Is there a way to prove to someone that his taste is objectivly bad?

>>2688177
No.

>>2688177
Why would you want to do that?

Let them enjoy what they want to enjoy.

Why you gotta literally take the fun out of their life?

>>2688177
If it's not in the Bible, it's bad. Or something like that.

>>2688197
>Why would you want to do that?

Because people cater to them which means less tasteful things get created.

>>2688177
Age. If that doesn't work, shovel to the head.

>>2688177
>taste
>objective
I think you should look up what these words mean.

>>2688232
/thread

File: NekoKekken.jpg (233KB, 758x497px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 758x497px

>>2688232

There was a time where some painters believed honestly that it was possible to reach that mysterious unicorn, that artists would benefit from knowing the guiding principles of "le grand gout" (good taste) and combining it with the study of nature to create what would be the ideal beauty.

They're all dead today, but were they necessarily wrong, if we take their intents into account, can't it become an objective measure for their success or lack thereof at reaching that particular goal? (considering it like a closed system, like you would judge a chinese pottery based on chinese culture and taste rather than as a universal and intemporal thing)

It pains me to put Dobson and Rembrandt on the same level, alas I can't prove that blue bear is "objectively" bad.

> Meanwhile on r9k, subjectively bad art is posted daily

>>2688177
if someone can't give legitimate reasons why they like something then i say they have shit taste

>>2688674
This is flawed logic, because any why question has a deeper why behind it, and eventually every single one comes down to "just because".

>why do you like Indian food?
>I like the spiciness of it!
>why do you like spicy food?
>it makes my tongue tingle and I enjoy that sensation
>why do you like it when your tongue tingles?
>I just do

>>2688177

you cant, but if you know deep in your heart that a persons tastes are ass, then they're ass.

>>2688177
Let shitters enjoy shitty art. It's only natural.
And more importantly, don't think that you are a better person just for having a better taste in art.

>>2688264
They did it so European culture is full of it. Da Vinci and other old masters figured out that we are seduced by the proportions and shapes found in nature. e.g. human seduction, or amazing food. It resulted in using Fibonacci patterns to make things beautiful, for example. In the end they had all sorts of maths and rules that say what is beautiful. Not liking what is beautiful due to maths and rules would be bad taste. But that time is over for most people.

>>2688688
>eventually every single one comes down to "just because".

i don't understand what point you're trying to make at all. wouldn't this happen with any sort of question?

>>2688177
That's really a question of philosophy and aesthetics. Someone like Roger Scruton might argue that there is objectively superior art out there, and modern architecture styles are inferior to classical architecture which has lasted through the generations and is still revered today. There is some kind of inherent value in good art.
Then it's more of a question of 'beauty'. In the past, beauty was the standard to be achieved for (as a result of our biological preferences for good proportions and pretty landscapes that have evolved over the millenia). Not all art today is beautiful. Many contemporary shitpieces are meant to shock and disturb, because the artists have become bored of beauty and seek some other meaning in their work. Art was meant to be pleasing to the senses, but then devolved into just being stimulating to the senses, not matter what emotion it evokes.
Then the question becomes, is art that is not beautiful, that doesn't represent anything, still art? Then it's the 'what is art' thing all over again.
Maybe it's possible to answer it via the Socratic method...
>What is art?
>Stuff I like looking at
>You like looking at cute cats and old trees, are those art?
>Well it has to be man-made
>So art is stuff you enjoy looking at, that is man-made. What about...
I'd really have to run this through with an abstractartfag.

Anyways, the question was about 'bad' art, so just if it's of good taste or not.
What is bad? Unpleasant, unexpected, poor quality, defective, inferior. There is objectively bad behavior, so there must be bad art.
What is bad food? Food that is not good for you. Even if it might taste good, nobody is gonna say fast food is healthy. Healthy things promote wellbeing in people and society as a whole. Bad art highlights degenerate or decadent things bad for individuals and society. The human condition would improve if good things were elevated and bad things discouraged.

Idk it's a start point. Ask me again in a year.

>>2688897
you were actually onto something there with the degeneracy bro

File: a507.jpg (200KB, 600x780px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 600x780px

Like...you prove someone has a shit taste showing them something better. But I really doubt you find anything better, as your own taste is shit.

What is objectively bad?

This is going to turn into an undergrad philosophy discussion and no undergrads.

>>2689140
>showing them something better.

You think someone with bad taste can recognize that something is better just by looking at it?

no

If Beauty is completely subjective, how can I say a work of art is beautiful but I dont like it?

>>2689209
because beauty isn't the only factor to consider when evaluating and appreciating a work of art.

>>2689296
what if I say it is in this case. Like I go in a museum see a painting, know its beautiful but still dont like it.

>>2688694

What if you're not trying to create something "beautiful"? Nature is full of ugliness too. Is that stuff without merit?

>>2689388
what if

>>2689444
how would that be possible if it being beautiful is subjective, that is: the same thing as liking it.

I had the experience of knowing something is beautiful but I still dont like it.

