Quality of art is objective, but we can only argue about

>Quality of art is objective
how can you measure it
in which unit is it written

>>69743362
>Quality of art is objective
Objectively false, and I can prove it with one question; what's your favorite album?

>>69743397
If you could measure it, you could argue it objectively.
>>69743421
It doesn't matter what my favorite album is. I do not think that I know which album is objectively best

File: 1478563596079.jpg (78KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 640x640px

>>69743554
>It doesn't matter what my favorite album is
Point proven.

>>69743554
>If you could measure it, you could argue it objectively.
If you can't measure it, it's not objective

>>69743589
how

>>69743615
Before people came up with a way of measuring heat, was heat subjective?

>>69743619
This discussion is over, thank you.

>>69743554
he said your favorite album, not the best, we want your opinion now

>>69743644
probably Faust s/t or Atlantis by Sun Ra

>>69743632
lol this makes no sense
a rock > 10% bigger rock
if you can't measure it, find something to compare it to then
how does that have anything to do with music quality?

>>69743362
You know what? This so much.

>>69743715
>If you can't measure it, it's not objective
I was responding to this, not every argument in this thread.

Just because we have not come up with a way of measuring something, it does not mean that it is subjective.

File: 1478099356614.jpg (29KB, 400x558px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 400x558px

>>69743362
You're technically correct. It's impossible to 'measure' any kind of artistic merit of art objectively, and in a reliable manner, but only in the same sense as it's impossible to decide which action is the most utilitarian one. The subject is too complex, there are too many things to consider, etc., but as long as we assume that our universe is somewhat objective, we can think of the 'quality' of art as absurdly complex, but existing, objective quantities.
>there are people that don't understand that

>>69743793
>Just because we have not come up with a way of measuring something, it does not mean that it is subjective.
measuring is comparing
this car is going 10x faster than a car going at 1 speed
therefore, this car is going 10 speed
you can't do that with art
if so, feel free to tell me, how many berninis make a wagner?

>>69743866
it is just like this anon said>>69743841
There are things that exist that are way to complex to accurately judge at face value. You are assuming that quality of music must be as straightforward as the size of a rock for it to be objective.

>>69743953
then what argument do you have to say that quality is objective? if you say you can't compare, you can't measure, you don't have an unit?
"oh but it's abstract and mysteryous, we don't understand it ooh"
this is not an argument
so far I'm only lecturing you here and I shouldn't be doing that for free lol

>>69743554
>If you could measure it, you could argue it objectively.
no you could argue about it based on objective data, but those don't imply a value judgement like it's good or not, those are inherently subjective

it's plainly obvious that some art can be very easily identified as better than other art, when the difference is extreme, for example a child's scribble drawing compared to a masterwork painting, the problems really arise when you try to compare art that is already of similar quality because it's extremely hard to measure quality between them at that point
the idea that art is a subjective thing began with the crappy movement that started saying things like, 'anything can be art if you say it is', which is why we have actual piles of trash being displayed as art, even though they are complete shit and nobody in their right mind would call it good, or even art

/mu/ needs to read some Kant and Nietzsche because you're all fucking plebs when it comes to this shit

>>69744060
lol you're very stupid
you're judging art by skill level
go back to the XIX century

>>69744060
>it's plainly obvious that some art can be very easily identified as better than other art, when the difference is extreme, for example a child's scribble drawing compared to a masterwork painting
this statement is false

another great thread from a great board

>>69744093
no im not, there is no artistic intent when a child throws lines onto paper
>>69744096
show me a beautiful work of art randomly produced by a child

>>69744060

most reddit opinion desu

>>69744149
>there is no artistic intent when a child throws lines onto paper
uh, there is
But I'm not going to argue with someone who is completely clueless about art history

File: 1471049431244.jpg (74KB, 1543x1360px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 1543x1360px

>>69744060
Not quite. The whole "What's art?" bullshit was revolutionary at first. The first person that said "Look at this urinal, it's art." was clever and stretched the whole 'art' concept ad absurdum. It's like with 4'33'', a song that no sane person would even call music, in the traditional sense.

Music managed to recover, but a lot of modern art is still stuck in the post-ironic bullshit everything-goes phase, instead of acknowledging that a heap of trash doesn't have any artistic value nowadays. tl;dr It's time for New Sincerity.

>>69744090
explain yourself. so i can make fun of your middling intelligence that you think is deserving of some fucking pat on the back

File: jen.gif (915KB, 245x285px) Image search: [Google]

915KB, 245x285px

>>69744149
you're the one who made the statement, so you're the one who has to prove it you fucking dumbass. unless you can prove that there is a ''extreme difference'' between a
>child's scribble drawing compared to a masterwork painting
then your statement has no grounds. you say it's plainly obvious, which it is clearly not. brainlet btfo

>>69744030
I am going to use >>69744060 to prove my point.

