/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4300576]

Philosophy of arts thread.

>Be me
>Argue with art students
>Point out that shit like a well-made statue or painting is superior to the blank canvas or 19-year-old art student losing his anal virginity on stage for "art"
>They say art is subjective
>Point out that Van Gogh is better than a random 4-year-old's drawing of a person and a rainbow
>They, again, say that all art is subjective

What is this subjectivity bullshit? How could you possibly defend this position? Tell me, /lit/, you're the smartest board.

[Anonymous No.4300583]

>Argue with art students

There's your problem.

[Anonymous No.4300596]

Sure literature may be considered art, but most of the time the two are looked upon as different areas.
In other words, this thread is just like posting gf feels on /v/.

[Anonymous No.4300599]

I don't think there's a way to refute that in any way that will change their minds. If it's up to people to decide what they like then you can't define good and bad. The same goes for anything that's subjective.

[Anonymous No.4300600]

Postmodernism.

[Anonymous No.4300628]

Go ahead and objectively prove the art you prefer is better than the art you do not.

And it'd better be a peer-reviewed mathematical formula I can use on any piece of art to determine if it's good/bad.

[Anonymous No.4300629]

>>4300576

They are very right, but oh-so very wrong. To a mother, the finger-paintings of her child are more valuable, artful and deeper in meaning than a Van Gogh. A blank canvas in a sea of Renaissance masterpieces can be a startlingly fresh statement.

To any other person, that child's finger painting is worthless. Alone, without the context of the masterpieces, that blank canvas is garbage.

Art is subjective, but it is the artists job to convey that subjectivity. Is the finger painting art? Surely, but it was only made by an "artists" in the most technical definition of that word. Is a blank canvas art? Absolutely, but only when the subjectivity of it is made manifest by its arrangement amongst masterpieces.

[Anonymous No.4300630]

One's reception of art is certainly subjective, but the art itself should still reach a level of technical ability beyond that of the layman. Conceptual art and performance art should have a very real and very tangible message behind them, not some poor derivation of some cultural sophism.

People who immediately fall back to "art is subjective" tend to have no understanding of what constitutes "art" in the first place, as evident in their unwillingness to defend even the most simple of arguments (the works of van Gogh are better than those of a 4 year old with fingerpaint)

[Anonymous No.4300634]

>>4300629

An artists job is to convey the subjective, and that's where modern art falls flat on it's face.

[Anonymous No.4300641]

>>4300628

It's not a matter of "the art I enjoy is better than the art I don't enjoy," you facile cunt. It's a matter of "art that showcases deliberate intent, technical skill, and cultural/historical/social awareness is better than trivial hen scratching made by some dilettante who fancies themselves artistic."

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.4300644]

>>4300576
All is art. Some of it is bad art.

Are you confused about the idea of opinions again anon?

[Anonymous No.4300645]

Art is the primal release from the subject-object limits of our reality.

[Anonymous No.4300665]

>>4300576
In a simple way of putting it, What is bad to you isn't necessarily bad to someone else. That kid and other kids might enjoy that "art" are you going to deny them of there right to enjoy because you dislike it ? Art wants to be its own category of interpretations and opinions - thus abstract. However everything has a judge and I can understand there will always be good or bad, and that majority usually wins but in most cases in which we can see throughout history Majority isn't always right and thats why you can never really say art is bad because its Art. Art as a raw form only can be categorised and appreciated.

[Anonymous No.4300679]

there are no objective standards of quality for art, hence every claim concerning art is subjective

[Anonymous No.4300681]

>>4300665
I get what you mean, comes down to he say, she say. Theres no factual evidence to say that one person is right or wrong when arguing with someone who enjoys the piece of art you don't. Which in itself makes it subjective, how can you criticise and judge something thats sentimental and seen different through other eyes.

[Anonymous No.4300684]

>Be me
>Argue with culinary students
>Point out that shit like a well-made banana split or sundae is superior to a single scoop of italian pistachio "ice cream"
>They say taste is subjective
>Point out that Beef Wellington is better than a random peasant stew of courgettes and peppers
>They, again, say that all taste is subjective

What is this subjectivity bullshit? How could you possibly defend this position? Tell me, /lit/, you're the smartest board.

[Anonymous No.4300687]

>>4300576
Art School is where people who are not capable of art go to learn how to defend (their) mediocrity.
It's the same line of thought shared with many of the modern humanities hatred for rooted culture.

[Anonymous No.4300688]

>>4300684

More accurately

>Be me
>Argue with culinary students
>Point out that a well-made steak is superior to a McDonalds patty that's been sitting behind the grill for a month
>They say that taste is subjective

[Anonymous No.4300690]

>>4300688

you can make the objective claim that the steak is more nutritious, but taste is subjective

[Anonymous No.4300692]

>>4300576
Art is subjective. Reality is too. Physics are even a bit sketchy and mathematics is as internally nonsubjective as Hungarian. The subjective reality where your art is good however, is much smaller than the one where art is subjective, because everyone else thinks you're a wanker, and a subjectively poor one at that.

[Anonymous No.4300693]

>>4300690

Nah, bro
All that bacteria on the patty, builds immunities

[Anonymous No.4300695]

>>4300688
I was actually trying to make the difference more nuanced so that OP could distance himself from his righteous indignation and see that there actually is subjectivity at work when you're not too busy throwing a tantrum to see it.

[Anonymous No.4300699]

>>4300641
>It's a matter of "art that showcases deliberate intent, technical skill, and cultural/historical/social awareness is better than trivial hen scratching made by some dilettante who fancies themselves artistic."

>being this parochial

[Anonymous No.4300702]

>>4300681

>Theres no factual evidence to say that one person is right or wrong when arguing with someone who enjoys the piece of art you don't.

Wrong. People can be wrong about art. Just like they can be wrong about carpentry, literature, food, or anything else. Just because they like a certain piece of art does not make that art good. Art is a craft that is judged based on technical ability, cultural awareness, and coherence of vision. Anyone too scared to call someone out for being wrong doesn't deserve to have their own opinion on art.

[Anonymous No.4300706]

>>4300699

>if you call it art it's totally art because you are special and unique and have an individual viewpoint with something to say in a way nobody's said it before!
>you shit on a canvas and call it "Meditations on the Morning Commute in London?" Brilliant! I have no critical abilities of my own, so it must be art! I call it art! Art!

>being this enabling

[Anonymous No.4300705]

>>4300641
Which are all personal preferences. You probably think that hard to play music is inherently superior as well.

[Anonymous No.4300709]

>>4300692
>Reality is too.
So I take it the people who jump off buildings believing they can fly just didn't believe it deep down?
Subjectivist relativism is fucking retarded.
Liberals (note, not leftists) have no sense of aesthetics hence aesthetics must be undermined.

[Anonymous No.4300711]

>>4300706
The latter is art, though. You may not like it; but, that doesn't make it not-art.

Why do people keep on parroting the "art = good" sentiment.

[Anonymous No.4300710]

>>4300705

Of course not, don't be daft. But music follows very strict criteria and is judged based on them. Your four year old with no musical training plonking on a piano isn't making music in any way and you're being blatantly pedantic if you argue otherwise.

[Anonymous No.4300712]

>>4300709
>muh libruls

[Anonymous No.4300713]

>>4300702
You actually can't be wrong about any of those things unless you've agreed to certain standards according to which you can be wrong, and those standards are arbitrarily assumed.

This po-mo is really doing a number on you, isn't it gramps?

[Anonymous No.4300714]

Art is different because it has mental and sentimental values in which can not be replicated by food etc.. Anything can be subjective if you look into it, because everyone has different opinions. I hate country music, think it sounds like hillbillies drunk on moonshine but doesn't mean I right. Other people may say its the best thing to vibrate there ear hairs. Thus any form of art is subjective, politically speaking as it comes down opinions and own feelings where majority wins but isn't right. However food is another story because usually majority is right as food is a consumer product which has a rating based on value, I mean a charcoal shitty steak vs a well nice cook t-bone, c'mon we all know what we would pick. It can be argued art has quality but that comes down to a matter of taste mentally. Some people could argue there is more of a biological than subjective reason in which we like art and food. Comes down to our sense and what predefined genetically when we are created. Makes you think we could all be a part of some big program, info spam bots that think there is no limit to what we can do, but how would we know, we would only know what the programmers would want us to think we know ?

[Anonymous No.4300715]

>>4300576
Look OP, it's pretty simple. Art is generally considered difficult to define at all because everyone has a different subjective conception of it. Some people think art only exists in certain mediums (visual, audio, audio-visual), others think any form of human expression can be called art, others still even think nature, on its own, can be art. So if there's no objective criteria by which to determine what is art at all, then there can be no objective criteria as to what constitutes "good" or "bad" art either.