Best way to figure out whether someone has a developed taste is to ask them why they like it. If they can't articulate, discard.

>>2689458
What a sperg

I cannot begin to care why someone likes their favorite shit let alone demand them give me reasons for it. I'm always kind of perplexed when people do that.

Of things which we call good and also purposeful, we call wholesome. The same with art. Art is good when it is wholesome.

Rather than seeing this in black and white (good and bad), try seeing it like several shades of goodness.

Some like things that are a lil good but not uncredible

Some like things that are more complex and worked

Some will like the simpleness of it

It's just a matter of diversity. I'm sure what you'd consider bad is something you've "grown out of" , meaning at some point you must have enjoyed it but since then you've discovered more and possibly better things, you call it "bad" .


In turn it's very hard to theorize this.

>>2688177
Bad is not an objective term. Stop using it like that.

File: image6.jpg (167KB, 347x532px)

167KB, 347x532px

>>2688177
no, sycra can't take criticism

>>2689458
This, a good taste is a developed taste, and bad taste is the lack of taste. There is no objective way to prove whether someone has bad taste, but the distinction between good taste and bad taste definitely exists. How much of something one has consumed can give you a good idea of how developed their taste is. A weeb whose seen a lot of anime will probably have better taste than a normie whose only seen the best and greatest anime.

>>2688897
You're the kind of guy where his brain is his worst enemy. Your brain is clever, but "you" are too stupid to use it, so it just spins off into these abstract patterns and the whole thing ends up as just a useless mess. You'd probably end up with more useful conclusions if your brain was less intelligent.

>>2688177
The answer is a general "no". You might be able to rustle up a distorted, immature realization with a lot of work, but it's not worth it. Just call them an idiot and hope that they'll accumulate enough "idiot"s in their lives to trigger an eventual acknowledgement of their idiocy.

>>2688674
idiot
>>2688897
idiot
>>2690819
idiot
>>2690908
idiot

>>2688232
thread shouldve ended here

>>2692212
bad choice of words, but use your brain and see if there is a valid question in there after all.

>>2692217
There isn't.
How old are the people on this board? That's a valid question.

>>2690836
i wish i was this "Bad"

>>2692211
idiot

>>2692211
Who hurt you anon?

>>2692636
noted

>>2692281
Have you never been annoyed by people revering something that you see right through and know is shit?

>>2692723
Not really, I just am secretly glad I don't have that kind of shit taste. I'm not gonna tell my cousin that they must have ears the size of walnuts to legitimately like Boyce avenue but I will continue to never, ever listen to that dogshit on my own.

As long as I'm not forced to watch or listen it's all good.

>>2692853
>I'm not gonna tell my cousin that they must have ears the size of walnuts to legitimately like Boyce avenue

If you did tell them though, would they even understand why it's shit?

>>2688215
the same could be said about your tastes mate
you're honestly acting like a child

let people enjoy what they want if people pay for it then it's not your problem because it's not your money that you're losing anyway

>>2692862
No, they would just think I'm being an asshole because I don't understand the emotion that was put into a fucking cover. Even if I explained to them that it just plain sounds bad they'll deny it. That's how it is.

And whatever I like they can't believe and have to ask "hmph why do YOU like this? I'm just trying to see what you see in it is all" all condescending - we are from totally different worlds and I accept that.

>>2689439

Nature isn't created, though. When we say that a lizard is "ugly", it's because to us it's repulsive and we really don't want to touch it. When we say that a mountain is sublime, it's because it really is absurdly gigantic compared to us.

Art in that regard is inherently different: someone painting Andromeda sacrificed to a sea monster will be complimented if Andromeda is beautiful and the sea monster is ugly.

You end up with a beautiful painting containing an ugly subject (human sacrifice, sea monster).

If I had to defend the position of "good taste", I would say that it requires a lot of knowledge of art history.

When I find a painting beautiful, it's just "my opinion" whereas a more cultured person can appreciate it in comparison to the hundreds of paintings he has seen, going through history like the branches of a big tree.
Its merits are then relative to what has been done before.

It's still specious but then so is every sport or music. For example I didn't appreciate Opera as a kid, it was just ladies yelling. It's an acquired taste.

File: 466.jpg (11KB, 200x225px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 200x225px

>OP

>>2692723
No. Because I don't think I'm some omnipotent dude who knows what everyone else's tastes should be.
>I c thru it man these sheeple just don't get it man
>git enlightened like me and see the TRUTH man

>>2692892
One of the few intelligent responses ITT. Too bad there are literally people on this board who shit on art history and blather on about how useless it is for artists. I'm not much into opera but I did acquire a taste for the blues. Thought the blues were shit back when listened to My Chemical Romance and hard rock, but in reality I just had shitty teenager tastes and a shitty teenager superiority complex and hadn't experienced much music or life in general

>>2688177
Not really. Art is too subjective.
/thread

>>2688177
You need standards.
If there are no standards to judge something, everything is 'art'

>>2692190
>tfw too intelligent to think