All of us would be able to tell that a Da Vinci painting is better than a toddler's scribble. but take for instance a person who has an iq of 35. they may not be able to tell which is better. so Therefore is one no better than the other? someone who is not very smart might not even be able to decide whether a high schooler's painting is better or worse than a true masterpiece. The closer in quality two pieces of art are, the harder it is to tell which is better. But someone who is more knowledgeable might be able to observe the difference in quality of two comparatively great pieces of art quite easily.

>>69743362
>quality of art is objective
By what standards? Complexity? Complexity doesn't improve quality. Viscerality? Viscerality doesn't improve quality. The amount effort put forth? Sometimes the effort put forth isn't good enough or isn't needed to improve the quality in some music. Loudness? Loudness doesn't improve the quality. The amount of people composing or amount of time? The amount of people and time doesn't improve quality because that depends on the musicians. You know what does effect the quality? The ear of the listener and the interpretation of the art. Art is subjective. In other words you're a retard OP.

>>69744290
Also, my "quality" and your "quality" are different. Now delete this stupid thread.

>>69743362
he dab

>>69744327
read the arguments already put forth and respond to those

File: 1455466539192.jpg (8KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 225x225px

>>69744266
let me disprove your point with an analogy.

when mathematicians first envisioned the concept of pi, they did not know whether it was irrational or not. the question over the irrationality of pi is analogous to the question of whether or not art is objective.

the math brains kept pondering this issue. they noticed that no matter how many digits they computed, pi seemed to go on without repeating. but until there was a mathematical proof for pi's irrationality, they could not conclude that it was indeed. that wouldn't happen until the 18th century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_that_%CF%80_is_irrational

unless you can prove that art is objective via some quantifiable means, your opinion has no grounds. it looks like shit, it smells like shit, it feels like shit, but it might not be shit. it might be a object carefully constructed out of synthetic materials to mimic shit. with metaphysical questions, this is a key distinction we must make.

also you've made this thread before and got told by everyone how stupid you were last time. quit doing this, accept the fact you are wrong. we are tired of you spouting your pseud nonsense.

Art is objective on how well executed a concept is. Such as a painter wanting to paint a beautiful woman but has all the proportions of the human body screwed up where you can barely tell if it's a person. That will be a shit painting. Compared to a painting of a very pleasing and symmetrical woman which will always be considered better unless you're autistic.

>>69744030
>so far I'm only lecturing you here and I shouldn't be doing that for free lol
so far you have just been having a hard time getting over your faulty argument that nothing is objective unless you can easily observe it

>>69744253
Has /mu/ reached this level of contrarianism where they seriously argue that child scribbles are as artistically valid as a painting?

>>69744446
garbage reasoning

>>69743362
Content is objective, but we can only argue about it subjectively (largely because /mu/tants don't have the musical knowledge or vocabulary to discuss in objective terms).

>>69744456
Okay. I can agree with that when there is a concrete objective in art. However, when it comes to music it gets more complicated. There is no real objective in music other than for it to sound "good". And that is subjective.

>>69743632
Yes, because what is hot for one person could be cold to another.

>>69744570
To add onto this. You can put objective goals on art and do them well. But there is no inherent objectiveness to art by itself. It's all up to interpretation. You may think some shitty scribbles on a paper are shit, but someone might actually, truly believe it's profound. Similar to different types of music and people's liking toward them.

>>69744549
>>69744551
i honestly can't tell if i'm being baited or you guys are just that stupid. do either of you have a college education. the greeks, the fucking foundation of western philosophy, used analogy all the time to prove their points. and contrarianism? what does that even fucking mean. 4chan has rotted your brain, go outside you fucking dolt.

>>69744266
you are assuming da vinci painting is objectively better because our experience tells us it's way harder to make. obviously this is not true

>>69744673
>we only think art is good if it looks really hard to make

>>69744654
So you have no actual argument. It's contrarianism because no normal person would say child's scribbles are as artistically valid as a painting in a museum. Just accept you're an autistic NEET.

>>69744714
well obviously you cannot give a single objective reason as to why da vinci is better. you could say it's better because practically all human beings would prefer his works to a random toddler's scribble, but that's not really objective

>>69744673
Or because people with minimal intelligence are more stimulated by what he has created than by stickman scribble scrabble.

File: kpop_ew.webm (954KB, 1000x562px) Image search: [Google]

954KB, 1000x562px

>>69744835
>trying this hard to shitpost
>this insecure about brainletism
>ignoring the argument >>69744446

>>69744846
It's objectively better because it's an actual work and not just some random bullshit in crayon. The autism reeks bud. I know you just learned about arguing in your 11th grade english class. Please save it for there.

>>69744899
>posting jap shit

>>69744835
>no normal person
Oh okay, so someone who would hypothetically, legitimately like the child's scribble would be abnormal correct? But wait a minute, in that person's mind SUBJECTIVELY, they prefer the child's scribble, therefore it's still subjective no matter how weird you think that person is for preferring that child's scribble over a hard worked piece of art. So if the possibility arises that there are some "weirdos" that do LIKE and prefer the child's scribble they're liking towards it negates your argument because they like it better subjectively over the people who like the hard worked art subjectively.

