/lit/ - Literature

>my perception of beauty is universal
Dilate

Sometimes I wonder if anyone who uses "subjective" actually know what the word means

>>13965434
based. beauty is also objective

>>13965453
>Beauty is the only metric by which you can rate art
>Beauty isn't objective

>>13965493
>implying any metric you use will be universal
>>beauty is objective
Prove it.

>>13965434
OK if art is objective then what is objectively the best work of art?

>>13965434
What makes you think it’s objective? What you think is objectively beautiful might just be subjectively beautiful for most humans.

>>13965457
Same but with "objective"

Beauty is objective
Everyone agrees that trannies are ugly

>>13965434
Artistic taste is subjective.
Artistic merit is objective.

>>13965576
Define artistic merit

>>13965545
Anna Karenina

>>13965545
Easy, Laocoon and his sons

>subjectivity is a self defeating argument
I dont think this logic is sound is it?

>>13965726
>>13965902
I thought art was objective? Why did you give two different answers?

>Subjective means subjects are equal, so interpretations are equal too
Why do people always assume this? It being subjective means the subject is even more important than before.

>>13965951
>If objectivity exists people can't be wrong
the state of /lit/

>"literature is subjective!"
>lists their favourite books and its the same few that everyone else likes

>>13966022
Our favorite things are just a selection of all the things we know. Knowing more will probably help but we're in 2019 and people barely read even the big books.

>>13965434
Provide an objective unit of measurement for art

>>13966031
>no 3019 booklist

>>13965434
There is such a thing as collective subjectivity

>>13966040
that kinda sounds like an oxymoron, let's just call it a consensus.

>>13966031
People can know thousands of authors yet the same big ones still stand out

>>13965434
so who makes these objective factual art beauty laws?

>>13965545
Cocaine

>>13966035
>making it
>not gunna make it

If there's an objective scale to judge how good art is I sure as hell haven't heard of it. Even the most intelligent literary critics will often disagree. Who decides who's right? The one more people agree with? What an utterly stupid line of thought. Get over your pathetic need to feed your ego and accept that the "quality" of art is subjective.

before you say you can objectivity measure art, can you objectivity measure the best man?

>this? It’s by the great painter picallo lestravio. It’s entitled “faint”
>it’s truly a masterpiece and an absolutely moving piece of art which is why it sold for 8.6 million US dollars. If you can’t understand it’s depth and beauty then I suppose it is too complex for you ;^)

>>13966143
What if someone loves that drawing? It might seem like a stupid to you and me, but so what? There're plenty of acclaimed pieces of art I dislike. What's the objective difference? Feel free to lay it out. This is such a nonsensical and smug argument based on pretentiousness.

>>13966143
>and this here? It was made by Jajubooje kuucloojuujuu, an imporvishef African from the klerklik tribe.
>the first time I saw it I literally fell to my knees and cried. If you ask me the selling price of 7.9 million USD was an absolute steal. A paltry sun for such a work of art
>how I only wish michelangelo could be brought back to life, if only for a second, so that we could show him how his spirit lives on indefinitely.

>>13966147
Those scribbles objectively take no skill to produce. A large amount of modern “art” sells solely on exploring pretentious retards that huff their own farts (or is literally just part of a money laundering scheme)

is this art?

>>13966166
So the objective way to judge the quality of art is dependent on degree of "skill" involved? What if you think an acclaimed writer has no literary skill? Are you objectively wrong? What if you think a no-name 16 year old writer has produced some of the most moving prose you've ever read, but no one else likes them? Are you objectively wrong for feeling that way?

>>13966142
for if you have the best man then you can say his taste is of objectively the best art

>>13966177

>>13966191
Concession accepted

Objectively, the best art is Anime

>>13966169
What is commonly known as bad art.

>>13965434
people have different experiences so yes. dumbass

>>13966074
You know the answer, it's quit easy

>>13966143
Modern art is mostly money laundering and and litteraly shit that you call art.

>>13966580
Is it the Jews, anon?

