Is art subjective?

There is some truth in this.

Subjectivity is a double edged sword to be honest. A lot of modern art seems to be created purely to test grounds of subjectivity, with little desire for creating beauty.

>>2980146
I think it happened when the post modernists pushed the idea that talking the talk was more important than walking the walk.

I find it very frustrating. It's at the point where marketing and convincing someone your work is good is more important then how good your work is.

>>2980171
Truth to be told, it was always like that anon.

All the great artists we worship today were not that popular in their days. That being said, post modernism was more or less a nail in the coffin.

>>2980145
>Is art subjective
Yes

>Does that undermine the technique and form
No

>>2980171
>convincing someone your work is good is more important then how good your work is.
It is.
Someone doing something useful inefficiently is still doing something useful.
Someone doing something pointless really efficiently is still doing something pointless.

>>2980145
Art is subjective but as a form of communication it implies that the artist should do his best to deliver the message, much like an orchestra is meant to be heard clearly, and the score should be executed with proper form and technique.

Modernist art is garbage because it places the artist's responsibilities upon the viewer.

>>2980191
But shouldn't that be determined by people who actually have an eye for art? somebody that's trained in work is good art and what is bad.

As it stands, its a free for all. It's a battle of who can up sell themselves the most. That isn't why we make art. It's couldn't be further from it

>>2980194
yeah i think modern art is my main beef. I think it's all down to the acceptance of relativism tho.
It's a downward spiral I think

>>2980179
Definitely the nail in the coffin.

>>2980187
why?

>>2980198
There's been a healthy revival of realism for some years now, especially in the US. Pretentious modern art will likely not go away thanks to Gen Z but the main force behind it is definitely spent

>>2980200
Read these two questions

dqafwavvfavfsdbvaf dvfda fdav fvafva?

Do you understand now anon?

Objectively those two questions are the same thing. Subjectively one has meaning.

>>2980145
Art is not subjective nor objective. Its contextual.

Art is valued only in context. You dont become a cornerstone in art history by being the most technically skilled or by being the most popular (although these things help) you are remembered for the amount of influence you have. Monet isn't remembered because people liked his work (the impressionists were laughed at most of their lives so were the realists). nor is he remembered for being a technically proficient painter (he was very good at it though. You try to paint an impressionist style painting that properly captures the atmosphere if you dont believe me. Impressionism is actually very difficult to get right). He is remembered because people like Cezanne, Picasso, Matise were all looking at his art and using it to make their own. The flow of art was changed and its only because of the context it was placed in. (There are paintings that look strikingly similar to impressionist paintings throughout history before 19th century France but they arent important because it wasnt the right time).

The story is the same for Picasso (Abstraction wasnt anything super new and lets be real Matisse was more original also fuck Picasso everything he did he stole) Frank Stella (the latin americans did that hard edge frame follows form shit in the 20's another thief)

That being said the value of stuff usually has to do with taste which leans it more to subjectivity but really if variables were controlled for one could also make something objectively good. That is to say that if you were to have a full understanding of contemporary taste you could theoretically create a piece that would be loved by all just because you knew what people wanted. And in succeeding you would have crreated something objectively good because it served its purpose.

Maybe spend your time studying or drawing instead of wasting time on this dumb question like I just did.

>>2980215
So its subjective then anon.

>>2980145
"Art" is subjective because it's a word defined differently by everyone who uses it.

Narrow it down to something like "realistic illustration" and it becomes far less subjective.

>>2980205
Realism never went.

What happened is new mediums were created to present it in, that made exhibitions obsolete, so now exhibitions are full of things that struggle with new mediums like 'abstract experiences' or whatever.

So fucking what if pretentious people are still going to exhibitions, let them, people are still making and buying pretentious vinyl records as well.

>>2980218
Yeah probably but in the sense that every experience ever had by humanity is subjective and there is no such thing is objectivity. Then yeah so is physics

>>2980205
>>2980251

What that dued said. Realism never went away. Truly Courbet was the greatest artist that ever lived.

>>2980266
No. Physics isn't subjective, physics is objective.

You're being silly now.