On the other hand, you can attempt to define art in a specific way, and if you wish, you can define objective criteria by which art may be considered good or bad. If you can get others to agree with your definitions and criteria, then you can objectively evaluate art, on that criteria. So I can say "art is any man-made artifact created to express a subjective experience," and if you agree, I can claim a criterion of quality to be "the number of people it speaks to" or "the photorealistic accuracy" or whatever other criterion. Then, in the latter case, I can say "that blank canvas is bad because it doesn't depict anything" and I'd be right, under that definition and criteria. But generally, art still remains subjective. Does that make sense?

[Anonymous No.4300716]

>>4300583
mfw

[Anonymous No.4300718]

>van gogh
>good
just stick to pleb literature kiddo

[Anonymous No.4300719]

>>4300710
All your standards are based on nothing but your own 'that's just wrong' little emotional responses, there are no objective standards by which to make qualitative judgements and if you would think about the matter instead of appeal to common sense you would see that.

[Anonymous No.4300722]

>>4300600
ITT: die hard postmodernists.

[Anonymous No.4300723]

>>4300715
>me again

I'd like to add that this goes for any issue within the subjectivity/objectivity debate. Subjectivity is based in ontology, and is inherently relevant only to the perceiving individual. The moment you attempt any sort of intersubjective agreement, you are, at least on some level, engaging with epistemic thought, and thus working in concrete logic, which can be objectively evaluated.

[Anonymous No.4300724]

>>4300709
See how the conceptual grid you place over your experiences is part of what constitutes reality for you? That's your work.

[Anonymous No.4300726]

>>4300711

Why do people keep parroting the "it's art if you call it art" sentiment?

Aesthetic sensibility is dead and Duchamp killed it.

[Anonymous No.4300728]

>>4300714
did you just finish watching matrix lol

[Anonymous No.4300731]

>>4300724
Foucault, pls

[Anonymous No.4300732]

>Makes you think we could all be a part of some big program, info spam bots that think there is no limit to what we can do, but how would we know, we would only know what the programmers would want us to think we know ?

[Anonymous No.4300733]

>>4300713

postmodernism =/= anything goes

Don't fall back on your goddamn "postmodernism means everything is equally correct or incorrect" argument. It's lazy and ignores the fundamental tenets of postmodernism. Before you can break the rules in any substantial, meaningful way, you first have to have a highly developed understanding of and grasp on what those rules actually are. Otherwise you're just celebrating self-indulgent naivete.

[Anonymous No.4300736]

>>4300714
>>4300732

[Anonymous No.4300737]

>>4300710
So then do you disagree with Russolo, Avraamov, Schaffer, Verese, and John Cage that every sound can be considered to have some musical merit?

[Anonymous No.4300738]

>>4300726
Because there are no definitive standards otherwise by which to judge where art begins and ends.

[Anonymous No.4300740]

>>4300732
well that escalated quickly...

[Anonymous No.4300743]

>>4300719

I wanna see you buy a car with three wheels of differing sizes and a windshield made of a giant sheet of aluminum because "there are no objective standards by which to make qualitative judgments."

Who's to say it's any less of a car just because it meets absolutely none of the criteria that make it a car and was put together by someone with no understanding of how cars function?

[Anonymous No.4300744]

>>4300733
I was more referring to him not being quite at home in the era he's living in with his entartete kunst sentiments.

[Anonymous No.4300745]

>>4300737
Every sound may have some musical merit, but not every sound is great music

[Anonymous No.4300750]

>>4300724
No, that's an interpretation of the objective actions and conceivably subjective motives behind them.
How it is viewed does not in fact change the reality of it.

[Anonymous No.4300752]

>>4300737

>appeal to authority

I can throw around a bunch of names I pulled off Wikipedia, too.

>every sound can be considered to have some musical merit

can be, but isn't.

[Anonymous No.4300753]

>>4300743
Depends on which reason I have for buying the car. If it was to put it on display, three different wheel sizes might be cool. If it's established that I want to use the car as daily transportation, that could of course prove to be bothersome.

So no, there aren't any objective standards by which to judge a car.

[Anonymous No.4300756]

>>4300743
If it doesn't run than it wouldn't be a car, so how could you classify it with other cars. The process is separate to the outcome, the final car that was made based on your specifications as long as it functions is subjective you might or might not like it. Individually speaking though. Different techniques of engineering is subjective, but if its a technique that doesn't work than its not in any form a technique of engineering to begin with.

[Anonymous No.4300757]

>>4300745
but then who are you to decide for everyone what does and doesn't constitute great music?

[Anonymous No.4300762]

>>4300750
The existence of seperate actions, objective actions and actions in general are part of the grid itself. You do realise that all differentiation is conceptual?

[Anonymous No.4300760]

>>4300743
>being this dumb

[Anonymous No.4300764]

>>4300738

oh my god YOU SPINELESS WEAK-WILLED VAGINA ADOPT SOME FUCKING STANDARDS YOU SHIT

Just because you personally have no understanding of aesthetics doesn't mean that everything meets some vague aesthetic qualification as "art"

[Anonymous No.4300765]

>>4300752
just because I listed examples of people who hold an opinion doesn't mean that that's not what i think as well.

and why not?

[Anonymous No.4300767]

>>4300688
>>4300684
>implying you consume art
let me guess your americans

people who thinks art should make them feel anything fundamentally misunderstand art
people who think art should mean anything fundamentally misunderstand art
if you seriously value aesthetics and have less than one million dollars right now you are now and forever will be a pleb

[Anonymous No.4300770]

>>4300753

See, and now you're being willfully pedantic.

[Anonymous No.4300776]

>>4300770
read this idiot >>4300756

[Anonymous No.4300778]

>>4300743
Car is a tool, an object you use to move from point A to point B. It has a clear physical function.

Art doesn't.

[Anonymous No.4300773]

>>4300757
I can't decide dicks for anyone, because I have no real knowledge of music.

[Anonymous No.4300779]

Art is art. A crayon drawing is art to a six year old. If a group of people say this is art, then it is art no matter how retarded it is. I think you're arguing whether it is good art or shit art.

The problem is that the pool is too little to decide what is good or not. For example if you took 1000 paintings, line them up, and tell people to rank them in whatever order they think is best, chances are that their top ten will include the masters.

So a solution to your problem is to say that there is simply not enough 19-years old faggot losing his virginity on stage to know to know if it is good or not.

[Anonymous No.4300780]

>>4300764
>all that pleb anger
>normative aesthetics

No matter how much capslock you use, people will never stop liking what you don't like and their reasons for liking what they like will never be demonstrably inferior to yours.

[Anonymous No.4300784]

>>4300762
Differentiation is instinctual. Conceptualization comes in afterwards to catalogue the memory of it.

[Anonymous No.4300785]

>>4300756

>Different techniques of engineering is subjective, but if its a technique that doesn't work than its not in any form a technique of engineering to begin with.

Replace "engineering" with "art" and we'll finally be getting somewhere. The point I'm making is that in many ways art is a craft. It is a skill you hone over many years or decades. You adopt technical ability as well as critical awareness. Your work reflects a level of dedication beyond that of the layman. Where I get hung up is hearing people say "well it's never been done before, it wasn't well-executed here, its message is obscured by its poor execution, but I suppose it's still art because feelings."

[Anonymous No.4300786]

>>4300770
I'm actually trying to clearly explain how there are no objective value judgements because a lot of people itt are having trouble with that.

[Anonymous No.4300790]

>>4300706
>being this parochial

[Anonymous No.4300792]

>>4300767
>you are now and forever will be a pleb
Good. To be anything else today means to cherish that which the natural aristocrats of old thought as the worst excesses of the "presumptuous man" who inhabited the middle.

[Anonymous No.4300796]

>>4300780

I don't care if they like things I don't like. I encourage it. My problem is with people calling EVERYTHING art because they're too lazy to analyze a piece with any real critical sensibility. I'll never truly "understand" Fluxus or Neo-Dada, but I can understand and appreciate why they exist and employ the methods that they do.

There's a very big difference between not appreciating art and not understanding whether or not it's art in the first place.

[Anonymous No.4300798]

>>4300790

Blistering retort. I love the part where you actually engaged in the argument instead of just bleating some pointless phrase ad nauseum.

[Anonymous No.4300800]

>>4300785
Nope but engineering can have a right or wrong purely because its an art form based on logic and what functions together. Art itself speaking in terms of raw Art needs no real functions, its techniques are always and forever growing. The technique is different although having similarities to other art, each piece is near individual where as engineering can only go so far where it can't grow anymore unless without different materials. This is where you misconstrue me for you are comparing checkers to chess, each has different techniques but you are limited to the different types of play. Chess you can do a lot more with, as oppose to checkers.

