/lit/ - Literature

>>11781304
>not starting with the Greeks

Art is by its nature an object to behold.

>>11781304
There is objectivity. It’s a construct, but it’s still there.

>>11781304
It's literally just semantics, it exists, but people will twist the words and walk away with a shit eating grin at manipulating language.

>>11781304
When a writer uses a metaphor in his text, it is an objective fact that there's a metaphor in the text.

>>11781304
There IS objectivity in art because all art is based on reality and reality is objective. When someone says a work of art lacks verisimilitude, they are making an objective claim. This is why Mary Sues suck so hard, they lack any believable characteristics.That said, there will always be fags who argue that bad art is good because I say so, falling back on muh subjectivity as an argument.

>>11781304
Okay, then art is meaningless and all discussion of it is equally meaningless. I guess this board should be shut down and the canon should be forgotten. Everything is ruined because some nihilistic plebs don't want to admit they have shit taste.

>>11781417
>Picasso was shit because he wasn't realistic. Surrealists can suck my cock

>it was never said "if it weren't for you meddling kids" ever on scooby doo

I don't get art at all because I can't figure out whether it's subjective or objective.

It's fucking with me lately.
>>11781417
>verisimilitude
Cool word anon
give me a cool word or a favorite word of yours

>art is subjective
>ART IS SUBJECTIVE

>>11781304
God exists, therefore objectivity exists.

>>11781468
False.
https://youtu.be/hXUqwuzcGeU?t=18

>>11781304
Cringe.
>>11781478
Based.

>>11781483
>"meddling kids" was only said 3 times throughout the whole series
Weird.

Art is imitation of nature. Art that more closely resembles natural forms is objectively better than art that falls short in that regard

>>11781476
What is your counter-argument

>>11781496

>>11781304
no need to, you're right

>>11781505
Is he trying to look like camoo?

>>11781535
embarrassingly so

>>11781535
Fuck off don’t disrespect The Hitch. He deserves our admiration now more than ever that religious bigots like (((Shapiro))) have hi jacked the phrases “logic” and “reason”

>>11781318
/thread

Is the amount of effort put into a piece of art objective or subjective? Honest question.

>>11781417
>reality is objective
take LSD and see if you still believe that to be the case, I'm dead serious

>>11781442
>I guess this board should be shut down
Yes?
>and the canon should be forgotten
Canon is a meme that almost nobody actually gives a shit about. /lit/ fags read some Homer and Shakespeare and pretend like they are the next Harold Blooms. So much for muh cannon, only some scholars care about it.

>>11781494
This is so retarded it's not even funny.
If nature is so great, why would we need imitations of it at all? Why not just go to a park and have the real thing instead of some artsy crap that twists and misrepresents reality?
By your logic a film is by default better than the greatest musical works ever, a new comedic play is better than Shakespeare, and I have no idea how your metrics could ever be applied to architecture.
The premise you used was also used by Plato, who then used it to argue that art is bad and distracts from the truth.

>>11781662
Effort cannot be quantified or measured, it's a useless metric. Mozart and most preromantic composers composed effortlessly and almost automatically. Haydn wrote 104 symphonies. Beethoven on the other hand shat out nine. He obviously had to put much more effort into them, but he's no more or less of a great composer.
Also, if we don't have such neat statistics such as these above, we'll be wildly speculating in attempts to know how much effort was there in production of the art. It's better to focus on what we have - the art and our experience of it - than external, "objective" elements that in the end just cause more confusion and distract us away from the actual art.

>>11781304
do other things inputed by the body have objectivity?
is there an objective best water?

>>11781304
You can't really objectively measure emotional impact.
However, how well specific abstract concepts and physical objects are represented to the intended audience is pretty objective.
For example, I think I can say that the picture of this thread is an objectively poor depiction of Jesus to a North-American Christian audience because it lacks the symbols specifically associated with Jesus in contemporary religious traditions.
Personally, I don't think abstract works like Pollock's don't really well represent concepts very well. They look kind of interesting but they cannot give senses of fear, disgust, joy, sadness and so on in the same way more representative art can. For many purposes abstract art is simply inferior as a tool of communication.

>>11781672
get a load of this edgelord

>>11781304
effort and process > than concept

art isn't pbjective in a pure sense, but there are better, more impressive works. sure, you'll never get total concensus, but there will be things that people like closer to universally, and through more time.

stop being a pure relativist, it's gay.

>>11781731
pollock is almost pure concept, my guy

>>11781417
>all art is based on reality
>all
>art
>based on
>reality
u gonna have to delimit this statement and these terms, my dude

>>11782028
have u tripped? describe the sensation

>>11781304
Read The Critique of Judgement and get back to us desu

>>11781304
Bernini made this sculpture inspired by Ovid's Metamorphoses. This is objectively true.

>>11781378
t.wittgenstein

>>11781685
It's as Aristotle said, man instinctively seeks to imitate and represent, so we copy nature.

