1970.

Anyone discounting 110 years of art in its entirety clearly knows very little about it.

It's funny how any time I meet these brainlets who go on and on about renaissance art, they can't name 10, just 10 renaissance painters without going to Google for answers.

Embarrassing.

>>2457092
>the value of art is not in the technique
>posts Monet

Yeah...


There's a story about Picasso drawing in a napkin in a cafe in Italy, a woman saw the man drawing and astonished about the drawing asked if the man could sell it to her, Picasso said yes and charged her a very high price. The woman shocked replied "why is this so expensive?, It took you a few minutes to draw" which to Picasso replied "no, it took me 50 years to be able to draw this"

Art/skill/technique are one and the same, thus can be objectively measured.

>>2457187
Which is why technique is important.
Doesn't say anything about the value of art in itself.

>>2455852
>dude novelty > quality lmao
Being anti-beauty is blind and idiotic, I know you feel smart for reading the entire Wikipedia page on Dada but there really was qualities, subtleties, in art that have long been forgotten.

You can't get rid of Influence. All art is mimesis. The Mesoamericans and the Egyptians created similar pyrimads despite being geographically and temporally isolated from each other; so, too, pomo art becomes bland and samey by all trying to be "innovative" in the same exact way. As animals, our art is shaped by our primordial physiological needs and drives and are inseparable from them. Great art, like diamonds, are only made by the pressure of restrictions and convulsions of the heart, and not freedom from them.

>>2457194
>technique is important
>but that important thing doesn't affect the value of the art

Damn...

What do you define as "value", anon?

File: Thomas Cole - The Course of Empire 2.jpg (2MB, 1920x1196px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1196px

>>2457215
As I said, the value of art is the emotional response it procures to (you)

>>2455840
The internationalist want those white faces will be brown as poo for some reason.

>>2455840
Why do Romanians like pink women?

>>2455855
Neoclassical sculpture is not Classical sculpture you fucking moron. Your reproduction isn't even of Classical sculpture either, you stinky Hellenophile.

That work would shock the Hellenistic/Roman world like a modern Aphrodite of Knidos.

Secondly, Renaissance art generally is very boring and your reproduction is shite. 40 hours? I've spent more than that on the sonnet I'm working on. Fucker, the bust in marble of my wife took several hundred hours. Abloobloo why doesn't she like my unpolished reproduction???

>>2457222
No, anon, i asked you to define "value" not the value of art.

What is "value" to you?

File: Van Gogh - Nuit Etoilée2.jpg (4MB, 3249x2510px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3249x2510px

>>2457240
I know what you asked.

>>2457264
Then why aren't you answering?

>>2457240
This is the foolish valuation behind every postmodernist: the lack of objective values leads him to a reactionary position of being anti-values, or merely adopting OPPOSITE artistic valuations and assuming it to be true. Why is the postmodernist so resistant to independent valuation and judgements?

Great art is formed like a diamond: after a long time and under intense pressure. Your "freedom" (the freedom of infinite Duchamp and Pollock imitators, right?) is illusory.

>>2457236
>blake for ants

>>2457268
Because it is too broad and vague.

>>2457276
Hum shit, must have fucked up somewhere.

>>2457283
Lol, I'm only asking you to define ONE WORD, and that's to broad and vague?

Shouldn't you be in places like /b/, or /mlp/?

Slow people like you shouldn't try to comment here.

>>2457234
>Secondly, Renaissance art generally is very boring
Good job outing yourself as a retard, hack. You will always be a poser.

>>2457292
Fine, school me.

>>2457296
omg how DARE YOU challenge this dull retinal art! muh grease!

>>2457274
>Great art is formed like diamonds...

I really like that phrase. I swear subjectivism is one of the biggest disseas that ever entered the Human mind.

A Postmodernist's History of Art

Stone Age - 1900: boring formalist realist garbage
1900 - now: the good shit

>>2457304
Nobody thinks this.

>>2457297
Ok, let's use the Meriam dictionary to have a common base.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/value

For the sake of the argument I'll use the 3rd definition, since the first two are more related to money.

Value: relative worth, utility, or importance

Before proceeding do we agree on this definition?

>>2457301
It's a pleasant sounding but ultimately meaningless aphorism. Never in any of these threads has anybody ever actually put forward specific and quantifiable objective standards.

>>2457321
So you can't actually produce a definition of a single word by yourself?

>>2455841
>demonstrable ability

So they demonstrate the ability to make art?

>>2457331
Funny i just did

>>2457187
>>2456710

>>2457195
>Being anti-beauty is blind and idiotic

No it's not. There's no use for beauty in art. It's not necessary.

>All art is mimesis.