[Anonymous No.4300801]

>>4300773
ok, then why can't a child banging on a piano be considered music? Maybe you don't appreciate it in the same way as a composed piece or some improvisational thing made by virtuoso musicians but it's still music.

[Anonymous No.4300802]

>>4300576
It is- things like a well made statue show a mastering of a technique, which in itself isn't art, but still something to be admired. Art doesn't need technical ability to be good, in fact it can be a hindrance.

I believe art is the will to communicate something, anything. That's why things like Barock style portraits, for example are beautiful, yes, a great show of talent and ability, but I don't really call them "art" (Privately, I don't really tell people this) But the problem is that art as a concept is undefined and usually just leads to arguing.

It's hard to talk to people about art who try to define it rationally because art, at it's core, is entirely emotional. When I accept something as art, it's because I can simply FEEL it. You feel it in your chest, a little spark.

It's complicated.

[Anonymous No.4300804]

>>4300779

>leaving art distinction to the uncultured masses

haha no.jpg

[Anonymous No.4300808]

>>4300796
I can understand the frustration as a personal pet peeve, but when it comes down to it you can't make a good case for things not being art in a way that is seductive enough to stop those people from calling those things art. So you'd be better off focusing on your own interests instead of getting mad at plebs, because that's a life long and fruitless endeavour.

[Anonymous No.4300813]

>>4300801

Because there's no INTENT for it to be music. It's a child banging on a piano with no intent of creating jack shit. Art is willed into existence because of the artist's intent. The kid could sit down and, through pure chance and mind-boggling refutation of statistics, bang out the entirety of Beethoven's Second Symphony. It still won't be art, because there was no intent behind it.

[Anonymous No.4300817]

>>4300813
>implying children don't bang on pianos to make noise
>implying mozart didn't tickle the keys to make noise

[Anonymous No.4300818]

>>4300808

The only trait more irritating than ignorance is apathy.

[Anonymous No.4300821]

>>4300813
You don't think there is art that wasn't intentional?

[Anonymous No.4300827]

>>4300817
>implying mindless babies make music and noise with the intent of it being more than noise.
>Comparing Mozart learning and experimenting techniques to craft Music with the intention of making entertainment for others enjoyment to a mindless baby.

good one 0/10

[Anonymous No.4300828]

>>4300641
>Implying
> "art that showcases deliberate intent, technical skill, and cultural/historical/social awareness is better than trivial hen scratching made by some dilettante who fancies themselves artistic."
isn't
>"the art I enjoy is better than the art I don't enjoy,"

[Anonymous No.4300831]

>>4300818
Do you think the greats of old were busy throwing a hissy fit over what the peasants sang in the country pub or what they carved in the table? If you want to do something then make good art by your own standards. Lamenting the inescapable mediocrity of the masses has never helped anyone and will never change anything.

[Anonymous No.4300833]

>>4300801
The same way a kid throwing some chemicals in a cup isn't science. I'd imagine a person who wants to make music or do science, first has to be able to deconstruct the subject and with that knowledge they can create something that's actually good or useful.

[Anonymous No.4300834]

>>4300827
They both have intent to create something, thereby refuting your theory.

[Anonymous No.4300838]

>>4300800

>Art needs no real functions

See, but that's wrong. There has never been a work of art that has existed for its own sake. Art inherently carries messages. Implicit or explicit, the artist created their art because they had something they wanted to convey to their society/culture/historical era as a whole.

Engineering and art are way closer than you're implying. Engineering grows in the same way art does. Exposure to new material (physical or otherwise) manifests itself as different techniques. We're not still grinding corn with windmills just like we're not squeezing red dye from flower petals. A bit of a digression, but my ultimate, fundamental point is that art is a craft. There is no zero-one binary. Art is a craft much like woodworking or metal smithing or cobbling is a craft. It's not something just anyone can do.

[Anonymous No.4300840]

Art is aesthetics.
Po-mo fags have no real appreciation of aesthetics.
Hence they push the angle that all aesthetics are 'subjectively' equal and that criticism should be inherently political.
Peregrini thought of the lowest order.

[Anonymous No.4300844]

>>4300840
>muh social realism

[Anonymous No.4300845]

>>4300821

Are you referring to "found art?" Like the ready-made works of Duchamp? Because those works were highly intentional.

If you're talking about some grad school art student haphazardly throwing paint at a canvas like Pollock on an Adderall binge hoping that it turns into something artistic, then I would say that student isn't creating art, no.

[Anonymous No.4300850]

Anyone have the picture of the wooden dragon above the statue of a guy sucking his own dick?

[Anonymous No.4300851]

>>4300834

Intent to make noise =/= intent to make music. Stop being facile.

[Anonymous No.4300852]

i would ask them if they believe there's such thing as bad art

if they reply yes then there's a reason to discredit their shit because they'd clearly have chosen art as an easy way out

[Anonymous No.4300854]

>>4300834
How dumb can you get, they are completely separate. if you can't read between the lines why are you even in /lit/ And further disproving and "refuting" your theory refuting my theory, is the baby likes it thus its subjective to the baby liking it, however it isn't music its noise separate to mozart who crafts music. The process are the stepping stones to the final product which in saying the final product is produced under the intention of being musical, for others enjoyments.

[Anonymous No.4300856]

>>4300851
>implying noise isn't music

[Anonymous No.4300861]

>>4300838
art is only a craft in the sense that history is a craft. in engineering, you start with a subject and work it into something; artists have to create the subject itself.

there are a lot of performance artists who do work that mediates between performer and audience. even in something dumb like "the artist is present," what is the work of art? what is the craft? more interesting performances like cut piece are even more difficult to analyze

intentionality is important but artistic intentionality is an artistic effect, not a real one

[Anonymous No.4300863]

>>4300828

I can appreciate art without enjoying it. I can appreciate its various attributes without caring for the art itself. I can't appreciate when someone fancies themselves as an artist because they can slop around with artistic materials but lack any sort of vision.

[Anonymous No.4300865]

>>4300838
He meant art has no psychical function, it doesn't move you psychically. Its more mental and comes down to our perception and senses. Gosh you guys interpret books or wut ?

[Anonymous No.4300866]

>>4300851
>>4300854
So where lies the division exactly? Where does noise become music? When you listen to Hendrix, does he switch between making music and making noise?

[Anonymous No.4300868]

>>4300863
You can appreciate art without enjoying it as long as it adheres to your arbitrary standards. It's still about mere preference.

[Anonymous No.4300870]

>>4300856

I truly, sincerely hope I'm being trolled. I refuse to believe someone could function with this level of cognitive dissonance.

[Anonymous No.4300873]

postmodern-fags: I just rolled my finger under my foreskin and smelled it. Is this art?

[Anonymous No.4300869]

>>4300709
>So I take it the people who jump off buildings believing they can fly just didn't believe it deep down?

The problem is they believed in the building in the first place. That reality is subjective doesn't imply it to be volitional.

>Subjectivist relativism is fucking retarded.
>Liberals (note, not leftists) have no sense of aesthetics hence aesthetics must be undermined.
Completely. They believe that buildings and people exist as facts and completely mistake maps for territories. What's worse, they probably couldn't make such subjective nonsense and permeates everything interesting enough to make it past the first week in art school. I'm not sure why you'd bring them up in response to metaphysical nihilism or in support to a position on modern aesthetics. Good thing you objectively haven't :D

[Anonymous No.4300874]

>>4300870
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFVFgm6ozkU

Checkmate.

[Anonymous No.4300877]

>>4300873
It could and could not be art.

[Anonymous No.4300879]

>>4300866
When you hear a noise it is sudden, when you hear music its intentional. Jimi Hendrix worked with his guitar whether you want to discredit this e new techniques and practices which note went with what, to create a final outcome in which is music. Noise is singular repetitive and unchanging unless combines with other noise in which it becomes music. Is it that hard for you to understand ?

[Anonymous No.4300883]

>>4300879
>oise is singular repetitive and unchanging unless combines with other noise in which it becomes music. Is it that hard for you to understand ?
So the child banging the piano is music after all. Understood.

[Anonymous No.4300884]

I don't believe in making distinctions between what's art and what's not; it's a waste of time and only serves to limit the world.

I think your problem OP is that you got in a useless conversation like that to begin with. Art is what moves and affirms you. Engaging in a petty argument like "wow this sucks lol!!!!" was the problem to begin with. Art should be mute, beyond language; the second you introduced language to the matter you mitigated its effect.

[Anonymous No.4300885]

>>4300879
* he knew which technique

[Anonymous No.4300886]

>>4300866

>Where does noise become music?

When the artist exercises intent. This all leads back to my example of the unschooled toddler banging on a piano with no intent of creating music, but it applies to all art.

When the elephant smears paint on a canvas with a brush, it's not art. It's novelty. If someone were to frame that painting in the context of it being done by a real artist, and then documented the reactions of art experts who appraise it as such, then it becomes art. Though in that case the art would like in the action of the person who bought the painting, not the painting itself.