>>13966671
Tells us what you think the best piece of art is and how you came to your conclusion or leave the thread.

Matisse brought art to its logical peak and anyone who disagrees is a colour theorylet.

>>13965434
>art is art

>>13966688
This would be really good for an aspiring artist in high school

Art is objective, but first, you have to define art objectively. Such a task is beyond most people. Once you establish a proper definition of art, you can include the functionality of its creation, and that acts as the standard for analyzing and evaluating art.

>>13965493
Beauty becomes a metric with the union between the objective definition of art and the standard of its creation. Arguing that beauty isn't objective, that it's 'in the eye of the beholder' is to negate both the meaning of art and its creation.

>>13965457
They don't. They think it merely means 'personal' rather than epistemological disassociation from reality. This misunderstanding is most blatant when people define subjectivity as merely 'bias,' and that objectivity is merely non-subjectivity. It becomes funny because no one even knows what objectivity or subjectivity means, yet everyone uses it as a cheap term without meaning. The problem with objectivity is that people tend to conflate the metaphysical objectivity with the epistemological objectivity.

>>13965545
The Art of Painting by Johannes Vermeer is objectively the best piece of art ever made.

>>13965956
>objectivity exists and it happens to exactly match my opinions
Hmmm....

"Art" wouldn't exist without subjects so yes

>'Subjectivity' is subjective!

>>13966703
>The Art of Painting by Johannes Vermeer is objectively the best piece of art ever made.

>all these fags that havent grasped the eternal form of beauty
LMAOOOOOOOO

>>13966710
Do you have the courage to argue otherwise?

>>13966703
shit bait

>>13966703
Beauty has little to do with art in the end

>>13965434
kek fukken brainlets

>>13966711
Plato was a charlatan
>>13966714
I don’t think you’re being serious.

>>13966705
You can make this exact same 'argument' against anything including methods of mathematics.

>>13966719
>if I say it's bait, I don't have to be objective and prove how it's wrong.

>>13966726
>I don’t think you’re being serious
I don't think you have either the courage or intellect to argue otherwise. Dismissal is the coward's way of engaging with ideas. Though, as a Strinerfag, I'm sure you'll just go 'SPOOOK SPOOK' like a ten year old and say nothing of importance, as you idiots always do.

>>13966733
First of all, tell us what you think objective and subjective mean.

>>13965434
Leibniz and Bolzano were right about esthetics.

>>13966703
semi-photorealistic painting of a frizzy-haired faggot dressed in pillowcases painting the portrait of a potato-faced mulatto with a dollar-store centerpiece on her head, awkwardly holding a primitive trombone and an encyclopedia, is objectively beautiful... yes, you're objectively correct

>>13966741
>objective
Epistemologically, objectivity is that which is being perceived consciously and the active cognitive process of conforming one's thoughts in adherence to reality. The standard by which a person can be objective is through the logical interpretation of sense data to reach non-contradictory conclusions from the facts of reality.

>subjective
Epistemologically, subjectivity is the interpretation of reality through values or truth statements derived internally, without reference to facts outside of the self. The standard by which an individual can be subjective is through the negation of the active cognitive process as to render all concepts and / or judgments of equal epistemic standing, on the premise that validation is impossible.

>>13966752
Ironically describing what you've perceived does not negate the value contained within an art.

>>13966730
>you can make arguments about subjectivity for everything
Almost like subjectivity actually makes sense.

>>13966773
>objectivity is that which is being perceived consciously and the active cognitive process of conforming one's thoughts in adherence to reality
Define reality. Is reality what you perceive? Is reality what the collective agrees on?

Objective perception is an oxymoron.

>>13966773
>Ironically describing what you've perceived does not negate the value contained within an art.
the hack artist didn't need any help from me in negating value, and the lame meta-painting angle doesn't come close to saving it

>>13965545
Lolita

>>13966787
>Define reality.
Reality is all that which exists.

>Is reality what you perceive?
Reality is everything, including that which you consciously aware of.