>>2980215
>>2980276
but thats why i think art is objective. It's just a lack of understanding. Its a cop out to say it's subjective.
Artists train their eye over years to be able to gain 'taste'. Taste isn't natural.
If I create art for my entire life, I sure as shit not going to get told by someone who knows nothing about art, whether my piece is good or not.
I think you make the mistake that the 'masses' should have a the say in this. Most normal people don't know shit about art. Just because it's popular doesn't mean its any good.

>>2980205
I've got high hopes for Gen Z too. Hopefully you're right.

>>2980295
But taste has little to do with knowledge.

I can objectively state an artist's mastery of his medium but that does not necessarily correspond to how much I like that artist. On the contrary, the artists I love the most have quirks that go directly against realism

>>2980301
taste has everything to do with knowledge. The one you know and see, the more you can separate the good from bad which in turn creates taste.

I can be pushed to say that different movement are subjective, but the work and artists within those genres are most certainly not.

But I honestly think different movements have more value than others.

>>2980303
The more you know and see*

>>2980295
What exactly do you think subjective means?

>>2980301
I'm sure you'll agree that people can have good taste and bad taste in art. Surely that alone proves art is not subjective.

>>2980309
I think subjective basically means its down to taste and personal preference, and there isn't a right or wrong. Which is a load of crap

I think that Art is totally subjective. It's a personal thing, I personally think that Art is first and foremost self expression, and if other people like it too, that's great! A lot of the greats created art as a form of self expression, I guess Van Gogh would be the easiest example to use for that.

That being said, there is also a difference between technically good an technically bad art. I think people often forget about one or the other of these things, and say that technically bad art isn't art, or that a piece is technically good just because they like it.

That probably made little sense, but that's opinions for ya. I don't think one undermines the other at all.

>>2980317
I think art can be for everyone, and anyone can and should enjoy it. But that doesn't mean its any good.
I'm sure the fat lady down the pub enjoys karaoke but that doesn't make her good at her craft.
There seems to be an assumption that because anyone can enjoy it and partake in it, that they think it has value.
All I'm saying is that we should be able to honestly say what is good and what is bad, without people getting offended.

Here's a video that is worthy of watching..
https://youtu.be/7OX77Qv66qw

>>2980303
>The one you know and see, the more you can separate the good from bad which in turn creates taste.
But that's only about technical skill. Otherwise I can only separate what I like from what I dislike.

>>2980311
I doubt taste is the end all answer to it, since people who don't really care about art (the vast majority) don't consciously decide that they prefer a thing over another. E.g. see a photo of a pretty girl, the photo is badly done and says nothing but the girl is pretty, normie who doesn't care about art will say it's good.

>>2980315
You see I'm defining it as meaning it describes a concept rather than a commodity, or a subject rather than an object.

You can't have an art. But you an image that is art.

>>2980325
Those are my sentiments exactly, what I can't stand to see though is elitist fuckers proclaiming that only certain art is 'real art' just to reassure themselves that they didn't waste years of their life on an Art degree. (I say waste but I really shouldn't, it is a valid degree and ofc is useful in some circumstances as is any degree)

>There seems to be an assumption that because anyone can enjoy it and partake in it, that they think it has value

Agreed, but Jesus Christ some people need to get off their high horses. But also these same elitist artfags need to recognise that just because something isn't to their taste doesn't mean it's bad art. As with any creative medium, a lot of what dictates something as good or bad is the opinion of the masses. Art is for everyone to enjoy, no? I hear stories of amazing artists going to college to study what they love and being beaten to the ground specifically because their art is considered aesthetically pleasing and therefore 'not real art'. I recognise that's made me biased against these people, but sure I'm only human and all.

Watched that video just now, actually a really deadly piece (I loved it). I do however echo my earlier sentiments. If someone wants to get technically good and they're not, I'll be first in line to tell them exactly what they nee to do and where they need to improve. However if the person is doing art just for themselves and you happen to see it and they ask your opinion (not critique, opinion), I'm a bit more hesitant to go on the offensive. Though generally those who do art for themselves keep it away from the eyes of others.

>>2980276
Physics is just applied math. Math is founded on a completely subjective and arbitrary set of rules in an attempt to explain something that is experienced differently by every person alive (subjective)

Dude I dont actually subscribe to this shit. Im just letting you know how someone could weasle in between this dumb obj/sub argument. Please dont try to argue with me we will waste time going back and forth this shit will never end. If it did we wouldn't be having this conversation. I dont want to play devils advocate when I could be painting.