Abstraction isn't mimesis.

>>2457333
>that reading comprehension
Oh, anon. Like I said I'm using the MeryWeb as a BASE to dwelve into what value is. Hence I'm asking you if you agree so far or want to change that base definition.

Are you capable of following that line of argument, or you just want to deflect from your ignorance?

>>2457187
>Art/skill/technique are one and the same

Proof?

>>2457344
You just stated your opinion, I don't think you've made an argument.
If I doodle something on a piece of paper, why isn't it art?

>>2457305
Except for postmodernists

>>2457274
There are objective values in postmodern art: quality of theory. There is good pomo art and bad.

>>2457368
Second paragraph.
>>2456710

>>2457344
Missed that, so time spent practicing by the artist is the objective measure of worth for a work of art?

P.S. OP's scenario is clearly a fantasy to push his opinions you fucking autist.

>>2457363
Go on.

>>2457376
They don't. Why would postmodernists like abstract expressionism when it is supposed to be the triumph of modernism? If they liked ab ex they wouldn't be making other forms of art.

>>2457381
>No matter if you are a painter, singer, writer, sculptor, doctor, martial artists, you need to practice to acquire enough skill to the even be called one

Proof?

>>2457376
Wrong, entirely.

>>2457375
>>2457381
>>2457382
>>2457390

Doctors where once called artists (Greeks), because like most artists they practiced long and hard to acquire their skill (art).

You can cut open a person, that doesn't make you a doctor, neither just doodling in a paper makes you an artist of painting.
>>2457383
Ok, so you agree with that BASE definition of value? "Relative worth, utility, importance"?

So I can expand from there.

>>2457299
>dull retinal art
Art is subjective, but I'm on the verge of saying you have no taste.

>>2457427
>>>2457375
>>>2457381
>>>2457382 (You)
>>>2457390
>Doctors where once called artists (Greeks), because like most artists they practiced long and hard to acquire their skill (art).
>You can cut open a person, that doesn't make you a doctor, neither just doodling in a paper makes you an artist of painting.
So what then is the objective standard?

>>2457430
I do have taste, you don't.

omg a picture glorifying shitty Greek philosophers wow so fucking profound wow it used new techniques in composition and geometry that makes it interesting now

>>2457427
Oh shit! The gf is here, time flies in this board...

I'll be back in a few, can you guys keep bumping?
Specially you >>2457383
Sorry for calling you things, but you are open to learn so YAY.

Back in a few.

File: 1461497984684.jpg (66KB, 887x914px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 887x914px

>>2457442
>omg a picture glorifying shitty Greek philosophers wow so fucking profound wow it used new techniques in composition and geometry that makes it interesting now

>>2457427
To be an artist all you need is to make art. It doesn't require practice, just an idea.

>>2455853
At least novelty and popular appeal are objective standards.

>>2457439
If it wasn't glaringly OBVIOUS anon, the difference is SKILL which is literally the same word as ART was called in the creadle of our civilization.

An artist is someone SKILFUL in any giben context.

Well anyway BRB.

>>2457462
>novelty and popular appeal
>objective standards
There is nothing objective about any of this.

>>2457465
>cradle of our civilization
what

>>2457465
So how is the skill used quantifiable so that art can be objectively measured? Or are these standards not comparative and simply bin potential works into "art" and "not art", in which case what is the test used?

>>2457472
Newness is objective. Popular appeal can be measured.

>>2457473
Did I stutter?
>>2457476
Skill is very easy to be quantifiable in every art there is.
Put a martial artist who has practiced 10 years against one who has practiced a year, a doctor with 10 years of experience against an intern, a painter with 10 years of experience against someone just in a few months learning, etc, etc.

You get the idea, skill is easy to measure, because there's no way around it, you either can perform a quadruple bypass or you can't, you can't BS the value of your art and you as an artist, because only having an IDEA, or a FEELING (emotion), doesn't make you an artist, it just makes you human...

>>2457677
So the quantifiable measure of skill is time spent practicing? And thus the best art is made by the most skilled?

>>2457726
Yeah by his logic artists only get better over time.

>>2457726
Is definitely important, but not the only one for sure, I've seen people learn and excel in things with half the time spend than others.
That's why in my example I'm using and extreme length of time (9-10 years), that to explain intuitively how one can measure skill. "The martial artist with 10 years of experience will definitely be quantifiable more skilled than the one with a year of experience"

As I said time spend practicing correlates to a more skillful artist, and a more skillful artist would create better art.

Now let me refer you to this post I've made before since we are discussing value, now that you talk about the best art.
>>2457321
As I see, we judge things from best to worst by how much value they have, and value being: relative worth, utility and importance.