File: photorealism.jpg (103KB, 720x515px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 720x515px

>>69744060
you're a blatant traditionalist
painting is a dead medium, and concepts of masterworks are history to modern art

if you want art to be measured, sure, judge it on how photorealistic it is, the beauty of nature e.t.c e.t.c e.t.c

these are old fashioned and boring ways of judging art. after all, pic related is hideous and shit and everything wrong with traditionalist ideals - yet its praised by the reddit crowd

move forward

>>69745001
That doesn't make the painting not objectively better

>>69744959
Can you leave your edgy contrarian baiting there yourself? You use the word "objective" wrong and you know it. Are you fresh off from /pol/?

>>69743841
Fuck off.

>>69745048
How's high school going?

>>69745040
Yes it quite simply does. Now fuck off.

>>69744446
I think you are technically right, but that doesn't change my view of it much. I can not prove that one piece of art is better than another, but I can still tell sometimes, as everybody can. If you can tell which is better between any two pieces of art, you can know that all can be compared by someone who knows enough. As I said in the OP, we can only argue about it subjectively. As you have proven, you can not argue objectively about it without coming to the conclusion that we do not know whether it is objective or not. I know that quality is objective as much as I know many other things which most would consider certain and that is enough for me. gg

File: internet arguments won.png (15KB, 528x434px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 528x434px

>>69745049
Insecure?

>>69745071
No it doesn't. I'm convinced you have no idea what you're arguing and also learned the words objectively and subjectively from this board who misuses them constantly. You're objectively retarded you mental midget.

>>69745070
>>>/pol/

File: wut.png (40KB, 192x192px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 192x192px

>>69744987
>>69745070
today i was disappointed by the human race

>>69745040
But it does though. Because the people who subjectively like the scribble think that it's better, they also think that it's objectively better by whatever qualities they prefer. So there's no true objectivity there. It's all comes down to the eye of the beholder. You can say one's better by whatever ascribed objectivity you place it under, say for example complexity, but true objectivity does not exist in this situation, within the minds of the viewers with different preferences.

>>69745099
No, but you clearly are.

>>69745103
Kill la kill yourself.

>>69745117
Than that just means that art can be viewed as objective so long as you know what qualities that they are being judged on.

>>69745158
Weeabo faggot

I'm ready to get my little brother's scribbles into a high class art museum.

But before I do, lads, how do museums pick the pieces? In other words, how do they determine the quality of it?

We are very much serious about this, and since there are art experts in this thread, I figured this would be the best place to ask.

>>69745081
fair enough. i can see what you mean too. (you)

>>69745202
I went to RISD. It literally goes by trendiness and name recognition.

>>69745171
Correct. What I'm arguing though, is that there is no inherent objectivity in art. You can't say one is "better" than the other soley based on personal preference of what qualities are done better than other art. One can be more complex, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's better, that just means it does it better than the least complex one. But someone might prefer the child's scribble because of the different qualities that it exhibits. You might think it's weird, but that's because it's subjective. Art is subjective. It's just some art does ascribed objective things better than other art.

>>69744060
>the idea that art is a subjective thing began with the crappy movement that started saying things like, 'anything can be art if you say it is', which is why we have actual piles of trash being displayed as art, even though they are complete shit and nobody in their right mind would call it good, or even art
So you want to give art rules and narrow the expression of human imagination? Some of us aren't as obliviously comfortable with the feedback loop of degrading facsimiles as you are.

>>69745220
>le holier than thou moderate

It's not objective or subjective- it's cultural and progressive (not the political definition of progressive, you fucking /pol/ idiot).

It's also heavily based on the capabilities of the tools at any given time.

Genres contradict each other in the local and global sense- which is why you can't compare classical music from different parts of the world, and why some people can't tolerate music from outside their tastes even for widely regarded "masterpieces" of the genre.

>>69745622
>why some people can't tolerate music from outside their tastes even for widely regarded "masterpieces" of the genre

Uh huh. So what you're sayin' is, music is subjective?

>>69743362
It's true.
Anybody who claims otherwise doesn't actually listen to music they just talk themselves into it and through it.

>>69745622
I think it is fairly easy to get into new types of music if you actually give it a chance and do not stick with your initial reaction in every situation. So often people dislike some type of art the first time they hear it and immediately take up a prejudice against it preventing them from ever enjoying it. Anyway, just because being inexperienced means that you will have different opinions, it does not mean that at is subjective

File: IMG_4895.jpg (242KB, 598x792px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 598x792px

>>69745779

>>69745852
Isn't that the point? I can't convince you with words, but if you actually relied on your ears instead of relying on someone else's words you would realize it.
Unsurprisingly you like stefan molycuck.

>>69745918
Unsurprisingly you didn't read the thread and the many interesting opinions on the topic. Also if you're going to just say shit and not give reasoning, you're adding very little to the discussion.