Art comes from intent.

[Anonymous No.4300887]

>>4300866
>So where lies the division exactly? Where does noise become music?
Sounds like the fallacious Loki's wager.
>distinction is hard to place definitively
>clearly there is no distinction at all

[Anonymous No.4300888]

>>4300877

God I'd hate to be stuck behind you in a fast food line.

[Anonymous No.4300889]

>>4300887
>it's not gay if he wears a skirt

[Anonymous No.4300898]

>>4300889
>i'm a fag

[Anonymous No.4300899]

>>4300886
Alright, that's a functional definition. That would include getting fucked in the ass onstage though.

[Anonymous No.4300905]

>>4300888
It depends on interpretation.

Intent is a form of interpretation of one's own actions.

[Anonymous No.4300906]

http://pbskids.org/arthur/games/factsopinions/

[Anonymous No.4300901]

>>4300889
The old Norsemen knew how to handle these things.
"Well you don't have a right to my neck and how can we say where the head begins and the neck ends?"
With the dwarf replying by sewing his lying mouth shut with needle and thread.

[Anonymous No.4300904]

>>4300883
Is this guy all there, I understand whats trying to be said. Noise is itself a descriptive term for something that isn't good, but isn't music just noise ? Well your wrong it isn't just noise, its complete, its crafted and fine tuned. A baby making noise is a descriptive term to define what other see as bad, however a baby banging a piano is a baby banging a piano. Not a musician making music, there is no craft or process, it aimless and pointless, therefore can not be judged as music at all. Music however is subjective just as a car is, noise is a descriptive term what where really comparing is a baby bashing a piano, to the process of crafting and outcome of music with intent.

[Anonymous No.4300907]

>>4300870
Jesus fucking christ, i already told you this. anything can be music if the listener interprets it as music or the composer has intended it to be music regardless of what sounds it is made up of. Are you saying then that bird songs aren't music? or that the sounds that exist in nature aren't music?

These are composed pieces do you not consider them music either?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kq_7w9RHvpQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9pOq8u6-bA

At this point I feel like we're just arguing over our personal opinions. It's fine if you hold the opinion that music has to be intentional and have structure, I however do not.

[Anonymous No.4300910]

>>4300899

Sad but true. That was, in fact, performance art. Especially since the artist hosted a discussion afterward with a detailed explanation of why he did it and what kind of dialogue he was hoping to open up with his exhibition.

I think it's gross as fuck but it's still art because it expresses artistic intent.

[Anonymous No.4300913]

>>4300861

>intentionality is important but artistic intentionality is an artistic effect, not a real one

You intrigue me. Elaborate.

[Anonymous No.4300914]

>>4300910
>buttsex
>gross
how's elementary school going?

[Anonymous No.4300915]

>>4300898
shutup thor you know you love me
>>4300901
<3 aelfwine

[Anonymous No.4300916]

ITT: People getting heated about the limits of a descriptive term for a certain aspect of human activity.

[Anonymous No.4300919]

>>4300910
>2017-4
>intent is necessary
Why is /lit/ a bunch of 3 year olds?

[Anonymous No.4300920]

>>4300874

When Stirner made that, he did so with the intention of it being called music. People then approached it with the same standards they would apply to any musical composition. They critiqued it based on that initial declaration of intent.

[Anonymous No.4300923]

[Anonymous No.4300924]

Art is a signifier without a signified

[Anonymous No.4300925]

>>4300743
jesus

wow

i actually can't believe this thread

OP stick to math if the only thing you're interested in is being "right" or "wrong", art just clearly isn't for you

captcha: upset QLegist

[Anonymous No.4300927]

>>4300910
Your definition is at least a clear and functional one.

Now if OP could make one of his own beyond 'shit i like', this thread could go somewhere.

[Anonymous No.4300934]

>>4300907

> It's fine if you hold the opinion that music has to be intentional and have structure, I however do not.

I never said music had to have structure, just that the composer has to declare musical intent. Those composed pieces you linked to are indeed music because the composer declared they wished it to be treated like music. By comparison, I would not consider birdsong to be music. Melodic, yes, based on our Western preconceptions of music, but they are not music. They are sounds arranged in a way that sounds appealing, but without artistic intent. Animals can't create genuine music because they lack the capacity of conscious conviction.

[Anonymous No.4300942]

>>4300920
Then it comes down to how well we can know a small child's intent. Which is problematic because we can't read their mind. Thefore we have to go by conventional 'signs of intent' such as recognisable structure, but we couldn't rule out the intent of the child in the absence of such structure. Maybe he's just incompenent but no less intentional.

[Anonymous No.4300947]

>>4300914

Gross in the sense that it was overtly voyeuristic and I felt it bordered on pornographic, not gross in the sense of 'lol ew butts"

[Anonymous No.4300948]

>>4300904
by the look of it, that retard only replies to posts in which he thinks he can hold an argue with. Comparing a baby bashing a piano to fully formed music, dear lord.

[Anonymous No.4300949]

>>4300934
Not him, but Duchamp's urinal wasn't art until he declared it so, right? But he didn't make the thing. He appropriated it with his declaration. It's his interpretation itself that made the urinal art.

Couldn't the same be said for me when coming across random sounds or objects when I declare them art, even if I have no participation in their creation beyond the definition? If the declaration of intent isn't necessarily made by the creator, doesn't that lay the final verdict with the observer?

[Anonymous No.4300950]

>>4300919

Intent is necessary. Refute me with a coherent argument if you disagree. We'll have our debate, and both will walk away with a slightly altered understanding of our previous worldviews. That's how debate works.

[Anonymous No.4300953]

There are guidelines and explanations to what is good art and what is not. It's just none of you idiots know anything about art and just like to jerk off to muh subjectivity.

[Anonymous No.4300958]

>>4300923

I miss Deep&Edgy so much. One of the few tripfags who could actually hold an informed argument.

[Anonymous No.4300961]

>>4300953
due to the guidelines your mother is an ugly whore, who has taken more dicks than a urinal.

[Anonymous No.4300965]

>>4300961
>>>/b/

[Anonymous No.4300967]

>>4300942

If by some miracle we could determine that the child was intent on making music, then yes we could evaluate their piano plunking as music. Bad music, almost assuredly, and nothing of artistic significance, but music.

Although if they were incompetent I would highly doubt they would make such a declaration of intent.

[Anonymous No.4300969]

>>4300965
>>>www.mothers-guidline.org
>>>/lgbt/

[Anonymous No.4300970]

>>4300913
oh! i wouldn't like to try to describe what real intentionality is, but i think in a boring formal sense the nature of aesthetics is that it creates a feeling in the audience.

more importantly, especially for literally every work discussed itt, art is [almost] always displaced from its context. any serious reading of art is a reconstruction of the original work, though generally not a very good one.

like the construction of art history is an art or something dumb but i spent all night reading transgender themes into surrealist art so i'm probably not thinking clearly and have no real sense of what my intentions are other than to communicate something i don't know what

[Anonymous No.4300971]

>>4300576
yes all is subjective, but civilized mankind has constucted a lie, namely that some things ARE better than others in quality, for the benefit and improvement of its members and various works. if you do not buy into this socially constructed fiction you are probably a piece of shit human being and should die

[Anonymous No.4300977]

>>4300971
Any one have a reaction face with tinfoil for this big "IT'S ALL A LIE, THE CAKE WAS A LIE" Conspiracist ?

[Anonymous No.4300983]

>>4300969
XD epik faget

[Anonymous No.4300989]

>>4300977
it wasnt a lie constructed by some deliberate or conspiratorial process. it has to do more with human psychology and the way we use language to gain advantage over others and the natural world

i hope this helps you understand what i was saying

[Anonymous No.4300991]

>>4300949

Respectfully, Duchamp was an accomplished artist before Fountain, and that was part of what made his declaration of intent so groundbreaking in the art world. Sure, you could go out into the woods on your own, hear a flit of birdsong and declare it art, but that would make you a dilettante, not an artist.

The people in the links embedded earlier (the smokestack symphony and train etude or whatever they were called) took these sounds and recorded them, arranging them and framing them in a context where they could be called music. That was their declaration of intent. They had solid understandings of what "music" was in a cultural sense for their audience, and they manipulated natural sound in a way that made it an artistic statement.

[Anonymous No.4301002]

>>4300989
I think you mean, social-culture in the way we interact. Its more Anthropology if you are looking at groups and origins in which case you are instead of the mind its self. LoOl stil waiting for that tinfoil hat.

[Anonymous No.4301003]

>>4300970

>any serious reading of art is a reconstruction of the original work

I like that. I get where you're going. Now go get some sleep.