So the best art would be the one with the most relative worth, more utility and importance.

For example, an skillful doctor whit many years of experience is worth, useful and important much more than the counter part in my previous example the intern, to expanding on this comparison in a practical use these same two performing their skill (art), if their art is their surgical operation abilities, then between the doctor and the inter is obvious who and why, would create the best art( a better operation), as you put it.

Bump, be back in the morning.

>>2457814
Please tell me you are not implying that practicing doesn't make you improve. I've met very few people whom actually thought like that, every single one is a loser, you know those kind of people who say in the same breath "why should I practice, why people don't value me"

Human trash desu.

>>2457837
None of what you said here had anything to do with my post.

>>2457825
>Is definitely important, but not the only one for sure, I've seen people learn and excel in things with half the time spend than others.
>That's why in my example I'm using and extreme length of time (9-10 years), that to explain intuitively how one can measure skill. "The martial artist with 10 years of experience will definitely be quantifiable more skilled than the one with a year of experience"
Can't you see how fucking worthless that is as an objective measure if you have to have such a large qualifier to make it so?

>As I see, we judge things from best to worst by how much value they have, and value being: relative worth, utility and importance.
>So the best art would be the one with the most relative worth, more utility and importance.
How do you measure this objectively. Other than monetary value, which I'd argue as good as all people who think there is or should be objective standards for art would disagree with, utility and importance are highly debatable.

Look, I'm not opposed to the idea that art is objective, that it an be objectively good or objectively bad; but until the point at which somebody plugging for the existance of objective standards brings some objectivity of their own and suggests specific quantifiable and reproducible measures by which the worth of art can be objectively measured then I will continue to be suspicious of the ability for art to be judged so

>>2455831
>Copy pasting
You'd get a D from me too

>>2455840
where are serbs (slavaturkiggers)?

>>2457124
As a Moroccan this hits me right in the fucking feels. We could have been an empire spanning from Ghana to South France if not for that cunt Charlemagne and that whore Isabel.

>mfw literally We Wuz Europeans and Shiet

>>2457198
This painting has something captivating about it.

>>2455857

>The problem with art in our era is that everything is either derivative or a rehash of previous works

>greek art have some resemblance on egyptian's
>roman art and religion borrows heavily from greek's
>there's a bunch of mythological themes shared between the cultures in the Mediterranean Sea like the Great Flood (Noah's / Enuma Elish)
>iberic music have some resemblance on arabic's

Yeah, nah. Culture and art are never 100% original.

>>2455831
It is subjective and that, in itself, is what makes it absolute. Art is all about celebrating the human bias and, IMO, discern what's divine about ourselves, what makes us special snowflakes in God's creation basically.

>>2455840
>that Peruvian
hahahaha yeah right

>>2455831
His eyes thou
Its the eyes of a living being

>>2455836
no shit you got a D

>>2455831
Dirrrrrrr art is only art if its realistic.

Ypur the same person who derrides innovative video games if the graphics are different, and shit on films that use animatronics

>>2457900
still waiting

File: 1444547391848.jpg (589KB, 650x586px) Image search: [Google]

589KB, 650x586px

>it's a /his/ talks about art thread

/ic/ here, lmaoing at your life

>>2457358
>No it's not. There's no use for beauty in art. It's not necessary.
That's some sour grapes right there.

>>2462588
Not at all, it was intended to be a neutral statement. Beauty has its uses, sure, for who would watch a film or TV show if the characters weren't conventionally attractive? Not those who challenge themselves. It's no coincidence that the people who lament the loss of beauty in art have a taste that only seems to extend to the beginning of the 19th century, and mostly comprises of knights, soldiers, etc. Beauty is only useful as a vehicle for narrative, and as such those who post this art are only interested in the subject matter because the most skilled artists it seems -- in their mind -- are those who hide that they are artists and simply depict that which the eye sees. Beauty becomes transparent, revealing in the subject matter there is no artistic imagination, no creative genius, no dynamism, no truth, not even a unified form -- nothing to elevate the mind of the viewer, nothing that stays with the viewer. It's just pretty pictures existing as themselves as fetish objects rather than art. Just mechanical craft. 19th century art is bourgeois art, literally (it had in mind its audience of the middle-class so tastelessness certainly accommodates this art), and its legacy is left with us in the form of popular entertainment.

I like popular entertainment, surely others here do too. But calling it (or 19th century paintings) art is an intellectual misstep.

you proved it isn't subjective by posting that picture

>>2457224
>>>/x/

>>2455840
>notice they're all attractive.
Nah mediocre at best desu senpai

>>2455844
From a shitty writer? No thanks