>>11781378
Oh, "subject" and "object" are actually words from grammar? That's that then. Everyone can go home with a pristine language not even warped by fuckin' jokers.

>>11781443
Picasso could paint realism if he wanted to

>>11782125
LSD changes the way you perceive things. reality itself doesn't change in any way. Does a tree really breathe because you think it does in a drug-fucked state? No it doesn't. It remains a tree, and no amount of drugs will change that.

>>11782368
>Ψ is "a tree"

>>11781304
There is no objectivity at all. Prove me right.

art has both objective and subjective qualities

>>11781443
Verisimilitude doesn't mean realism

This is Frantisek Kupka painting over time. At which point was he "objectively" the best?

>>11781304
You don't understand what objectivity is.

>>11781494
found a bob ross

Aesthetic judgments of fine art and natural beauty are wholly subjective, being non-cognitive judgments, for they depart not from determinate concepts, as well as being without any interest in the object's existing; nonetheless, while they concern but the subject's feeling, this does not entail the differing of everyone's taste as whim or fancy, for we must assume that every other subject, in his freedom and capabilities of the faculties, may agree to our judging something beautiful, aesthetic judgments being perforce also universal and following with necessity. (Cf. Kant, KdU)

>>11781304
>>11781318
>>11781337
>>11781378
>>11781403
>>11781478
>>11782554

Cheers to the one sentence philosophers of /lit/! Thank you for existing guys! It probably took you more to solve the captcha than to write your laconic bullshit, so maybe next time think if it's worth bumping an already useless thread by posting the first thing that comes to your mind instead of producing some sort of argument! Thank you, wise men, for making this place better and better by the day!

>>11782758
>Aesthetic judgments of fine art and natural beauty are wholly subjective,
the moot
>being non-cognitive judgments,
judgements about the merit of art are only in a small part non-cognitive

>for they depart not from determinate concepts,
utter rot

>as well as being without any interest in the object's existing;
wrong again

>nonetheless, while they concern but the subject's feeling, this does not entail the differing of everyone's taste as whim or fancy, for we must assume that every other subject, in his freedom and capabilities of the faculties, may agree to our judging something beautiful, aesthetic judgments being perforce also universal and following with necessity.

yes, WHILE they concern only the subject's 'feeling' they are subjective, but this is only a minor part of the appreciation of art

Art doesn’t exist. Change my mind

>>11782793
Here.

>>11781304
beauty is objective, art is not, that's one aspect that makes it interesting.
Personally, I can't stand modern art and everything "contemporary".

Everything being subjective doesn't make you any less of a wrong faggot.

>>11781505
what an awful cosplay

>>11782773
are maxims the final pleb filter?

>>11782773
BASED AND BLACK SUNNED

>>11782125
Trip and fall on a sword subhuman

I think there's an Alasdair Macintyre argument that you can make objective judgments of art within particular traditions.

A painting is objectively not a very good sculpture.

>>11781417
This is the dumbest post I've ever read. We are talking about a value that everyone defines differently, and is therefore subjective.

>>11781304
>dude it's all subjective

a crutch for spiritual polyps

>>11781494
According to this, recorded wind would be objectively better than every single musical piece that incorporates instruments. Shut up you fucking Amish.

>>11785491
No, because nature doesn't imitate itself.

>>11781662
Objective, but does not create objective value. Some of the most notable works of literature where made in a month (invitation to a beheading), and some of the worst took the longest (Henry Darger 13,000 page book about traps)

>>11785497
But we are nature, and we create art. According to you, "art is imitation of nature". Therefore nature imitates nature. I have disproven you. Next time try thinking.

>>11785477
Completely the opposite.

>>11781417
>all art is based on reality
>reality is objective
Holy fucking assumptions Batman

Kill yourself

>>11785552
absolutely not. a lil pump video is not on the same level as Beethoven in this or any other world

>>11785401
>A painting is objectively not a very good sculpture.
Yeah, but that's not a very useful conclusion. Traditions change and there are many across the world, not to mention alien, innovative elements within existing traditions. Think romanticism or modernism that appeared in relatively conservative contexts, being heavily criticized and fought against by the traditionalists, yet carrying great, important art and becoming a part of the tradition as well. So not even within one system/tradition do we have real consistency and certainty for objectivity.

>>11785477
>>11785571
>spiritual polyps
>muh Baythoven
You sure do sound like a guy who profoundly understands art and its value.

>>11781304
Why change your mind? Art is the 'essentialisation' of the subjective.

Can you not appreciate the objective and obvious skill it takes to create masterworks of art? You wouldn't think twice if someone asked you to compare the objective beauty in the craft behind a roman marble statue and a modern art piece comprising of a few scribbles of charcoal.