[Anonymous No.4301008]

>>4300924

platitudes, platitudes everywhere

[Anonymous No.4301014]

>>4300991
tldr;

lol what a waste of time, do you feel better ? Snore fest

[Anonymous No.4301020]

ITT: Is art subjective ? I wonder if its gay ? I wonder if Plato believes OP is a faggot ? Woah Jayden Smith 2 deep 4 U philosophy.

[Anonymous No.4301028]

>>4300991
So the possibility of artistic intent is linked to one's track record or capability then according to you? That sounds a lot less reasonable than a declaration that art is defined by intent.

[Anonymous No.4301032]

>>4300991
>dilettante
I have to ask, what about Messiaen then who transcribed bird songs so that they could be played by an orchestra? Is he a dilettante too? he obviously was more than familiar with music.

I think you're being slightly silly.

[Anonymous No.4301043]

The solution: Everything is art if you want it to be.

This harms no one and nothing except snobs who can't live without artistic pretensions to give themselves an identity that separates them from the rest. That's the only possible agenda for an exclusive attitude to the arts.

[Anonymous No.4301045]

>>4301028
Firstly Autism is something to joke about.
Is it intentional when your in drugs ?
What if the intention was to make music for an Art Museum, yet they objectively decline ?
What if my intention was intentionally to be intentional would intention still be intentional or os intention just being intentional to the intention ?

[Anonymous No.4301048]

>>4301043
yeah like that monkey. Which zoo is that ?

[Anonymous No.4301054]

>>4301048
Thanks for proving my point :^)

[Anonymous No.4301060]

>>4301054
YEAH, we can all appreciate art, must of be onset for planet of the apes, does doubles sure look a like.

[Anonymous No.4301062]

>>4301060
Racism is not allowed outside of /b/.

Friendly warning

[Anonymous No.4301065]

>>4301028

Intent and technical ability are both necessary, but intent supersedes technical ability.

I'm saying Duchamp would be able to make Fountain because he had a solid understanding of the cultural aesthetics he was challenging when creating the piece. He had an intent in declaring Fountain to be art, and that was to call attention to artistic intent as opposed to institutional appropriation.

[Anonymous No.4301066]

>>4300576
so do you like draw pictures off plato, ulyssess and homer ?
Also is the philosophers stone real ?

[Anonymous No.4301070]

>>4301062
I think he might be one of them /pol/-people. They aren't too keen on the non-whites I hear.

[Anonymous No.4301072]

>>4301062
you forgot /pol/ must be a nigger typing for you, I got mine but misspelled all the words

[Anonymous No.4301091]

>>4301062
unless its in book or art, but... were not racist.

[Anonymous No.4301094]

>>4301072
Global rule #3:

>Do not post the following outside of /b/: Trolls, flames, racism [...]

[Anonymous No.4301095]

Nothing kills art like some self-important prick trying to define it. It is the noblest of aspirations for an artist to subvert any attempts of academics to define good art. This is also mutually beneficial for both groups as it prevents art from being dull regurgitation and inspires a spirit of creativity and innovation. For academics it makes sure they keep having a function as the interpreting class.

[Anonymous No.4301100]

>>4301094
which jew made that rule ?
AmIRite ? or Am I right

[Anonymous No.4301101]

I personally think that a 4 year old's drawings are as beautiful as Van Gogh's paintings.

[Anonymous No.4301105]

>>4301043
>This harms no one and nothing
It harms aesthetical views as a whole. When there's literally nothing differentiating a dump you just took and the Pietà you essentially void all values based in aesthetic thought.

[Anonymous No.4301107]

>>4301101
I guess being mentally ill does have its benefits.

[Anonymous No.4301113]

>>4300576
They're just using subjectivity as a cop out because they don't want to admit
>I judge art by my own standards and don't want to say what they are because it will hinder my ability to be an ass about judging artwork
>and even worse I will have to consider my own standards, see if they are worth judging by, and be forced to make actually think and make opinions on what I see instead of being a wishy-washy bastard about it

Yes, you can say artwork is subjective, but that only implies your own personal standards instead of an outside objective standard, and most people using the "subjectivity" argument refuse to discuss their own standards (if they even have any).

[Anonymous No.4301116]

>>4301107
Are you talking about Van Gogh?

[Anonymous No.4301120]

>>4301113
>implying standards in itself aren't a flawed attempt at the externalisation of preference

[Anonymous No.4301128]

>>4301116
Nope, but like i said being mentally ill has it benefits. Like for me, you don't understand what i'm saying about you. So it benefits you and me. More so you.

[Anonymous No.4301130]

>>4301105
The dump you just took could be art if it's taking and presented in the right context I bet you wouldn't know how to take a dump and make people pay attention to it in a way that won't get you locked up in an asylum. This is the reason you are not an artist.

[Anonymous No.4301131]

Do people seriously think that art ISN'T subjective? How can you be so stupid?

[Anonymous No.4301136]

>>4301130
>everything is art if you want it to be
>but first it has to be taken and presented in the right context
The only context apparently necessary is my desire for it to be art, otherwise you're implying that there is some kind of objective standard for it to be "art".

[Anonymous No.4301137]

>>4301130
taken*

[Anonymous No.4301139]

>>4301128
I'm not the person you're responding to. If you seriously think that having a different emotional response to a subjective art piece than you is being ''mentally ill'', you're the one with a mental illness. It's called autism.

[Anonymous No.4301144]

>>4301105
Prescriptive aesthetics are nothing but a pretentious way of defending what you like anyway and it doesn't harm descriptive aesthetics at all.

[Anonymous No.4301149]

>>4301136
>otherwise you're implying that there is some kind of objective standard for it to be "art".

No there's a very real community (not abstract objective) of 'experts' whose subjectivity carries a lot more weight than your, those are the ones you need to impress for your dump to be considered art.

[Anonymous No.4301154]

>>4301128
You the type of nigga to dismiss Van Gogh in his own day until the big boys would have said he's okay to appreciate.

[Anonymous No.4301162]

>>4301139
So you are calling me autistic because someone who has a mental illness and likes 4 year old paintings. You must be a priest or must have severe brain damage. The way I see it your probably both you child lover.

[Anonymous No.4301168]

I've gotten to the point where if someone uses the word "objective" or "subjective" I just walk away from the conversation.

Nothing you say will change these people's minds. They think an uneducated opinion and an educated opinion are just as equally valid. Usually they say this because they cannot quantify their own opinions with empirical evidence. You cannot help these people.

[Anonymous No.4301170]

>>4301131
I don't think so, but I do think the "subjectivity" argument is a cop out on the level of "yeah well that's just your opinion man". See: >>4301113

I've never seen someone use the subjectivity argument and back it up by describing their own subjective standards to what makes art "good". Most of them don't even seem to have any. They don't even seem to have an opinion regarding other subjective standards or preferences.

It's obvious different groups of people have had different subjective views on art, but they are largely thoroughly discussed and thought-out (specific ideas and theories regarding color, composition and visual rhythm, etc.), unlike the people who claim all art is subjective who, so far as I have seen, refuse to describe their own standards, the merits or faults of different views, etc. They just passively acknowledge art or reject any ideas the creator of a work may have had and substitute them for their own (regardless of whether they have basis in the work itself) and use subjectivity as their defense.

[Anonymous No.4301173]

>>4301154
Your the type of nigger that goes to tie his shoe lace after putting shoes on his hands. In fact you're the epitome of Autism with a little bit of ADHD.

[Anonymous No.4301180]

>>4301149
Are you the same person who said "everything is art if you want it to be" or are you just some other guy who jumped in?
>everything is art if you want it to be
>if it's taken and presented in the right artistic context
>and arbitrarily decided by a group of "subjective" people to be art
I guess everything can't actually be art. I don't know if you're trying to argue for my position or against it.

[Anonymous No.4301195]

>>4301154
Exactly.

The Van Gogh and 4 year old's drawings comparison is particularly unfortune (for OP) because Van Gogh's paintings aren't traditionally beautiful or technically impressive. The praise they get (by laymans ar least) is based mostly on the emotional effect of his work. Which is, of course, completely subjective. I can and do have equally significant emotional responses to his paintings and the ones of a 4 year old.

[Anonymous No.4301201]

>>4301170
>It's obvious different groups of people have had different subjective views on art, but they are largely thoroughly discussed and thought-out (specific ideas and theories regarding color, composition and visual rhythm, etc.), unlike the people who claim all art is subjective who, so far as I have seen, refuse to describe their own standards, the merits or faults of different views, etc. They just passively acknowledge art or reject any ideas the creator of a work may have had and substitute them for their own (regardless of whether they have basis in the work itself) and use subjectivity as their defense.

You do know that, regardless of how thought-out your personal qualifiers for what constitutes good art, it's still, y'know, a personal preference and not objective.

