/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

Taste is very much subjective while skill is very much objective.

>>6488556
you can counter by saying it's both objectively bad AND they also can't tell because THEY have no taste

btw the painting you posted is hideous

>>6488556
>Could you refute this? Is it even possible?
art is subjective and taste is subjective. Is there really such a thing as "bad taste" I know people say it all the time but what's the deciding factor? how many people agree with your taste? Taste also changes overtime. Something that was "bad taste" in the past could become "good taste" in later years. Also things that were once considered good can become dated or bad.

>>6488556
What most people don't understand is that artists with distinct style already know the fundamentals and then decided to go with their style.
Picasso and Van Goh both can draw realism but just chooses not to.

People who use "muh style" as a defense is just insecure and refuses criticism

>>6488556
okay fag

>>6488556
Caring too much about hating someone else's art is something /beg/s do, and eventually it gets tiring. Experience and hard work brings forth humility.

If you came to me and you showed me your work and I thought it was beyond below a child's level, I just won't say anything because I'd assume you'd be an emotional parasite that just wants validation.

Like I met a dude in art school that seem to have special needs but he acts like he doesn't know he's autistic, he's taking art classes for easy lib chicks phone numbers and a lazy A but he doesn't do a signal easy assignment right, he came to me and asked if his child drawing was good and my dumbass said it was nice despite it was being off assignment, that "nice" gave him a huge ego trip and he then began to embarrass himself during class critic and point out very insufficient "errors" in others work.

In another class, I try to give a girl some advice because she actually had some drawing potential but she gave me a face that I was "killing her" and I had to soften my words so I didn't make her give up irrationally because I stop saying nice things about it.

>>6488645
The things that become dated or bad, as well as the things that remain constant are proof of the objectivity hidden in taste. But it's not the popular vote that determines it, that only matters to the degree the popular vote is informed, honest, and acting without self interest towards the ideal. In other words almost never. And it doesn't make any sense to say taste has no objectivity, but skill does. Either they both do or neither does.

People just like to say taste doesn't real so they can get away with murder, while finding something to be "proud" about in the form of something that matters fuck all- skill.

>>6488556
U just let reality take care it. It's that simple really.

>>6488556
Artists who say that usually are /beg/ teenagers drawing random anime of the season spamming their art in Reddit or Facebook art related groups

>>6489294
This honestly. No one is faster than the speed of bullshit.

>>6488558
objectively speaking how would you rank
raphael, freud, sargent, ruan jia, kim jung gi, proko, vilppu, fragonard, carlo dolci
explain your criteria

>>6489334
Not that anon, but you can't objectively, no one can truly, in skill or taste. But that isn't proof of the objectives nonexistence. If there were no objective, no language could exist, no message could be conveyed, and certainly not the sort of things you see successfully cross thousands of years in art. Nor would there ever be wacky trends that self correct to the mean. We'd all be wearing codpieces with tights, along with sugar blackened teeth, bound feet and crossed eyes. Somewhere along the line, someone said to each of those, "hmm, you know what actually? ...Nah.."

>>6488556
Read Beauty by Roger Scruton. There you go, lad.

>>6491100
I ain't reading a book by a nigga named Scruton

>>6488556
Why is he holding a rat? Dudes dead?

>>6488556
This piece doesnt look finished or maybe its because im too used to the monotone painting in burnt sienna to be the underpainting.

>>6488556
"Taste" is, to put it simply, a compound of ideas, concepts and sensory elements one finds attractive or pleasing. Taste is heavily influenced by cultural and psychological factors unique to every subject.
"Skill" is, to put it simply, a combination of physical and mental knowledge applied to the methodical procedures of an action. Skill, while ambiguously measureable in a general sense, can be objectively measured when deconstructed to the specifics and under explicit and strict guidelines for accurate comparison.

With that out of the way, this argument can be broken quite easily:
>Taste has nothing to do with Skill
This is not a matter of "Objective vs Subjective", it's literally comparing oranges to apples; Taste, the emotional and mental gallery of attraction, doesnt relate to Skill, the physical and mental strength of action. One could argue "good Taste makes you highly Skilled" but this is completely false.
Aside from "Good Taste" being false due to it's subjective nature, Taste is not the driving force to higher Skills to begin with, it is Knowledge. One with Taste alone will not understand their craft if they dont seek Knowledge from all it's possible corners.