>>69746006
and their opinions are worthless.
am i going to start listening differently as a result of what someone said? that's stupid and the entire problem with people who try to read their way into perception.

>>69746289
>I'm afraid of hearing out other people's perspectives because I only like my own
Stay ignorant bro

>>69746428
You're the one not relying on your own senses, the only ignorant one is you.

>>69743632
truly underrated

>>69743866
>you can't do that with art
unless you can prove that you can't, that's merely hearsay

>>69744149
two problematic assumptions plague this post:
>great art requires artistic intent
>music is unequivocally art and nothing else

File: IMG_4485.png (15KB, 443x375px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 443x375px

>>69746483
You know what. You're totally right. I'm going to block everyone else's opinions out, and just pave my own way, just by myself. Thanks anon.

>>69743632
Heat is something you can objectively measure you fucking retard

quality is an abstract idea and can therefore not have any objective value

>>69746578
You're the kind of guy that reads album reviews before he listens to the album.

>>69746858
And art could easily be too. All it takes is someone inventing a way of objectively measuring it.

File: 1298472464589.gif (517KB, 115x86px) Image search: [Google]

517KB, 115x86px

>>69746992
>All it takes is someone inventing a way of objectively measuring it

File: 1416285368168.jpg (77KB, 631x590px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 631x590px

>>69746992
Anon you are fucking retarded.

>>69746992
What you're doing is equivalent to saying that there is an objectively perfect temperature for all people. It doesn't exist, because quality and enjoyability is a subjective judgment.

>>69746992
thanks for summarizing the view of anyone who argued against OP.

Looks like I'm going to have to drop some knowledge on all you retards who believe that music quality is objective.

The following are objective ways to measure and describe music.

"This song is faster than that song"

"This song has more words than this song"

"This song has more chords than that song"

"This melody is more complicated than that melody:

"This rhythm is more complicated than that rhythm"

And those last two aren't even entirely objective.

>things that are always subjective judgments

"This song is better than that song"

Adding another layer of complexity, music needs context. Classical music isn't good for a kegger, heavy music isn't good for a mixed crowd, complex and obscure genres aren't good for a bar setting or a party etc. A lot of people want to listen to simpler music when they're trying to relax for example.

It's way too complex and it can't be measured by a number, that's why it's subjective. Anyone who disagrees is wrong.

>>69746992
I wouldn't say easily.

>>69743397
objectivity doesn't mean it has a certain measurement, there are just universal standards

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNI07egoefc

>>69747453
Still subjective. There are no universal standards for measuring quality of music anyway.

>>69747418
it doesn't look like you read any of the arguments in this thread and you are only capable of looking at things from a standalone, easily defined value.

>>69743397
Benjamin even discusses that opinions by the masses are a genereally new topic.
And how most people feel isn't necessarily right.
Hence how spme people can control others throgh social media by making the masses think they are doing somehting worth while to themselves when it really has no value

Even the guy who made buzzfeed wrote his grad thesis on Benjamin and the new self worth of the masses

File: 1297706443468.png (94KB, 252x252px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 252x252px

>>69747453
>Universal standards
>Objective

>>69747483
I have read all the arguments, it looks like you have trouble grasping the concept of "objective". You can measure qualities of a song objectively, but the value you put on each is completely subjective. Stay in school.

>>69747418
>Classical music isn't good for a kegger,

YOU DONT KNOW ME

>>69747418
>Classical music isn't good for a kegger
pleb detected

>>69744090
>Nietzeche
we aren't plebbit tier here
read derrida

>>69747418
Berlioz is quite relaxing what are you on about

>>69747565
I made an effort to make sure that statement wasn't general. It's not true for everyone, but it is for others.

>>69747418
You're measuring music in the same way a fucking robot does.
Try using your fucking EARS.

>>69743632
Heat was measured through sensory perception. Either something is hot, or it isn't. I no way is this equatable to "is this good music or not".

>>69747593
then what was the point of your comment

>>69747605
That's called being subjective you pleb trash.

>>69747611
That music quality is subjective and it also depends on the context the music is being listened to.

>>69747610
heat is a terrible example. Flesh and skin begin to melt at a specific temperature
nobody can will themselves to a different melting temperature

>>69747605
You can't objectively measure the quality of music with your ears you fuck, that is a subjective experience. Why the fuck is this so difficult for you people?

>>69747629
context may make music more enjoyable
but not necessarily better or worse

>>69747610
Are you saying music isn't just sensory perceptions? People get conditions quite often that make their subjective perceptions of reality incorrect compared to the objective reality
How is someone getting a fever, physically being hot yet subjectively feeling like they are freezing to death despite being in a room-temperature location, any different from someone trying to say a random series of random length beeps is music? They're both incorrect subjective perceptions of an objective reality.

>>69747660
The very terms "better or worse" are subjective judgments. Objective assessments are done by fact based statements, usually numerical measurements.