We can surmise a definition of art through family-resemblances and the language game, sure; beyond that, what's good or bad art will always be... subjective *gasp*. The only nearly-objective claim you can get near is if something is art; but, again: art =/= good.

[Anonymous No.4301204]

>>4301195
Actually, you're probably some fat decrepit old age care lady defending the autistic boy you imposter to be who is to busy clapping fingers together to type so your sitting there doing it for him because living his life for him is better than your own. Well the acts over so you better start singing

[Anonymous No.4301208]

The statement
>Van Gogh's work showcases more technical skill and more exacting work than a 4 year old's finger painting.
Is objective, and easily provable.
The statement
>Technical skill and exacting work are the values that art should be judged by.
goes into value statements.

Where do you get lost here

[Anonymous No.4301213]

>>4301208
Either its lost with Autism or that Fat Old disable carer lost with her struggle to type quick enough and actually not accidentally press several keys when typing at once.

[Anonymous No.4301214]

>>4301201
>You do know that, regardless of how thought-out your personal qualifiers for what constitutes good art, it's still, y'know, a personal preference and not objective.
Thanks for restating my point without responding to it, which is that subjectivity is used as a cop out because people either have no idea whether they think something is good or bad, or can't (or won't, for fear of criticism) to explain why they think it is or what makes it that way for them. All you said is "well it's subjective".

I hope you're not the guy ITT who's insisting on calling other people brain-damaged or something. Are you new here?
>*action*
lel

[Anonymous No.4301215]

>>4301180
I'm some other anon hehehe. My point is that art is determined by experts whose educated opinions matter, the class of true patricians and not disgusting plebs who thinks art has to resemble a 'thing' to be considered art.

[Anonymous No.4301219]

>>4301149
"Experts" actually have very little weight in the art field. When normal people looked at Andy Warhol and saw how full of shit he was (not hard considering he admitted it with every other sentence saying "it meant nothing" and calling his art studio the Factory) the "experts" ate it up with glee and made a whole fucking industry around pushing it. Art became an object of investment thanks to their kind.
Then the "plebs" were vindicated when he died and his entire apartment was found to have not a single avant garde piece of shit in it but was filled with nothing but antiques.

[Anonymous No.4301243]

>>4301219
>>4301219
>"Experts" actually have very little weight in the art field.
>the "experts" ate it up with glee and made a whole fucking industry around pushing it. Art became an object of investment thanks to their kind.
>Then the "plebs" were vindicated when he died and his entire apartment was found to have not a single avant garde piece of shit in it but was filled with nothing but antiques.

I have a lot of Warhol pieces you pleb. You've just made my argument that Warhol was in fact an artist because he was recognized by experts to be one.

Also you only pointed out he in fact had taste himself for the sublime, also the mark of a true artist.

Also that plebs are mad at him is in fact just a reason for experts to love him even more.

>also schooled

[Anonymous No.4301256]

>>4301243
Warhol was not an artist. He was a bourgeoise capitalist exploiting the wretched state of the art "scene".
That he appreciated real art in private is to his personal credit, not to his credibility as an artist.

[Anonymous No.4301260]

>>4301243
strike one, ace. keep your eye on the ball next time.

[Anonymous No.4301261]

>>4301256
>He was a bourgeoise capitalist exploiting the wretched state of the art "scene".
>thatisthejoke.jpg

[Anonymous No.4301268]

>>4301261
Much like ironic shitposting is still shitposting, ironic art is still shit art.

[Anonymous No.4301276]

>>4301261
Much like ironic shitposting is still shitposting, ironic shit art is still shit art.

[Anonymous No.4301282]

>>4301268
There's good ironic shitposting and there's bad ironic shitposting. It's all a matter of context.

Warhol made good novel ironic art.

[Anonymous No.4301285]

>>4301282
Yeah I accidentally omitted one word.
I would however argue that Warhol's art wasn't good at all whereas his trolling and capitalistic success were both genius.

[Anonymous No.4301314]

>>4301285
I get pleasure from his paintings. Also trolling is a form of art, it's just not recognized in the right circles yet.

[Anonymous No.4301319]

>>4301162
Honest question: how did you find your way to /lit/? It's obvious you can't formulate a sentence that makes sense, I doubt you're capable of doing much reading.

[Anonymous No.4301331]

>>4300630
On average people respond to them more positively. If that is your conception of 'better' you're getting close to good=popular

[Anonymous No.4301335]

>mfw art student
>mfw I see this thread
>200 posts
>tl;dr
till next thread, fags.

[Anonymous No.4301343]

>>4301314
Which is great. I'm not one to argue over what art people enjoy. I merely think enjoyment isn't the highest criteria of art as concept.
I enjoy reading pulpy old fantasy but I don't think it has much merit as far as "literature" goes. (some of it would probably qualify as good poetry though)
Then again in real world discussions I always refuse to discuss "art" due to how meaningless it has become as a term, when determining what people mean by it will take longer than discussing the works themselves.

[Anonymous No.4301348]

>>4301335
Post some of your work anon.

[Anonymous No.4301351]

>>4301335
>Mfw you just confirmed my preconceived notion of art students as scum

[Anonymous No.4301356]

>>4301343
Amen, that's the problem of subjectivity.

[Anonymous No.4301357]

ITT: pedantic assholes who can't accept that reality is an amalgamation of individual subjectivities and perceptions

[Anonymous No.4301359]

>>4301357
I create my own reality I don't partake in no amalgamation. I'm a basement dweller.

[Anonymous No.4301364]

>>4301357
Reality is objectively independent of subjective viewpoints.

[Anonymous No.4301365]

>>4300702
Let's see you try and cram technical ability, coherence of vision and cultural awareness into quantitative scales, so any suitably educated person would come to same conclusion regarding the quality of a given piece.

Protip: You can't

[Anonymous No.4301371]

>>4301364
How's a non-empirical world view working out for you? Constantly burning toast is the biggest detractor, personally speaking, of course.

[Anonymous No.4301387]

>>4301371
Reality is an objective constant that we have to relate to.
It is only our relation to it that can be characterized as subjective.

[Anonymous No.4301394]

>>4301371
Reality is an objective constant that we have to relate to.
It is only our relation to it that can be characterized as subjective.
Thus the toast is objectively charred regardless if your subjective viewpoint denies this possibility.

[Anonymous No.4301395]

Holy shit boys, 'art' serves as a referential shorthand for a certain type of thing people tend to do. It's a practical term. No need to get theological about it you label obsessed silly wits.

[Anonymous No.4301397]

Some people have a really hard time dealing with this subjectivity concept. I don't know why.

[Anonymous No.4301399]

>>4301397
Because they really, really need to be Right, and more importantly, other people to be Wrong and Inferior.

[Anonymous No.4301408]

>>4301397
Because it and relativism is fundamentally illogical.
It is a rejection of absolutes delineated from human experience but is itself built upon just such an absolute.
"Everything is subjective" is an absolute statement devoid of subjectivity.

[Anonymous No.4301411]

>>4301408
>implying logic itself isn't stated it's case on nothing

[Anonymous No.4301420]

>>4300804
>There are only certain people who can provide a valid opinion for art
Go back to the 1500's.

[Anonymous No.4301421]

>>4301408
So you disagree with the statement every thing is subjective? But that's subjective.

[Anonymous No.4301434]

>>4301408
That's why you reject anything but Stirno-Pyrrhonism if you're smart.

[Anonymous No.4301436]

>>4301421
Schuon explained it a bit better.
"The axiom of relativism is that “one can never escape from human subjectivity”; if this is the case, the statement itself possesses no objective value, but falls under its own verdict."

[Anonymous No.4301438]

>>4301436
Indeed but that is a subjective motherfucker! And so is this statement, an so is this statement and so is this statement and so is this statement etc

[Anonymous No.4301440]

>>4301408
No one believes everything is subjective, everyone thinks certain things are better than others, how and why those things are better and the hierakies of things are subjective and relies on who has the power to define what is better and why.

Welcome to complexity.

[Anonymous No.4301448]

>>4301438
How would you know?
The original statement voids itself in it's very premise.
Say I claim that my values are objective and eternal, neither destroyable nor alterable, transcendental values in fact.
How would you then know that was a subjective statement?
Maybe you just haven't grasped this theoretical objective Truth with a capital T yourself?

[Anonymous No.4301452]

>>4300833

>art
>useful

Yeah, you fucked up there.

[Anonymous No.4301457]

>>4301448
>knowing
That's been done away with since the Ancients, bruh bruh.

[Anonymous No.4301458]

>>4301440
Foucaultian rationalization is very gauche anon and isn't really the form of relativism espoused today.

[Anonymous No.4301464]

>>4301448
"How would I know"?! That's the very definition of subjective, Granted this sentence is too, and this and one and so on and so on.