>Is reality what the collective agrees on?
Why would reality be what the collective agrees on? Intersubjectivity isn't objectivity. The standard by which something is objective is whether it is non-contradictory from the facts of reality as per the law of identity demanding that there not be any contradictions. Ontologically establishing the law of non-contradiction to epistemology is how any interpretation and conclusion becomes validated.

>>13966790
Your senses give you objective data of reality but it's not enough to understand really conceptually. It still needs to be emphasized because idiots will deny that you can even perceive reality. However, I did not say 'objective perception' is objectivity, merely the starting point along with the active cognitive process conforming one's thoughts in adherence to reality. To focus on one part of the sentence rather than the whole is to ignore what was said.

>>13966823
>Reality is everything, including that which you consciously aware of.
>Reality is all that which exists.
>all that exists is your perception of reality and what you’re aware of
>you perceive a piece of art and ‘adhere’ it to the reality you’re aware of
>you place a value on this piece of art from the reality that only you’re aware of
>you go on to say that this value which you gave to an ugly painting is objective
>you go on to say that it is objectively the best piece of art ever made
I don’t want to say it, but you’re unironically spooked.

>>13966843
Yep, exactly as I expected and predicted. A spook is a spook in of itself, and you have nothing to say.

>>13966846
>ignores everything but the last sentence because he’s getting BTFO

>>13966851
Not really. It's bad epistemology to say
>you place a value on this piece
as its advocating subjective as objective. It's both a strawman and misunderstanding of my position, brought by laziness from not even understanding my definition of objectivity. You don't place anything onto the art, you interpret it through induction. The value of all artworks are self-contained, and requires you to interrelate all its elements into a unified whole.

To understand the objective value of an art, you have to perceive it consciously, comform your thoughts in adherence to the standard of the art and its conveyance, interpret your sense data and reach non-contradictory conclusions of what values the artwork objectifies. But this requires you understand the proper framework to examine art.

And I'm correct because
>you place a value on this piece
is what I described as the definition for subjectivity: the interpretation of reality through values or truth statements derived internally, without reference to facts outside of the self. To place value upon the art is derived internally rather than from facts outside of the self.

The general issue is again that people need to objectively define art before they are capable of analyzing and then evaluating art. If you don't, you have no proper standard to discuss art.

>>13966873
>You don't place anything onto the art, you interpret it through induction.
The piece is filtered through your senses, perceived, and then analyzed. How can it be objective if your perception is subjective?
>The value of all artworks are self-contained,
Prove it.
>To understand the objective value of an art, you have to perceive it consciously, comform your thoughts in adherence to the standard of the art
What is the standard of art?
>interpret your sense data and reach non-contradictory conclusions of what values the artwork objectifies.
Non-contradictory to what?
>And I'm correct because
No, you’re not.
>The general issue is again that people need to objectively define art before they are capable of analyzing and then evaluating art. If you don't, you have no proper standard to discuss art.
There is no objective definition.

>>13966889
>How can it be objective if your perception is subjective?
See, there's your issue. How is perception subjective? You made a claim without any standard. Senses are automatically integrated as objective data, but conceptually, you have to cognitively validate them with further generalization through concepts. Do you think reality isn't real? How are you reading this post if you cannot trust your senses?
Your senses are objective, anything beyond that is in a super-position of being objective or subjective as to whether you logically interpret your sense data to reach non-contradictory conclusions from the facts of reality.

>Prove it.
It's contained in the objective definition of art. I'll eventually write an treaty on art and that'll be enough for me.

>What is the standard of art?
That it is unified.

>Non-contradictory to what?
To the values it objectifies. By the nature of art, it cannot be everything, it is always delimited. Even the greatest and broadest artwork can say many things but not everything. It is contradictory.

>There is no objective definition.
Ah but there is, I wrote the first objective definition of art in the history of humanity. A feat for which I am rather proud of considering how badly humanity has done even trying to write anything about art. Most art books don't even trying to give any definition to the point of parody. I don't blame them, but it's beyond tiring when you read books that say nothing because they can't even establish the parameters of art to discuss it.