>>69747515
when applying it to music, it's pretty much only cohesion

is the sound of the band cohesive? is the track running cohesive? was it made with care? etc

>>69747629
>Using your ears is subjective
Yes if your hearing is clouded by words you fucking retard.
>>69747654
Yes you fucking can if your ears aren't retarded.

Subjectivity only exists in the sense that you'd prefer certain styles over others. Objectivity exists in terms of the quality. Anyone who argues otherwise probably listens to shit versions of many different styles.

>>69747760
Name the objective measurements and standards for determining the objective quality of music. You can't, it is entirely subjective.

You should never breed.

>>69747688
That's the most retarded shit I ever heard. They are freezing because the body's thermostat is changing and there's absolutely nothing subjective about that.

>>69747716
Naming standards doesnt make them objective

>>69743636
No it isn't. Also if you don't respond you're admitting you lost, if you respond to defend yourself you're admitting you're an immature retard who has to have the last word in every argument.

>>69747815
i bet you listen to music with no standards, anon

>>69747705
not necessarily
Citizen Kane is objectively one of the greatest films ever and there is no number to calculate that

>>69747453
This jackoff teaches? No wonder Hillary almost won.

>>69747844
It is not, you faggots have the /mu/ meme definition of objective confused with the real definition.

>>69747798
Ah, so having a reason WHY something is subjective makes it objective. Got it. In that case, art is objective because enjoyment of it is based on your specific sequence of arbitrary experiences that you've lived through up to that point.

File: 1476293454738.png (13KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 500x500px

>people that don't know jackshit about music theory / history love the typical 4 chords verse-chorus-verse songs that have been around for decades but put off complex music as noise
>people that are knowledgable in music theory / history don't like songs that bring nothing fresh to the table but like more thought out, innovative music

smells to me like there's some objectivity in music after all

>>69747786
did you miss idk the first fucking post you fucking invalid?
thanks for proving my point that you're a fucking robot who bypasses his own senses and needs words to be certain about anything. kill yourself you're already dead.

>>69747911
Your example was totally fucking dumb because you were talking about two different objectively measurable things, but you thought they were one and the same, but go ahead and ascribe me a completely unrelated argument if that will make you feel better.

>>69747942
I think it's fucking hilarious that you literally cannot comprehend the concept of objectivity.

>>69743632
There existed a phenomena that could (in principle) be measured in an objective manor before heat could be accurately measured.
The fundamental difference between something like heat, or distance, temperature, velocity, luminosity, etcetera and what you're talking about in music is that the latter is based on a assessment of quality which is a subjective phenomena, but all the physical phenomena hereto mentioned are objective phenomena.
For clarity, it's quite possible to have some scale by which you may rate the quality of a piece of music. For instance, you could assign a rating out of 10 to a piece of music. The difference between that and a measurement of heat is that if 100 people measure the heat in a body they will get 100 different answers, ~%68 of which will be consistent with the average measurement within instrumental uncertainty, ~95% of whom will agree within twice the instrumental uncertainty and so on. If you ask 100 people to rate the *quality* of a piece of art, or for that matter a scientific paper, you will get 100 different answers that will differ wildly and not in any consistent way and so cannot be interpreted as sampling around an objective value.
You can of course pick an objective property of music (say, length of a piece of music, or amplitude) by which to measure quality, and in that case then 68% of people people will agree with the average within instrumental uncertainty if they use your scale, but they will not agree that your scale rates what it claims to rate (quality).

What do you think of PJW's opinion on the issue?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANA8SI_KvqI

>>69747959
>saying "YOU DONT KNOW" makes the other person not know
again, proving my point. thanks invalid.

>>69747958
Here's a good rule of thumb for you chief.

>is there only one correct answer or set of answers

No? Then it's not objective.

>>69748048
It's not my fault that you lack the brainpower to understand this pretty simple distinction between objective and subjective.

i just made a song
https://clyp.it/4zrckjck
it's not possible to objectively tell it's not good

>>69748066
if you say it that makes it true!
see >>69748048

File: shiba.jpg (25KB, 369x333px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 369x333px

>>69748134
>braindead fucktoy doesn't understand the distinction between two basic concepts
>people explain the distinction multiple times in the thread
>he lashes out because he still cannot wrap his deformed brain around what the difference between objective and subjective is
>proceeds to accuse all who understand the concept of being robots

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

>>69748032
It's the most thoughtless, stupidest and most militantly philistine rant I've seen in a while.
I'm beginning to think it's satire.

>>69743362
I have diarrhea, and your post makes me want to spray that fucking shit all over your goddamn eyeballs and you goddamn stupid face, you fucking prick. Then you're gonna swallow my fucking diarrhea and fucking say "Oh yeah this is good mate".

Anyway, quality of art isn't objective. We all have our own opinions about it.

>>69748209
That response sort of proves him right.