[Anonymous No.4301467]

>>4301458
Not by the unlearned masses, how could they, since they all think they shouldn't read Foucault since he was a commie homosexual.

Are you denying power relations or are you afraid of them?

[Anonymous No.4301469]

>>4301457
Let's call it "grasping for" then.
Say these values are eternal, just as true today as they were in Plato's day, regardless of how well some came closer to it than others.
How would you claim they are in fact subjective when relativistic subjectivity itself rests on the notion of subjectivity being objective?

[Anonymous No.4301472]

>>4301452
>give people joy
>useless
Fuck you. That's the fucking only important thing on the goddamn planet.

[Anonymous No.4301475]

>>4301472
So I take it injecting children with heroin would be the greatest moral good?

[Anonymous No.4301476]

>>4301469
I wouldn't say that they are eternal.

[Anonymous No.4301480]

>>4301472
>implying all art gives people joy
>implying art should give people joy
>implying the general goal of arts is joy giving

absolutely plebtastic.

[Anonymous No.4301487]

>>4301472
Confusing art wih entertainment.

[Anonymous No.4301489]

>>4301476
You wouldn't. The other person you are arguing against is.
What makes his claim subjective as opposed to objective?

[Anonymous No.4301493]

>>4301475
That's not joy, fuckwit

>>4301480
Never implied any of that, shortbus

[Anonymous No.4301494]

without defining an aim, hierarchical qualitative abstractions (good bad) are meaningless

what is the aim of all art?

[Anonymous No.4301498]

>>4301493
>That's not joy, fuckwit
It's chemical-induced pleasure. What differentiates your joy from hedonistic pleasure?

[Anonymous No.4301500]

>>4301494
Some shit to do in spare time.

[Anonymous No.4301502]

>>4301494
Whose to say there is an overarching all-descriptive aim of all art?

[Anonymous No.4301525]

>>4301467
>Are you denying power relations or are you afraid of them?
Why would I need to deny empty ideology?
As for fear what's there to fear from an ideology not espoused by "the unlearned masses"?

[Anonymous No.4301528]

>>4301494
Is value universal?

[Anonymous No.4301534]

>>4301498
Because when your teeth rot and you have a crack baby you aren't going to be happy. Joy is simple and security and warmth. If you people took a minute to stop fucking belittling everything you'd know it because it's not that fucking difficult.

Oooh, it doesn't do anything, it's just nice to look at, we should just set it on fire.

Oooh simple emotional pleasure is stupid and childish, not like ME though because I'm enlightened - not because of any phony God's blessings!

[Anonymous No.4301545]

>>4301528
Of course it isn't. Well some are. Bravery, for example. And strength.

[Anonymous No.4301551]

>>4301545
and relaxation and release?

[Anonymous No.4301553]

>>4301534
>Joy is simple and security and warmth.
I think you'll sadly find that point of view to be very underrepresented in the west outside of rural areas.
Security is "boring" and (human) warmth is "constricting their individuality".
Culture really is the sole province of the non-cosmopolitans.

[Anonymous No.4301554]

>>4300576
art is not reducible to performance measures like a computer or a car?

you cant quantify meaning you fucking retard

what the fuck are you doing at university?

[Anonymous No.4301562]

>>4301551
No, not really. Relaxation can be seen as a lack if discipline.

[Anonymous No.4301565]

>>4301554
>you cant quantify meaning
Put forward an argument why this is true.
>what the fuck are you doing at university?
He seems to be questioning things. A healthy attitude that universities once used to foster.

[Anonymous No.4301574]

>>4301528
It depends on context. A loaf of bread or a bottle of gin is worth more to a beggar, than a sublime status object is to a rich cunt.
You can't really value abstract concepts like virtues, since you can be as good as you want and no one will give a shit if the narrative can't be used as an advertisement for someone's interest.

Sorry for my cynicism.

[Anonymous No.4301584]

If art is subjective then why are some albums / films / whatever considered more classic than others? Dont give me that 'popularity' bullshit, ever heard the term 'hidden gem'? How can those be considered more artful than other equally almost unknown art?

[Anonymous No.4301590]

>>4301565
>Put forward an argument why this is true.
you cant quantify meaning because meaning is defined entirely in the eye of the observer
this is juxtaposed to the ability to quantify the performance of a car or a computer because the speed of a car or a computr is NOT defined by an observer with its own arbitrary rules, but are defined by physical constants
maybe you could quantify the meaning of a work, when that meaning is localised to a single person, but at that point what you have is an opinion rather than a quantification

>He seems to be questioning things. A healthy attitude that universities once used to foster.
are you saying purely by reason of being a question, that question ought not to be questioned? dont be fucking stupid

[Anonymous No.4301593]

>>4301553
Yeah, it's underrepresented in our culture, but that's for shit. It'd be great for everyone to be a little more open to enjoying that our base needs are fulfilled- people would be a lot happier, but it doesn't lend well to a capitalist or materialist society. I mean if everyone keeps telling people how much you're missing out on all that shit, you're gonna feel stiffed, but you're fucking not.

I mean, at any given time, I honestly can't think of anything that I really want. Sure there are things I want but not REALLY, it's just superficial wanting.

[Anonymous No.4301595]

>>4301574

>>>4301551

[Anonymous No.4301598]

>>4301214
>>4301170
>tfw no response
I'm not sure there is a refutation to this, and the thread seems to have taken a course of making fun of people and "yeah well you can't quantify art" which is just rephrasing the same idea as "well it's subjective" and "yeah well that's just your opinion man".

[Anonymous No.4301600]

>>4301590
>meaning is defined entirely in the eye of the observer
That's a statement you'll have to back up. Religions seem to manage fine to come to terms on surprisingly many issues of eternal truth for instance.
>are you saying purely by reason of being a question, that question ought not to be questioned?
I'm saying one shouldn't take paradigms presented as a given and actually think about them for a change.

[Anonymous No.4301601]

>>4301598

>>>4301528

[Anonymous No.4301618]

>>4301600
>meaning is defined entirely in the eye of the observer
if meaning could be quantified as a physical constant or force is, quantification of meaning for some work of art would be constant across all environments (individuals)
this is not the case, how cn you not see that this is self evident?

[Anonymous No.4301627]

>>4301618
>if meaning could be quantified as a physical constant or force is, quantification of meaning for some work of art would be constant across all environment
There are people arguing against many such physical constants in the areas that have them. Wether out of ignorance or putting forward alternative ones.
That reasoning then seems to lead to the idea that physical constants in for example biology doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.4301629]

>>4301551
lel

[Anonymous No.4301630]

Whenever someone asks my why do I listen to anti-music or hang abstract paintings on my walls, it's easier to just say that I think it's artistic, when I don't really mean what I say because I think that they lack the technical requirement to be considered actually artistic. How am I supposed to explain myself, when some people can't even explain why they like the color blue over the color red?

[Anonymous No.4301637]

>>4301032

No, he was an artist who not only had the technical ability to transcribe birdsong into a language that would be understood by Western musicians, but he framed it as music and therefore as art. He actively took something, converted it into an artistic medium, declared it art, and performed it for an audience. Artist.

Walking around calling things art in your head with no action to back them up is dilletantism.

[Anonymous No.4301639]

>>4301627
>There are people arguing against many such physical constants in the areas that have them. Wether out of ignorance or putting forward alternative ones.
no, there are no people arguing that 5 is smaller than 2, because they are constants

but there are people arguing that the same work of art hs more or less meaning than another work of art

meaning cannot be represented in the same way as 5 or 2

[Anonymous No.4301651]

>>4301639
>no, there are no people arguing that 5 is smaller than 2, because they are constants
Actually in terms of mathematics those are just abstract axioms and are easily re-definable.

[Anonymous No.4301668]

>>4301651
no, when used to quantify something 5 and 2 are not abstract axioms
please refer me to the journal arguing that a function(quantification) returning 5 is less than a function returning 2

[deleted No.4301675]

>>4300576
art student here.

art is a language, not a drawing contest. beauty isn't the goal.
since Duchamp, the perception of Art by the public has been modified. shitloads of bad "artists" started to go conceptual in an attempt to hide their lack of value, and the insane amounts of money some people made ensured a never ending shitstorm of incomprehension between artists and the public.
hope i made my point. art is actually subjective, though.

[Anonymous No.4301678]

>>4301675

>art student here

oh boy here we go.jpg

[Anonymous No.4301706]

>>4301675
High school junior here.

Art is subjective, and having said so yourself invalidates the point of your argument, trying to prove that something subjective is objective is impossible, therefore you are wrong.