You honestly should have asked for the objective definition of art in the first place but that just shows your laziness.

>>13965453
the common person mistakes their perception for reality

>>13966703
Personally, I think this is the epitome of art.

>>13966919
>How is perception subjective?
Images are not filtered through the sight in an objective way. Not everyone has the same type of eyes.
>Do you think reality isn't real?
I think it’s subjective.
>How are you reading this post if you cannot trust your senses?
How do you know I exist? How do you know you’re not dreaming?
>Your senses are objective
Repeating it doesn’t make it right.
>facts of reality
What are they?
>It's contained in the objective definition of art. I'll eventually write an treaty on art and that'll be enough for me.
Try.
>That it is unified.
Vague.
>To the values it objectifies. By the nature of art, it cannot be everything, it is always delimited. Even the greatest and broadest artwork can say many things but not everything. It is contradictory.
Art says what thinker thinks it says.
>Ah but there is, I wrote the first objective definition of art in the history of humanity. A feat for which I am rather proud of considering how badly humanity has done even trying to write anything about art. Most art books don't even trying to give any definition to the point of parody. I don't blame them, but it's beyond tiring when you read books that say nothing because they can't even establish the parameters of art to discuss it.
I’m sure it’s objective - objective for you.
>You honestly should have asked for the objective definition of art in the first place but that just shows your laziness.
It’s 5 o’clock in the morning

>>13966923
>the common person does X

>>13966959
t. stupid common person

>>13966962
dilate and read stirner

>>13965434
Kek

>>13966951
>Images are not filtered through the sight in an objective way. Not everyone has the same type of eyes.
The difference in quality does not change that we perceive reality. An eagle sees better than us, but that's a matter of higher quality, not difference of sight. No one sees in the 7th dimension.

>I think it’s subjective.
That's dodging the question, is reality real or not? It's a yes or no questions.

>How do you know I exist?
I am sending written text through a website on the internet and you are interacting with me, responding and being wrong about metaphysics, epistemology and esthetics. You exist because reality is real and you are real.

>How do you know you’re not dreaming?
What evidence do you have that I am dreaming? An arbitrary claim without any principle or fact is meaningless. Is reality real? I am conscious of reality and there are no contradiction in what I am observing, and nothing suggests I am a vat in brain or dreaming. Why would I assume something without any contradiction for me to doubt my senses or perception?

>Repeating it doesn’t make it right.
There's nothing more I can tell you because your senses are automatic. You're looking at your screen and seeing my messages. That's objective. You are conscious of something and for you to be conscious, you need objective data. What you're subtly trying to argue is that your senses can trick you, which is a claim you have to prove.

>Try.
I'm working on it. I expect to release it eventually.

>Vague
I'm being intentionally vague as to not expose my hand too early.

>Art says what thinker thinks it says.
That's subjective and wrong. Art conveys the values that the artist objectified.

>objective for you.
That's not how objectivity works. If it's objective for me, it's objective for everyone because it's non-contradictory. If it's only true for me, that's subjective.

>It’s 5 o’clock in the morning
Eh, that's understandable. I can't sleep; too much coffee.

