[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 176 KB, 600x586, Scruf mad.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5584064 No.5584064[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

>Art is subjective

No fag, art is not subjective. Your perception of art is subjective and perception is not reality.

Art is either good or bad objectively, that's why critics are a thing and the value of art is the result of the values of the art critic.

>B-but art critics are people and they put on paper their opinions

Maybe, if they are bad critics. A good critic takes the objective values of art into question: its place in both human history and art history, innovation, the way it transgresses and/or the conceptual background of the work just to name a few. The critic takes a solipsistic stand and goes for the objective merits of the work.

If you think art is subjective you should buy a fedora and die a virgin for having such uneducated opinion.

>> No.5584077

>autism

>> No.5584079

>>5584077

>He says something I don't agree with
>Must be autism

>> No.5584084

>>5584064
How do they come by these objective values?

>> No.5584089

Is that Alan Alda?

>> No.5584090

>human history, art history, innovation, the way it transgresses and/or the conceptual background of the work
>objective

keep reading about art, pleb

>> No.5584091

>>5584079
>autism

>> No.5584094

>>5584084

Learning about art history and aesthetics philosophy

>> No.5584096

>>5584079
>>5584064
literal autism

>> No.5584098

>>5584079
No, I agree with you. It's just that you're getting angry about the way people phrase something as though they mean what the exact semantic meaning of the sentence is, when it's not, they would actually agree with you. That's your autism showing.

>> No.5584099

>>5584094
Can you name some of the criteria for good art?

>> No.5584102
File: 9 KB, 421x71, Yep.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5584102

>>5584098

>> No.5584107

>>5584064
>No fag
>you should buy a fedora and die a virgin

Stop being an autist

>> No.5584110

>>5584102

OH FUCK NO MY LIFE IS OVER

>> No.5584114
File: 23 KB, 640x400, cringe.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5584114

>>5584064

>> No.5584115

>>5584064
>people's perceptions of art are subjective
>art critics are people
>b-b-but any critic that disagrees with me is bad!
fuck off sperg

>> No.5584117

>>5584094
lmao

protip: art criticism is just thinly veiled political discussion

>> No.5584120

>>5584064
>still believes in the objective/subjective dichotomy
Art's quality is socially determined

>> No.5584125

>>5584099
Good art doesn't arise from a laundry list of ingredients

>> No.5584126

>>5584120
>still believes in the socially determined/not socially determined dichotomy

>> No.5584128

>>5584120

what if 50 people think its good and 50 people think it's bad?

What if 100 people think it's bad, 5 think it's good, but the 5 have a higher knowledge to art theory and history?

>> No.5584137

>>5584125
sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't

>> No.5584142
File: 10 KB, 279x305, 1401748547384.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5584142

>>5584120
Art's quality is individually determined.

>> No.5584148

>>5584099

The Fountain by DuChamp is the pleb example but it's also the clearest.

Duchamp placed a urinal on a gallery and signed it. Placed an object in a place that, by the time, was a room to reunite the beautiful (because there were preconceptions about galleries, museums and in general places for art).

DuChamp disrupted the meaning of art or the places for art in a time were art was emerging as something that had nothing to do with what was done before.

It is a great work because it implied a rupture of meaning during a time were art history was having its biggest transformation.

>> No.5584149

>decorated surfaces
>reshaped rocks
>good

art died in the renaissance

>> No.5584151
File: 14 KB, 250x250, 14081302416497.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5584151

>>5584125
>ART CAN BE GOOD OR BAD
>BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT MAKES GOOD ART GOOD OR BAD ART BAD

>> No.5584156

>>5584148
>the clearest

lol?

>> No.5584170

>>5584148
Modernist swine

>> No.5584171

>>5584128
Then apparently those 100 people are idiots. You can't say art is objective. What is criteria?

>Good art doesn't arise from a laundry list of ingredients

It absolutely should if it is objective. By that logic anybody can make a masterpiece of they just follow what it objectively defined as 'good art'. Why don't people just do that then?

>Art is either good or bad objectively, that's why critics are a thing and the value of art is the result of the values of the art critic.

So art critics decide what is good and bad? Wow. Where did they obtain the 'values' of which you speak? Is there any way to prove those values are true? Where's the evidence of that? Why is it that there are hugely respected critics who love and hate Warhol for example?

> A good critic takes the objective values of art into question: its place in both human history and art history, innovation, the way it transgresses and/or the conceptual background of the work just to name a few.

Who is to say any piece of art is innovative? Just because it's never been done? If I drank paint and pissed colored urine on a canvas does that then constitute good art because it is innovative? Could it be said to express the current time of human history that is shrouded in sex and vileness? Are you saying is merely considered good as a result of its time in history? Where's the proof in that view?

>The critic takes a solipsistic stand and goes for the objective merits of the work.

Do they now?

>> No.5584172

>>5584126
Whats the alternative, b8er

>> No.5584184

>>5584171
>Why don't people just do that then?

they did

>> No.5584187

>>5584142
lol you are stuck at XIX century. W/e, ronanticism is great so keep going and make some quality art m8, godspeed.

>> No.5584190

>>5584151
>art can't be good or bad
>but I'm able to call a 4chan comment (which is art) bad

>> No.5584192

>>5584064
>Art is either good or bad objectively, thats why critics are a thing and the value of art is the result of the values of the art critic.
You haven't read real critics, right?

Why don't you try starting with Roland Barthes, really accessible guy and wrote a lot about movies so the experience he had won't be to different to yours.

>> No.5584203

>>5584192
better to read critics of the salon

>> No.5584209

>>5584128
It's not about more or less people liking it, but what does a society wants to represent about themselves and the success/failure of a piece at representing it.