>>69748133
it's possible to tell it's objectively shit but not possible to articulate it which is the entire point that retards can't grasp.
these are the same retards who would gladly enjoy someone who attached a fancy description to their shit in a cup as long as the people around them told them why it was good.

File: ConsiderThis.jpg (24KB, 600x451px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 600x451px

Consuming, appreciating, and criticizing music you need to break the ontology of said artwork into two buckets - Subject Matter Content and Medium Content.

>Subject Matter Content refers to the topic of the piece of music - that which it is providing a narrative on, how compelling of a "story" it tells, so to speak. Direct or indirect, lyric heavy or no, instrumental-leaning or verbal-leaning, this is a recurring property of music. This is a primary source of subjectivity in response or appraisal - we all relate to and respond to narratives differently by way of how our own lives and experiences allow us to relate to them.

>Medium Content is, essentially, the technical side. If subject matter content is the soul, tongue, and brain of an album, medium content is the muscle and bone. How how sharp and well executed is it on a strictly technical level? More importantly how does the album *utilize* musicianship as a medium through which to communicate to the listener? Does it utilize instrumentation and vocals in a novel fashion to communicate a feeling or narrative in a way that you could not via text or conversation alone? A Queen album is bombastic, sharp, and clear. A Beefheart album is muddled, dirty, and cacophonous. Both bend music, as a language, in an intriguing way with which to better tell their respective narratives (be it an arena rock ballad or a dirty desert poetry).

Subject Matter Content is the Subjective.
Medium Content is the Objective.

In any great album both elements work together to deliver a compelling listening experience.

>>69748242
How does it?

>>69747085
What you're doing is equivalent to saying that if distance were to be objectively measurable, then there would have to be an be an objectively perfect distance for all people.

But here's the rub:
>objective measures of musical quality do not imply that all people will prefer the same level of musical quality.

>>69748183
more words = more true!
see >>69748048

>>69747922
>innovative music
innovative isn't an time-reversible attribute but objective quality is.

>>69748294
I think you're responding to the wrong person or completely misunderstanding my post. I didn't argue any of that.

>>69748371
no, quality is objectively measurable while it remains up to the listener to subjectively decide how much quality they prefer to have in their music.

>>69748024
1) that's sampling bias
2) learn to do experiments properly

>>69748032
he's a fucking idiot.
he's not entirely wrong but the only reason he's saying it's shit is because it's now trendy to do so.
he's no different from the morons he claims to hate he just does it in a different circle and with different topics.

>>69748024
you just described what is obvious in an extremely convoluted way. just because there is not a way to measure the quality of art at the moment, it does not mean that there never could be. before there was a way to measure heat, if you put people from all parts of the world in a room, they would not be able to agree on whether it was hot or cold and they would argue whether it was hot or cold based on their subjective experience.

>>69748518
Everyone's measurement of art is different though. I don't see what you're getting at about there being some kind of universal measurement by which everyone follows it like the metric system. That's not possible dude. No one would adhere to that or follow that because each person measures art by their own personal preferences.

>>69748242
Please explain because I'm interested in talking about this.
If I'm to elaborate on this a bit myself, I would start off by stating I don't know what art is or what defines art, and I wouldn't attempt to define it. At the same time I would state that I enjoy much of the art he trashes in the video. Conceptual art brings me personal enjoyment when viewing, just like every other kind of art and I have my favourite artists and artworks, and equally there are artists and artworks that don't do anything for me.
I have no problem with the guy state that he dislikes this kind of art. That's absolutely fine, that's his own personal experience, but he doesn't seem anywhere nearly as tolerant to the idea of people like me enjoying this artwork and instead goes on a frothing at the mouth tirade against it and against the people who enjoy it.
No one is forcing him to go to modern/contemporary art galleries, so I don't see why he has any grievance. He can just view art from the artists he likes, and from the time periods he likes. I have no problem with that.
I guess he just can't cope with the fact that other opinions differing from his own exist, he must need a safespace where scary ideas can't reach him.
It's pretty funny that he brings up objectivism and "sjws", revealing himself to be just another neo-fascist shill that are so trendy these days, and by the way the only """fact""" that he alludes to in the video, that visitors to uk modern/contemporary art galleries are dropping isn't even true.
http://www.tate.org.uk/about/press-office/press-releases/tate-annual-report-2014-15
>Tate’s annual report for 2014/15 shows this was its best year ever for visits – 7.9 million in all, with a record 5.7 million visits to Tate Modern.
Also, I find it pretty strange he chooses Matisse as a particular target of hatred when Matisse did a whole lot of paintings that are far from the abstract impressionism, conceptual art and so on he seems to despise.

>>69748032
>doesnt 'get' the art
>concludes the point of the art is to exclude him from 'get't'ing it
i give this a D-

>>69748518
Measuring art isn't necessary. Why would anyone want an "objective" guideline to measure what they themselves feel? It's personal, it's not like physical phenomena that need numbers attached so that we can perform equations with them.