>>13967002
>The difference in quality does not change that we perceive reality. An eagle sees better than us, but that's a matter of higher quality, not difference of sight. No one sees in the 7th dimension.
What about a difference in color? It’s also possible to see completely different shapes, and I know that from not wearing my glasses and then trying to look at something.
>That's dodging the question, is reality real or not? It's a yes or no questions.
It’s can be either or depending on the person.
>I am sending written text through a website on the internet and you are interacting with me, responding and being wrong about metaphysics, epistemology and esthetics. You exist because reality is real and you are real.
>you’re real because I think you’re real
That’s the problem here. You think that what you think applies to everyone else as well.
>What evidence do you have that I am dreaming?
What evidence do you have that you’re not dreaming?
>An arbitrary claim without any principle or fact is meaningless.
We can apply the same logic to reality.
>Is reality real? I am conscious of reality and there are no contradiction in what I am observing,
There aren’t any contradictions because everything is filtered through those special eyes of yours.
>nothing suggests I am a vat in brain or dreaming.
Sounds like something a brain in a vat would say.
>Why would I assume something without any contradiction for me to doubt my senses or perception?
You already assume plenty of things already, so I don’t see why you would have a problem with assuming other things.
>That's objective.
I don’t think we’re going to agree.
>You are conscious of something and for you to be conscious, you need objective data.
Sounds like an assumption.
>What you're subtly trying to argue is that your senses can trick you, which is a claim you have to prove.
Do you seriously think that your senses can’t fool you?
>I'm being intentionally vague as to not expose my hand too early.
I’m have to go to college in a couple hours, puppet master.
>That's subjective and wrong.
For you. For you. For you.
>That's not how objectivity works. If it's objective for me, it's objective for everyone because it's non-contradictory. If it's only true for me, that's subjective.
I was being sarcastic.
>Eh, that's understandable. I can't sleep; too much coffee.
I’m going to have to make some.

I’m posting from a phone, too, so it’s hard to respond and be articulate without straining my fingers and waiting an hour between responses.

>>13965434
Physical art is food for the soul. It gives you something to dream about, like a star or if its really heavy stuff, a war. It's a venus fly trap, really. Linger around too long and it will kill you, little fly.

Real art is the process of flying itself. Don't fly too close to the sun but don't forget you have wings either. Things have to be somewhat normal for that. You will always have something extraordinary in your head, always tempting you to spoil yourself (masturbate).

The real never-ending story is not just about being the change you want to see in the world, it's just as much about fighting that change. Father children, kill your darlings, whatever it takes to keep your clock ticking. A cup of tea and some fresh air is better for you than art will ever be.

>>13967042
I thought you said ‘how’ not ‘we’ for the first paragraph. I’ll readdress it:
>The difference in quality does not change that we perceive reality. An eagle sees better than us, but that's a matter of higher quality, not difference of sight. No one sees in the 7th dimension.
Yes, and you perceive your reality, not everyone else’s.

>>13965434
>Art is...
>anything other than "a purely modern concept invented as a marketing tactic to legitimize Academic Art during the 1800s"
trash

Subjectivity only exists in a tabula rasa world.
Subjectivity is intersubjective, shared.

>>13965581
The degree to which an artwork communicates and contains eternal ideas of grace and beauty. The likes of Mozart will be carried through human history for century, as they evoke a sense of sublime divinity in their audience. Japanese cartoons are forgotten in a few years at most, as they usually appeal only to the impermanent hedonistic side of us.

>>13966773
Spotted the Objectivist, well done sir keep up the good work.

>>13967042
>What about a difference in color? It’s also possible to see completely different shapes, and I know that from not wearing my glasses and then trying to look at something.
There are no differences in color. And while some people have defective eyes, they nonetheless still perceive reality.

>It’s also possible to see completely different shapes, and I know that from not wearing my glasses and then trying to look at something.
That's a imperfection of the retna, you still perceive reality, but are limited by it. You can get laser eye surgery and see perfectly. Your perception merely changed in scope. This is what I already pointed out between an eagle's vision and that of a human. All living being have consciousness and have a means of perception. No one experiences 'their own reality'. That's kantian bullshit.

>It’s can be either or depending on the person.
That's still dodging the question.

>You think that what you think applies to everyone else as well.
Reality is real, regardless of what I think of it. Do you think eating sand is a substitute for food if you think it is? You are using 'thinking' improperly, as you want to say 'how you perceive and come to conclusions about reality might be different from others' but the baseline is the law of identity itself.

>What evidence do you have that you’re not dreaming?
>asking to prove a negative
You said I'm dreaming, you made that claim, you prove it. I have already given evidence that I am writing at the moment on the internet and perceiving reality.

>We can apply the same logic to reality.
Wrong, we use facts of reality with fundamental axioms to base them.