[deleted No.4301729]

>>4301678
>MFW no matter what i say i'll be considered as a lazy hipster faggot by everybody and am not even listened to when i explain why is it so.
the worst part is that i draw since i can hold a pen and so am part of the ones who get used to hear "omg ur such an artist u draw so good"
pic related. i did this drawing two years ago, and this is typically the kind of stuff that "normal" people love. however. it doesn't hold any "artistic" value in my eyes. i did it to pass the exams of a good art school in order to show that i'm not one of the "all-conceptual" faggots. it means absolutely nothing, and is just a drawing that's long and boring to made. but it's what the public can call "art" because it needs some drawings skills to do and then the guy who does it doesn't looks like a scammer.

[Anonymous No.4301731]

>>4301706

[Anonymous No.4301741]

>>4301729
Interesting. Please elaborate on "all-conceptual" to an outsider like me.

[deleted No.4301751]

>>4301706
what i call a "bad artist" is that guy who paints three bottles in white, glues it to a wall, masturbates on it, BUT can't actually explain why. some guy who tries to copy someone who made this after a long personal research and reflexion.
i can't count the numbers of times i said to myself "holy shit, i was wrong and they were right" since i started to actually try to understand that whole thing.
>inb4 brainwashed

[Anonymous No.4301769]

>>4300576
Art IS subjective, but it's not wrong to consider art that is more physically taxing or creatively intense to make as superior.

Anyone can spread spaghettios on their genitals and call it art, and it is art, but that pales in comparison to many other works of art that took skill and attempted to create a work of beauty rather than just be random for art's sake.

[deleted No.4301770]

>>4301741
well, i'm talking about people who can talk really good bud don't produce much. because sometimes they actually can't. since i had to prove the jury i was worth something in a very limited amount of time, it was better to come up with drawings like this. to make them sure i have potential.

[Anonymous No.4301783]

>>4301729
you need more line variation and smoother transition. good sense for omission but it's obscured by the former. overly analytical, rendering from manuals should be avoided in favour of observational drawing from whores' innards.

I hear you, bro. I dropped out and have yet to kill a hipster. ymmv

[deleted No.4301790]

>>4301769
>skill
>beauty
that's just a part of the work, it doesn't actually determines the value of a piece of art. stuff that looks random at first sight sometimes holds a lot of reflexion and meaning, it's just not immediately understandable. you can sweat over your drawing table a whole life and not create a single piece of art.
once again, art is a language. people can use it to say shit, some use it to say great things.

[deleted No.4301801]

>>4301783
to be fair, i don't actually believe it's a good drawing. it's just the best to make my point clear here. once again, it's two years old, and i learned a lot since then.

[Anonymous No.4301810]

>>4301770
So, people who have the artistic mind, but lack the skill to actually express it?

Or just talentless hacks who can only give off the illusion?

[deleted No.4301831]

>>4301810
well, both exist, they are sometimes hard to differentiate, but you can always tell who is sincere and who isn't in the end.
i'm talking about an exam situation here. the jury have a limited time to decide if they say yes or no. so it's better not to pass for any of these guys.

[Anonymous No.4301850]

the answer is inter-subjectivity, the social other which determines the objective value of art. A finger painting vs a van gogh.

Like money, which is a mediator between subjective (use value) and objective (exchange value). A valuable piece of art is valuable monetarily because a lot of people enjoy its presence. But to what extent is impossible to say because the exchange value is always determined socially, what people are capable of paying and what people are willing to pay varies enormously. Let's say there's a piece of art thats valued at $1000, that would mean objectively, the value is measured by a set amount of bills.

But what do these bills represent? Money is just a representation of social power. To a homeless person $1000 would probably mean alot- to Bill Gates, it would mean next to nothing. So we can also establish that money's value is subjective.

Then what isn't subjective? The exchange value. It remains at the static $1000 regardless of subjective evaluation. A cost is a cost.

But we can't determine the subjective value of art to an individual from this exchange value, because it lies outside of subjectivity and is determined on a social level. What is interesting here is that value is determined socially, but social groups consist of individuals, which collectively make up an inter-subjectivity. So what is mistakenly described as objective is simply a collection of subjectivities.

[Anonymous No.4301868]

>>4300596
literature as an art may be art and objectively comparable to other literature. the trick is to read, know, and understand Linear Aesthetics and the Artificial Particulars of Tiered System-Variety by Perry Gallaway MIT press 2012

[Anonymous No.4301882]

I feel the same about free verse poetry; I just don't see what makes it poetry other than the title - to me it just seems like bad writing.

[Anonymous No.4301912]

>>4301850
>So what is mistakenly described as objective is simply a collection of subjectivities.
That is merely your subjective opinion.

[Anonymous No.4301933]

>>4301912
You are the one using "subjectivity" like an idiot.

[Anonymous No.4301937]

>>4301801
my point isn't to say it's a good drawing; it's genuine critique. observational drawing will take the analytic edge off your line work, and it's the skill set you need to work on because it would be an adequate set for rendering/inking work. speaking of, pick up a copy of gill's rendering in pen and ink if you haven't; it's an invaluable language dictionary for basic rendering and covers some of the more practical tools of technique. i can't stress enough how much lack of observational drawing sticks out from that piece (yes from two years ago)- most people are naturally inclined the other way having spent more time looking than drawing. i hope you've managed to fit in more because the main part of my criticism would be that it's over learned and lacking (for lack of a better term) "life". post something current if you want, but time spent observing would benefit you more than honing your more technical skills.

[Anonymous No.4301939]

>>4301933
Not at all, i'm merely showcasing the inherent idiocy of subjectivity. It cannot make absolute statements like that due to its basic premise.

[Anonymous No.4301947]

>>4300596
i'm guessing because that sounds more like /r9k /adv /b or /soc, but many 4chan users frequent all of these boards. discussing refuting subjectivity in art is hardly llike expecting every /v goer to be a /lit goer also; one can know literature and post on /v simultaneously.

[Anonymous No.4302017]

>>4300576
subjectivity is thinking outside the box.

it has to be, when you think about All the people out there who have been influenced by art without contributing to it.

[Anonymous No.4302018]

>>4301939
Are you denying that subjectivity exists? Nowhere is it written in reality itself, that reality as we perceive it, can't contradict itself by our own standards, that's an assumption. It's all ultimately a figment of our imaginations in the end since conscience is ultimately processes inside our brain and reality is just a useful illusion for a species like ours to survive.

That we should strive for an objective understanding of the world, however unobtainable, doesn't imply we should blind ourselves from our own subjectivity.

[Anonymous No.4302043]

>>4302018
>Are you denying that subjectivity exists?
I am denying that subjectivity can make absolute statements about the nature of objectivity.
>It's all ultimately a figment of our imaginations in the end since conscience is ultimately processes inside our brain and reality is just a useful illusion for a species like ours to survive.
That is an assumption and a rather huge one at that.
>That we should strive for an objective understanding of the world, however unobtainable, doesn't imply we should blind ourselves from our own subjectivity.
Then let's not pretend everything is subjective all of a sudden.

[deleted No.4302056]

>>4301937
i appreciate your criticism, but again, i'm actually doing video/ comics and photography. my goals in drawing have changed a bit, and i receive advice daily... i still have a lot to learn, and i learn a lot.
and it's wasn't supposed to represent anything, just some vague organic pile of stuff with one point of perspective, don't over-analyze it, it's not worth it.
i agree with you on the observation part, it's really the most important thing.
also, i hope i'll never be fully satisfied with my work... i know i'll never reach perfection, but i'll die trying.

[Anonymous No.4302108]

>>4302043
>Then let's not pretend everything is subjective all of a sudden.

Everything "outside" ourselves isn't subjective. But what we create and think is, unless we successfully derive a method of trying to minimize it.

[Anonymous No.4302133]

>>4300706
>merde d'artiste
And honestly thaat would be pretty funny, not only that but it would take some skill to suspend the poop. Therefore it would have worth. Also a good commentary on contemporary art

[Anonymous No.4302245]

>>4301939
but you can't deny the objectivity of intersubjectivity. The cost is the cost.($1000 for a painting)

This is true despite perceptions of value which are changeable and often different. While our measure of the artistic value of the painting can differ, the cost does not change unless the social group which had previously determined changes.

[Anonymous No.4302314]

>>4302245
>The cost is the cost.
The monetary value of art is based on the perceived stability of it's value.
New money types don't buy paintings because they think the art is any good. They buy them because a while back they were investments that they gambled wouldn't depreciate in value due to the art bubble.

[Anonymous No.4303076]

How long does it take you to read a book /lit/? i take about 2 weeks depending on how long it is. How can I read faster?

[Anonymous No.4303101]

How long does it take you to read a book /lit/?
it takes me about 2 weeks. how can read faster?

[Anonymous No.4303124]

>>4303076
>>4303101
oh shit nigger what are you doing

[Anonymous No.4304427]

>>4300576
>Implying this isnt the greatest work of art there ever was:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGMabBGydC0