Objectivity in art?

[Anonymous No.12639631]

Is there objectivity in art? Can art be discussed, analyzed, and judged based on objective criterions? Is so, what are those, how are the limits defined?
Has any author defended such a thesis?

[Anonymous No.12639672]

>>12639631
Why don't you stop analyzing shit and create something you stupid frog

[Anonymous No.12639687]

Nope art ks completely subjective and there are no restrictions on what can be considered art

[Anonymous No.12639717]

>>12639631
Im not sure if I agree but David Hume's delicacy of taste and Kants critique on judgment (specifically his take on aesthetics) provide a standard in which art can be judged on

[Anonymous No.12639725]

>>12639687
imagine being the idiot who bought this

[Anonymous No.12639741]

>>12639725
Haha, yeah, imagine

[Anonymous No.12639749]

>>12639631
You can analyze art with objetive criterions sure, but you will look like an idiot for doing in it.

[Anonymous No.12639754]

>>12639725
imagine being a poorfag who can't afford to squander

[Anonymous No.12639769]

>>12639749
>>12639687
how does one differentiate between good and bad art then?
Is there no difference between John Milton and Rupi Kaur?

[Anonymous No.12640946]

>>12639769
Yes there is a difference

[Anonymous No.12640968]

objectivity implies correctness (as in mathematics) which art certainly doesn't have. is there a right or wrong type of hairstyle? no, but there are absolutely ones that are more functional or aesthetically pleasing.

[Anonymous No.12640989]

>>12639631
Try reading literary theory relating to New Criticism. The schools of literary theory that follow do not believe in a “best interpretation” but the New Critics do.

Take a look at T.S. Eliot’s critical essays, Cleanth Brooks, and Robert Penn Warren’s critical writing.

[Anonymous No.12641283]

>>12639717
>David Hume's delicacy of taste
>think Hume would ever claim a normative statement to be objective
He's just stating his opinion in that essay, he's not trying to pass it off as an objective fact like OP was asking for

[Anonymous No.12641292]

>>12639769
>Is there no difference between John Milton and Rupi Kaur?
Of course there's a difference, but you would need to explain how one can be better or worse than the other based on their differences.

[Anonymous No.12641349]

Scientifically, there is an objective “best artwork” that exists somewhere. Finding it is so far out of human capability, though, that there’s zero point in looking. It’s kind of like trying to predict the weather with 100% accuracy, or really anything that you’d be better off using statistics for. The word art and how people understand it is mainly where the subjectivity comes in, but even it can have a single, non-subjective definition that cooresponds to a theoretical pinacle of art. Then, anything within a certain number of standard deviations of that can also be considered art. Again though, finding the number of standard deviations away one painting or song or play is from another is next to impossible just because there’s too much to art to define it efficiently and effectively with quantitative values. It’s possible, but it’s not gonna happen anytime soon.

[Anonymous No.12642277]

>>12639631
>Is there objectivity in art?
There are objective criteria in specific art styles. But the broad category of art itself is formless.

[Anonymous No.12642637]

The idiots in these threads think the quality of art is subjective just because we don't have the precise means to objectively grade it. They are basically saying "tell me the minimum amount of water for a body of water to be a lake and the maximum amount of water what would constitute a pond and only then will I admit they both exist."