>There aren’t any contradictions because everything is filtered through those special eyes of yours.
That's pure Kant and I will disregard it. Perceiving reality does not make me blind to reality, as you claim.

>You already assume plenty of things already, so I don’t see why you would have a problem with assuming other things.
>if you assume some things, then EVERYTHING IS WRONG
Really? Are you for real? Why would you assume anything?

Anyway, I'm done responding to you. People that accept that they are unsure whether they are even perceiving reality can't be argued further. If you can't rely on your senses, why and how are you even arguing with me? It's pointless and I don't care to discuss any more.

>>13965434
Intersubjective

>>13967107
> I'm done responding to you. People that accept that they are unsure whether they are even perceiving reality can't be argued further. If you can't rely on your senses, why and how are you even arguing with me? It's pointless and I don't care to discuss any more.
Do you want me to refute your points or not? Is this a sign of submission? I do, however, need to sleep, so maybe this is for the better.

>>13966823
>Your senses give you objective data of reality

>>13967145
No, I don't care because it is a waste of my time to argue with you further. I might now exist to you, so you have no reason to convince me otherwise. You can't even answer whether reality is real, so you are dead to me.

>>13967172
Objective data does not mean absolute data of all of reality, merely a degree of information. When I type on my keyboard, I feel the texture of the buttons on my fingers, the sound of the clicking, the sight of what I am writing, etc. Those sensations are integrated perceptually and are objective. Animals do the same, and they survive with nothing more. Humans are capable of conceptualizing the world to a higher degree and that is the standard by which we interpret reality by establishing proper epistemological standards.

It's rather amazing that people can that about what art represents when they will argue that they are blind and incapable of even perceiving the artwork of which they are analyzing and evaluating.

>>13967192
>Objective data does not mean absolute data of all of reality, merely a degree of information.
None of which is "objective." Not even time is objective. The whole interpretation of phenomena, the implicit assumption that there even is phenomena at all, is subjective.

The subjective vs. objective dichotomy has run its course though. People shouldn't still be referring to it like it's gospel. It was based on old assumptions on how perception worked. Relativity demands that we think of everything in a reciprocal relationship. The subject and the object are one thing.

>>13967192
>you are dead to me.
Baka-anon, don’t say such mean things! Accept Stirner (through your sight and down into your heart) and be free from the restraints of objectively!

>>13967216
Spook is a spook in of itself; to be free from the restraints of reality--by extension objectivity--is to advocate nihilism, which is honestly all Strinerfags are, under their rhetoric. Begone Stirnerfag, repeat Spook ad nauseum and accomplish nothing of value with your life, as Striner did himself.

>>13966592
Money laundering how?

>>13967269
Low effort crap paraded as art for the purpose of exchanging high volumes of money between "artist" and "art collector"

>>13967254
A spook is an ideal like Human or Christian to which the individual has to sacrifice his own nature. Stirner’s Unique can not be a spook because it has no strict definition and is not an ideal; it varies from person to person. So one persons nature might be to suck cock and another persons nature might be to kill cocksuckers, and both of these are the Unique, even though they are wildly different. Read the Ego and Its Own and Stirners Critics.

>>13966703
>vermeer
literally not even an artist, just cheated and used mirrors

>>13965545
Parsifal

>>13967299
Wrong, a spook is a concept that overtakes the ego that prevents it from enacting action. Hence, all concepts can be spook. But whether a concept is a spook is irrelevant, as it doesn't tell you whether it is an incorrect or bad concept, merely that it is one. A perfect example is morality or individual rights. Stirnerfags love to mention that such things are spooks and nothing should prevent them from just going around nihilistically and murdering however they see fit. Nothing prevents you from doing so, but pointing out that you have no obligation not to murder however you want doesn't mean it is proper to do so.
When I say that a spook is a spook in of itself, I am calling you a cocksucker for using spook improperly and being too much of a coward to be objective. Try to argue that reality is a spook. The concept of spook limits your ego from action by adhering to the concept that concepts are to be negated outright rather than validated as correct or incorrect.