>>69748518
hot or cold is temperature dude, not heat.
but your point is wrong, I'm saying there was something objective that could have been measured before we discovered heat.
The same does not exist for music. Even if it wasn't so blindingly obvious that no objective measurement of artistic quality exists, you would have to be agnostic as to the existence of an objective measurement of artistic quality.
Anyway, if you really believe in it then try to discover the objective measurement of artistic quality and publish a paper on it. I'm sure it'll be well received.

are familiar with the 'Foot' unit of measurement? I found this on the history of the unit:

>The Greek foot (πούς, pous) had a length of about 302 mm. Its exact size varied from city to city and could range as much as between 270 mm and 350 mm, but lengths used for temple construction appear to have been about 295 mm to 325 mm, the former being close to the size of the Roman foot.

>The standard Roman foot (pes) was normally about 295.7 mm (97% of today's measurement), but in the provinces, the pes Drusianus (foot of Nero Claudius Drusus) was used, with a length of about 334 mm.

so i guess since it isn't possible to have a universal measurement as everyone has different sized feet, distance is a subjective quality.

>>69748699
>I'm saying there was something objective that could have been measured before we discovered heat.
which was what exactly? and also, how did bacteria, fish, and baboons measure it?

>>69748675
actually, music is an entirely physical phenomenon

>>69748779
Which was the actual existence of thermal energy as a property of matter in the universe.
Is that so hard for your to understand?

>>69748820
Is the interpretation of music something that can be measured though? That goes into psychology, which I say, good luck trying to make a quantitative model at all for measuring the mind

>inb4 IQ

>>69748834
isn't variance in gaseous or liquid pressures also a property of matter in the universe?

because music is variance in gaseous or liquid pressures.

or is that so hard for you to understand?

>>69748891
Music exists and has objective existence in the universe.
What you aren't measuring is music though, you can measure music with microphones. You're talking about measuring artistic quality, not variation in air pressure over time.

File: duchamp1.1212526945.jpg (35KB, 487x480px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 487x480px

>>69748644
Funny how you claim to be interested in talking about the topic but launch directly into an ad-hominem attack.

Pray tell, what does this mean?

>>69748991
>art has meaning
no, art is only aesthetics

>>69748991
>ad-hominem attack?
when?
I can tell you about the historical context of that artwork, I can tell you that Duchamp changed the way people thought about art and thought about what was art. And I can tell you about how he was trying to draw attention to the beauty that exists in every day objects.
But I'm not sure there exists a meaning behind it. However, I find it interesting and I find it worthwhile and I like because it makes me question what art is. And it's interesting to me because of its historical context and because of the controversy it caused and even because of the rather whimsical title of the piece.

>>69744549
That's the fucking point, there is no way of assigning quality to either, because it's subjective. Either this is bait, or you truly are an underprivileged human being.

>>69748991
For this particular example I'd argue that the creator's intent was supposed to be commentary on the art world and what is and what isn't art and what would qualify as art in a museum. This particular example is sort of a subversive piece and I'd say that it technically does qualify as art as the creator expressed himself through a medium, despite the piece itself not being traditional or well wrought.

>>69749023
Then what is the aesthetic appeal?

>>69749140
I like the craftsmanship of the urinal, not gonna lie. Also the lettering on the side. It'd make cool album art.

>>69744570
I don't think music's objective should be to find its "good" side, but to find its true sound. In other words, the objective for the artist is to encapsulate their ideas or thoughts onto their composition.

That's why avant-garde music can still qualify as art.

>>69749186
That's reasonable. I agree.

>>69749233
That's good. Job done. Have a nice evening, senpai.

>>69749092
>>69749119
So it's less of a work of fine art and more of an artistic statement?
You're both wrong by the way, it's a work of Dada. Dadaists hated everything and everyone. It's not so much a "what is art?" statement as a "art is shit and you're all idiots" statement. Since this is hailed as one of the great works of the 20th century, I think their point has been proven.

>>69743397
Uhh pitchfork scores obviously. lmao

music is like carbon monoxide, its tasteless, odorless and can kill you

>>69749336
Sounds like you've been listening to too much Nirvana

>>69749289
that's not what I said.
I said why I personally find it interesting and worthwhile.
I didn't attempt to attribute any meaning to it.

>>69749289
Hmm...Well then you could argue that the original creator's intent doesn't necessarily have to be something that's of major importance to people who consume the art. It might have been dadaist, but someone who consumes the art might find a new meaning for it. And who's to say that either person's view of the work, be it artist or consumer, is more right? You'd think that the artist should have the last say on what the meaning of their art is, but in the minds of the art consumers, that might not matter, and thus subjective opinions form on the artwork.

>>69749398
>And who's to say that either person's view of the work, be it artist or consumer, is more right?
i'd be pretty embarrassed if i concocted a load of horseshit meaning behind some work of modern art so i can seem smart only to be told by the artist that all they did was randomly and meaninglessly place some everyday objects in a circle to collect money from the establishment of pretentious assholes, and so would you or anyone else who has an inkling of dignity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0spOdgBr3iE&t=1073

>>69749398
See the "and you're an idiot" clause of the statement made by the overturned urinal.