>>11782368
"reality" is an hallucination in the same way that tripping is an hallucination, the only difference is that one is the default one we all seem to agree on
the reality you're talking about is shaped by your individual experience and therefore is not objective, for example take someone with a severe phobia
just because most of us don't have an evident major psychological issue it doesn't mean we aren't affected by our own perspective and thoughts

of course, a physical phenomenon actually happens but the way it does is completely out of reach for us, as we may only see one part of it due to our limitations as humans

>>11785829
What if that statue was ugly, would it still have the value of its work? Let's say someone makes a giant piece of shit made of marble which took him months of work. Would that be "objectively" superior to say, a painting of a sunset?

>>11785839
This sounds like a smartass answer but i think it depends on how well done it is. If it is an intricate, highly detailed piece of gargantuan shit compared to a doodle of a sunset made with crowns i could say i don't like the giant shit and the sunset is quaint but i appreciate the skill behind the shit more.

>>11785861
crayons* holy fuck i'm retarded.

>>11785829
I don't think you know what objective means. There would be no such thing as 'skill' outside of a subject, so it is not objective.

>>11781304
define objectivity
define art
define change
define mind

>>11781494
Mirrors are objectively better than art

>>11781731
Abstract expressionism is literally about the materials themselves, not representing concepts.

>>11782172
He made it in a workshop with other sculptors.

>>11783142
t. brainlet

>>11785861
What is the autor of the painting spent months thinking exactly how he wanted his work to be, is physical detail the only way to measuring skill?

>>11781672

HURRRR DURRRR if I take a drug that disrupts my brain chemistry so my brain short circuits and malfunctions so I hallucinate; yep, that sure does make me intellectually and spiritually superior to you.

You degenerate fuck.

>>11785925
cringe

>>11785925

this
I love when acid heads think they understand shit about the world. Like, nah bro. You just lowered your IQ 20 points.

>>11785932

LSD makes you misinterpret reality, it doesn't let you see different realities. God, this place is so pseud now. Now even Joe "NPC" Rogan is allowed to post here

>>11785945

this desu senpai

>>11785923
Anyone can think about what exactly they want to create comprised of what they find intriguing and beautiful but it doesn't matter unless they have the correct ability to articulate (poetry) or physically complete what they want to do. Detail does not wholly comprise objectiveness in art but it is a window into what an artist can do. Skill matters even though some retard will smear literal shit on a canvas randomly with no forethought or precision and people will call it a masterpiece but that doesn't devalue the actual ability to do amazing things.

>>11785882
The objective definition of skill is expertise, some pieces of art while art is subjective requires objective expertise. Therefor expertise is required and a part of most art.

>>11785953
>>11785945
But we cannot disconnect the physical world we perceive and our own internal states, intentions and emotions. They are bound together. In a way, it is just another subjective interpretation.

>Thread about Art devolves into straight edge children afraid of their own consciousness
lol, so this is where all the Peterson posters go when they aren't spamming their threads.

>>11786050

nah

>>11786034
There's no such thing as an 'objective definition' because definitions do not exist outside of a thinking subject. To go back to my point, since you are not picking up on what I am getting at: there is no such thing as skill, either, outside of a thinking subject. The only things that are objective exist outside of a thinking subject. Skill and definitions do not. Neither does art.

>>11786095
I'm sorry i tried to read your post but none of your words have an actual definition apparently.

>>11786052
t. seething hedonist

>>11786126

lol at least I'm not a Jewish cunt. Go burn yourself in an oven Anne Frank.

This was meant for you
>>11786052
>>11786131

>>11781685
>Canon is a meme that almost nobody actually gives a shit about.
One of the most plebeian things I've ever read on this board. You say this place should be shutdown so why are you even here? Go to reddit. On second though, reddit may be a bit too smart for you. Go to twitter.

everything is real and the most real is capital. it's the ouroboros circling around us and everything we do is an approximation of its next move.
our internal life (notions of art and emotions) is nonactualized capital. the real value (objective value) is set the moment we enter the marketplace and face the beast of capital; the collective libidinal and egoistic desire of everything

>>11786120
You've been avoiding the 'objective' definition of 'objective' you fucking brainlet

>>11786197
There is no objective definition of objective, remember?

>>11782773
Men are Mortal
Socrates is a Man
Therefore Socrates is Mortal

>>11786207
That's why I put it in quotes brainlet. Are you just going to do this now or do you want to have an actual discussion?

>>11781304
You're objectively wrong

>>11786189
whoa whoa, easy there, no need for such harsh words

>>11786290
Try to be a master carpenter and create great goods without knowledge and expertise. Get stranded on an island and survive without survivalist expertise. But oh wait dude it's like expertise doesn't exist. I can go to the back and trade a dollar for a million dollars because currency doesn't exist either lmao. It's like no social construct or any physical activity requires anything objective holy shit my brain uuugghghgh

Why does all threads about visual art immediately collapse into a shitpost fiesta?

>>11781304
We may not fully be able to point in a direction and say "This is the objective and here is what it says is good", but we are able to look at things and know that they are objectively bad.

>>11786399
Because it is 4chan.

U r3wr Wright dattt is wy@ ma t3xt ïs tée gr8$$7 txt "vre t0/d.

- Dewuan Le 4'Rche