>> No.5584217

>>5584171


>It absolutely should if it is objective. By that logic anybody can make a masterpiece of they just follow what it objectively defined as 'good art'. Why don't people just do that then?

You are retarded. It takes talent and knowledge to put up a good piece. Not everybody is talented.

Innovation is one of the biggest elements for art critics. Can you come up with something REALLY innovative? Can you be creative enough to challenge contemporaries? Do you have the talent to pick someone's attention, keeping in mind that THAT someone will compare your work to art history?

Not so easy to me.

>> No.5584220

>>5584209
>a society

or a patron, an artist, a buyer, a movement (political/artist), etc...

>> No.5584227

>>5584190
Not him, but he wasn't rating the artistic merits of the post.

>> No.5584229

>>5584217
'talent' is vague. what do you mean?

>Innovation is one of the biggest elements for art critics.

citation

>> No.5584236

>>5584209
>>5584220

But checking what it does to society is done under objective values.

Doris Salcedo is a contemporary artist that 'speaks for the victims' of state violence in Colombia. She succeeds when you put the work against the events and reality of the victims. Is she really representing the victims? The work is good if she succeeds doing so, and the only way to do so is by taking the work and doing an evaluation against an objective reality.

>> No.5584239

>>5584217
>You are retarded. It takes talent and knowledge to put up a good piece. Not everybody is talented.

No shit but anyone can learn technique. It takes something beyond just knowledge of technique to make something good.

>Innovation is one of the biggest elements for art critics. Can you come up with something REALLY innovative? Can you be creative enough to challenge contemporaries? Do you have the talent to pick someone's attention, keeping in mind that THAT someone will compare your work to art history?

So it's one of the biggest elements. What are the others? Also, I agree that innovation is obviously important, but to say that a piece of art's merit is based solely on objective criteria(that came from where??) is asinine. Again I ask, how is it that hugely respected art critics don't all agree 100% of the time when the criteria of which you speak -seem- to be so clearly spelled out?

>> No.5584250

>>5584229

Do you really need a citation?

Pynchon > 6 derivative Pynchon copycats

>> No.5584253

>>5584239
Clarification: You talked of objectivity and a word such as that is used in the context of things like science. When there is empirical proof, everyone agrees. Why the don't all art critics agree with each other? It seems like your touting the criticism of art, and art itself, as some sort of objective science that is subject to a well written, thought-out and well known criteria.

>> No.5584254

>>5584236
>Is she really representing the victims? The work is good if she succeeds doing so, and the only way to do so is by taking the work and doing an evaluation against an objective reality.

no, she succeeds if she really represents the victims. representation is subjective

>> No.5584257

>>5584250
no i don't want a citation because you're just talking out your ass anyway with uneducated and unresearched opinions

>> No.5584265

ITT: OP creates a troll thread where he deliberately calls an intersubjective value framework 'objectivity' and everyone bites.

>> No.5584268

>>5584265
Why not? I'm fucking bored.

>> No.5584307

>>5584064
Seeking to educate myself, what exactly are the objective values of art?

>> No.5584312
File: 251 KB, 1200x400, Untitled.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5584312

Made this to shut the plebs up

>> No.5584322

>>5584312
Why can't I think something you think is bad is good?

>> No.5584328

>>5584322
>why can't I call a dog a cat

>> No.5584329

>>5584265
It isn't intersubjective, every person subjectively relates to an objective piece

>> No.5584332

>STOP LIKING WHAT I DON'T LIKE

mmhm

>> No.5584335

>>5584332
It's the other way around

>> No.5584336

When you judge a work of art you are not applying an a priori concept of "good art", you are stating it. You probably like a song because maybe you are just prone to liking funky basslines, or because maybe it sounds like the lullaby your mother used to sing when you were a baby. Nevertheless you "objectivize" your opinion inventing criteria to justify your subjective taste. And here is the fun part: these criteria, being objective, are up to discussion. So you can discuss and debate about which ones are valid criteria or not and, with some luck, you can get to progressively better criteria through confront of different ones. Until, maybe, achieving the ultimate criteria to evaluate art some time in the future

>> No.5584338

>>5584332
Not what he's saying, he's saying what you like is shit

>> No.5584343

>>5584312
>Makes a meme pic that has absolutely nothing to do with anything specifically because colors are concepts we denote to things to describe them and are part of the state of affairs of the world and open to the entire world to see, then adds a cat to solidify his point despite the fact that a cat is an entity within the state of affairs in the world and thus is part of reality and can be viewed objectively whereas a piece of art his no bearing on the state of affairs of the world and is in the same realm as semen plastered on the wall of a glory hole.
>Further solidifies his point by denouncing subjectivity with 'MUH FEELINGZ' despite the fact he made that picture because of 'HIZ FEELINGZ'

Damn you got me. I'm convinced now.

>> No.5584344

>>5584328
That picture is comparing the quality of a certain painting to whether or not a Cat is a cat or a Blue Car is a Blue car.

The only way that picture wouldn't be stupid is if someone had argued that painting wasn't a painting but was something else, like an apple or a bag of sticks.

Quit being an autist.

>> No.5584346

>>5584312
>This is objectively a good cat, this is objectively a bad car
perhaps you can spot where you went wrong

>> No.5584347
File: 991 KB, 500x206, CD6.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5584347

The perception of he who appreciates a work of art is of as much importance, as the "objective" quality of the specific work of art. In this way of seeing things, your assert is incomplete, and tendentious.

Also, if what is "objectively" considered a work of art has an history, and shifts over time, we can conclude that it's objectivity is not absolute, therefore the perception of a given era generates the criteria for the consideration of a work of art, and therefore, shapes what the forthcoming generations will consider as such.

>> No.5584352

>>5584312
I like that painting.

Bite my dick Anon.