>>69749533
True. I feel like some people, once given something that is called art to them, want to immediately put a meaning behind it and be aware of it personally, and someone might have just made it without any artistic intent at all. This is a problem that a lot of people can take advantage of. I wouldn't call any of that art if it wasn't made with an artistic driving force. The problem that most people have with modern art is that most of it is done is such a way that the expression is done so easily that any Joe Shmoe can do it. I don't think this should detract away from real modern artists or their art, however, and that if the artists themselves brought their ideas into a work, genuinely, then despite it looking not very impressive, it still qualifies as art and people will treat it as such. However if a creator comes out and says that what he/she made had no artistic foundation, then it's no longer art, as it was made with no passion or artistic drive. Any person who commented on it would feel like a dummy, but that's a natural thing, to put forth meaning onto something like that, because people sincerely believe that the artist was genuinely expressing something.

>>69749854
Food for thought: unless there is a recorded statement by the artist himself, there is absolutely no way to tell if a work was made with an "artistic driving force".

>>69749885
this is complete anecdotal conjecture, and there is no way to quantify it, but i find it pretty easy to tell when a piece of music was composed with deep passion, love and seriousness, and when it's soulless mass-appeal money grabbing

>>69747453
i mean i'm tired of post-modern irony as much as the next guy but wow is this dude insufferable and just wrong.

why is the only valuable artwork photorealistic? why does art have to have "discipline" and "direction"?

people who shit on modern art are the same people who would have shit on coltrane for his free jazz period. they will never be good creators or push boundaries and they're the antithesis of good artwork

>>69747453
>art """"""""""""""REDUCED""""""""""""" to personal expression

holy shit lol i hope this is next lvl satire

>>69749944
What boundaries are pushed by a 340 ton rock? A guy submitted a signed urinal to an art show in the 1910s.

>>69750169
i didn't say that the rock pushed boundaries, but the urinal definitely did. it challenged artistic convention, and led to a ton of 20th century artwork that wouldn't have existed otherwise (regardless of whether you like it or not)

>>69749965
>holy shit lol i hope this is next lvl satire
sadly not
prager """""""""""""""university""""""""""""""" is just an extremely vulgar far right propaganda outlet

>>69750213
Then why the hell is that rock in an art gallery?

>>69743362

You said "music is objective" Like an objective in a video game, you fucking bitch.. Does that make you Mr. Video Games huh? You think you're so cool, huh? All Video Games and all? Well frick off with your holier-than-thou bullSHIT you fucking weenie. You probably unironically use the word "music" you weaboo. Stop saying music is objective.

>>69750719
it's not, it's outside of one.

either way, who cares? you're dodging the whole argument by saying that maybe one gallery is shit

tip: there were shit galleries in the 1600s as well

>>69743397
standardized calibre rating units for finding intelligent esthetic sounds (scruffies)
1 scruffie is defined as exactly equal to the artistic quality of Azealia Banks' 1991 ep.
Then you just count up in units of scaruffies. Here's some examples:
ITAOTS - (3.61±0.13) scaruffies
ITCOTCK - (2.70±0.10) scaruffies
OK Computer - (3.01±0.11) scaruffies
you get the picture

So have you guys decided that art is not objective yet?

>>69750926
art is over

>>69748636
did you even read the post you were replying to?

I think a lot of what you guys are disagreeing about is on different meaning of what it means for music to be "objective"

musical qualities are objective
>this pitch is at a frequency of 550 Hz

but obviously music cannot be objectively rated as "better" or "worse" because the only way music (note that I said "music", NOT "sound") can be interpreted is through human perception, which is the definition of being subjective

>>69750767
Now that's a dodge. The dumb rock is symptomatic of a sickness experienced by the art field, one off which Jackson Pollock profits.

>>69751796
>one off which Jackson Pollock profits
yea I'm sure a man dead for 66 years profits off of a rock at an art gallery, you sure are intelligent anon please take my virginity uwu

>>69751815
His name is known, isn't it? Profit isn't just monetary you poor person.

>>69751884
he is in a box in the ground, DEAD, you absolute retard, there is no possible argument you could make for him "profiting"

>>69751905
There are several I could make, but you wouldn't understand them if you can't trace your lineage beyond your great grandparents.

>>69751952
he had no children, stop being a fuckwit at any time thanks ;)

>>69752117
But your children will know his name. Oh wait... I''m sorry.

>>69751751
Yes, and that anon was implying that there could possibly be a universal measurement system, like there is for heat, for music. And that would never happen.

>>69748518
Heat is a pretty one dimensional physical property isn't it? The jostling of molecules moving fast creates hot temperature, slower molecules the temperature goes lower etc.? You can't make a measurement system for music because music is multifaceted and includes melody, texture, rhythm, etc. That's where I feel your heat analogy falls apart.