The people in this thread are wild. Just read books make visual connections and work on your art. These are the only things that will improve your life. That and spending some time talking to real people.

>>2980339

I don't think thats true at all. People have bad taste all the time, whether its poor taste in decorating their house or the clothes they wear. The masses love whatever is spoon fed to them. It takes time and effort to require a taste in all forms of art.
Personally I've absorbed a lot of different art styles and work to form a valuable opinion. Where as most normies won't have. Due to a disinterest in it.
Learning about any particular art form opens your eyes up and makes you appreciate and evaluate the good from the bad.


You must know people that have bad taste.

>>2980347
people are afraid to have their ox gored and the art world will eventually suffer because of it.
Everyone should make art, even for just the benifits of art therapy. But I think the modern art world is really fucked up.

I also think it harms the design world. I am also a designer and I get extremely frustrated when clients want designs that will look bad. They've paid for my skills and knowledge yet they have the arrogance to think they know better.
Or even worse, the growth of website like freelancer or people per hr which harms better designers.
The masses dont have taste. In design, if its cheap and does the trick.. they love it.
doing a logo for $5.. fuck offf

>>2980145
>drawing Darth Vader on a church

Why was Michelangelo such a huge fucking nerd? Why did the pope hire such a no life NEET?

>>2980215
All that essentially says is that art only has value (maybe even goodness although those criteria do not account for virtue) if it is historically important. Perhaps not even that, but only if they are remembered in the present time.

It doesn't quite answer nor is it wholly relevant to the core of OP's question, which I think is essentially a Platonic question that may be better presented as: can we say that a work of art approaches the form of the beautiful and the good more than another? can we say that a work of art is better than another by perfect judgment rather than opinion? Although there are various ways of asking the same question to adjust for human perspective. Are there qualities that when present in art are simply more inclined by the highest nature of humanity to be appreciated above another which does not have these qualities? But then it would get into philosophical questions of what constitute goodness in man.

>>2980315
>>2980311
>>2980375
The subsequent discussion on taste is simply a matter of semantics, since the definition of taste varies in much the same way that fortune can mean either good fortune only (true, informed taste), or bad and good both (bad and good taste), or simply the capricious passing of accident (opinion which is neither bad or good).

>>2980179
>All the great artists we worship today were not that popular in their days.

Laughably untrue. Some outiers like Van Gogh died poor, and his work became sought after, after his death, but most of the masters were known and popular during their lives. Patrons like the Church didn't throw gold around to bad artists, it went to the good ones - and new pieces were popular and often the basis for traveling. Michelangelo's David was made from a block of marble he won in a sculpture contest, and was an object of great pride for Florence.

Later on, in the gallery era, entrance into that realm was a great honor, and expositions and shows of people like Monet, Tadema and others were extremely popular, which drove commissions and sales. The French Revolution brought art as propaganda, and was used to spread ideas in politics - see "Death of Marat".

Seriously, take some art history courses before you talk about it.

>>2980205
There's some, but not in the political art circles, like getting government grants, or in the more trendy galleries. Figurative art is more popular in the underground art scene, and in commercial art - which is why I firmly believe that commercial art will be the work studied and remembered a hundred years from now, not scribbles on a wall. Post modern lost all direction and value after the 70's, and most of it now is just regurgitated cliches and simplistic crafts - they dried that well out long ago, now it's just a bubble like any other, with prices controlled by an elite snob culture in NYC, LA, and Paris.

Go look at the site for the Gagosian Galleries - they're one of the snootier global gallery chains:

http://www.gagosian.com/

There's some figurative art (some of it even good), but most of it is laughable examples of cliched post-modern art.

I go to galleries a lot, and it's more common to see stuff I actually like, so it's not as bad as it was 10 years ago, when I almost got kicked out of galleries in NYC for laughing out loud at what was being presented.

But the kind of work admired here? It's got a long, long, long hard road back before that world gives it any value again.

>>2980215
Monet started an entire movement in art. His work was liked, because he sold enough of it to live off, and later when he lived in Giverny, became quite wealthy from it. They were sneered at by the Salon crowd, so they (Monet, Renoir, others) started their own expositions, and found their audience.

I would suggest you read a bio of Monet, before you talk about him.

>>2980403
Because he created amazing art.

>>2980145
Prehistoric Art (cave paintings) were objective. Cave paintings of animals were done with the goal of ensuring or appeasing (to some higher energy, luck, or circumstance) that wild life during the next hunt is plentiful. Cave paintings of figures/hands is done with the goal of ensuring the community or their gathering remain productive, safe, and cooperative.

The Ages that follow (Stone, Bronze, Iron) to the Ancient World and Dark Age also remain objective. Art during these periods (basket weaves, necklaces, face/body paint, painted arms/shields vessels & ceramics, The Babylon Tower, The Pyramids, The Easter Island, statues, Ancient Temples, Noah's Ark, the Ark of the Covenant, etc) all were done with an objective goal in mind (ie. determining status, worship, skill, rank or experience). For the religious, there is evidence written in one of the Old Testament Books that specifically had rules for artisans to design & build the early Jewish Temples with cherubs, isles lined with gold, etc.

Art that came from the Italian Renaissance after the Dark Age was done with the goal of restoring Western Civilization Europe by bringing back the aesthetic of the Ancient Greeks. Some may say subjective, but imo, the High Renaissance was objective.

this type of art would last for almost 500 years where that art style did not drastically change until Impressionism of the 1800's began. Here, artists tried to capture light and atmosphere as they saw it happening on sight. So the approach of using the elements (point, line) & principles (tone, repetition, symmetry) that goes into capturing a 3D image onto 2D surface changed. It is here when subjectivity of art arose because the audience no longer sees the common images done for centuries since 1450s occurring in paintings. Artists were using their tool and approach differently thereby creating a different aesthetic uncommon to society.

File: 18512955_265437423864789_8035584893977100288_n[1].jpg (105KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 1080x1080px

1. There is no perfect portrayal of man or any natural object. Any rendering will always be subjective. No one to one atomical match of lights coverage. Because there is no greatest platitude of achievement then the door is open for all to attempt their own portrayal of reality.

2. The planet earths taste in art, represented by the global body of human beings, is ever expanding and diversifying. There will never be a singular mark of beauty. Moments are fluid, not incremental, and culture is evaluating them all in a fluid nature.

3. The interesting thing is that, as we approach a perfect replication of the natural object, and while tech takes the reigns to supplant our methods of representational technique and form we all become less enthralled with the render. I am of course talking about photography and digital artwork.

pictured: my drawing

>>2982537
I haven't even mention the use of photography yet as it debuted in mid 1800s AD. So that also changed how art is made.

from about Monet's time to the Present day, we've had about 40-45 different art movements from Pointilism to Cubism to Futurism, Dada, Graffiti, Abstract Expressionism and the current Conceptual Art founded by Warhol in the 1960s. This is the one where artists take a photo, artwork or some industrial artwork like a chair and places it/them in an arrangement that conveys something conceptual where the audience decides what it is the art installment is trying to say to them. That is the epitome of subjectivity and likely the main pet peeve of normies who can't figure out why the elite, the smug or the odd people out there find this sort of thing "art."

afaik, as an artist, I don't see this type of subjectivity leaving the art world any time soon. not when money is involved. If you need more proof of this, search for a film called "The Mona Lisa Curse" by Robert Hughes. He explains how the pandora's box of the art world happened and that it will likely never recover again.

>>2980145
Art: yes
Craft: no

>>2980295
Artists train to have "taste" because "taste" is a construct.

>>2982537
>Cave paintings of animals were done with the goal of ensuring or appeasing (to some higher energy, luck, or circumstance) that wild life during the next hunt is plentiful
sure it was

>Is art subjective?
Yes
>and if yes, doesn't that undermine technique and form?
No, because technique and appeal are two different, but important things that are best used in tandem with each other

Beauty is subjective
draftsmanship isn't

Anything can be beautiful, anything can be art. What someone considers beautiful or considers to be art says a lot about a person, though.

>>2984170
Is Raphael a better draftsman than Bouguereau?

>>2984524
No. Not even close. Raphael was good for his time, but Bouguereau took it several levels higher - he was known for his draftsmanship.

And, Alma Tadema was even better.

>>2984532
I disagree. Raphael's works have an easy-going and graceful quality which is a result of a skill in itself.