[ 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: 26 KB, 331x283, Canterbury_Tales.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6554127 No.6554127 [Reply] [Original]

Is basically everyone believing in subjectivity a dangerous thing for art?

>> No.6554183

Believing in something nonsensical is dangerous for anything.

>> No.6554206

>>6554183
Not saying I disagree, but how is subjectivity nonsensical?

>> No.6554249

>>6554183
top lel

I love people who believe in objectivity - they are always the ones who are correct.

>> No.6554252

>>6554206
Anything that is not communicable is nonsense.

>> No.6554282
File: 60 KB, 498x668, 1418861046060.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6554282

subject constitutes object

>> No.6554284

>>6554252
I don't understand

>> No.6554309

>>6554284
I would guess that he is saying that an idea that cannot be shared has no value. If it cannot be broken down to be explained then it cannot be broken down to be understood. If you cannot even understand or relay something then even what is it? Can you even really claim that it exists?

I would disagree with this though.

>> No.6554325

>>6554282
You must be rich.

>> No.6554352

Subjectivity of what though? Subjectivity and Objectivity cannot be discussed unless there's a concrete objective starting point from which to make comparison. This starting point is arbitrary AKA subjective though.

>> No.6554372

The most dangerous thing, I think, to art, is overt communication. I see so much 'advocacy' art, but so much less that is simply expression of emotion, and has thought in composition. Most art I see made today is very juvenile, seeking to pound you in the head with some message, or to shock you.

>> No.6554398

>>6554372
The thing is, most the art ever made has been shit. We just are exposed to the new shit art while the old stuff has been thrown away.

Overt communication is how it is shitty now, at other times its been shitty in its following of rules or in its need to be new and shocking.

>> No.6554402

>>6554352
By belief in subjectivity I mean how many people nowadays believe that all that matters is whether or not you like/enjoy something and that one thing cannot be better or worse than another. This kind of belief in subjectivity can be seen when somebody says that a piece of music isn't bad, because somebody out there might like it and somebody else might not.

Whether it's true or not, I feel like the most universally appreciated and respected art is made when we build it off of classical ideas of excellence and classical theory. A complete rejection of this results in stuff that basically no one can understand or analyze in any meaningful way, and a complete imitation of classics often seems boring and outdated. Instead, I believe that there is a golden mean between a respect for the classics and a look towards the future. Basing your art off of the familiar results of centuries of theory and artistic development lets common people, artists, and intellectuals realize what it is you're doing and allows them to make sense of the art, and a look towards the shape of things to come or further developing classical ideas gives something for future generations to build off of and seems to give artists a certain satisfaction that they're also using their own creativity and ideas in tandem with the ideas of their predecessors. Kind of Blue is a universally acclaimed jazz record that blends ancient scale patterns called modes developed by the Greeks thousands of years ago with modern style harmony and the jazz idiom- a perfect example of building off what has been done and looking ahead while doing so.

This is just my view on what seems to be viewed as a SUBJECTIVE matter. Does anybody else think that artistic perfection is reached when the artist demonstrates a reverence for classical theory and practice as well as personal developments of time-tried tradition?

>> No.6554423

>>6554402
Yeah, a lot of what seems to make modern art bad is it's providing a a new 'ideal' for aspiring artists to reach, when really the challenge in creating a lot of the modern art was making it when their wasn't any of it around and when everything was meant to be put alongside the great classical works. So kids instead imitate abstract art, something that takes little talent to imitate, and stop right there. Back when classical ideals were the main thing that art was to be judged by, people would have to put their entire life into painting or writing like the greats and after that they would begin to experiment in the context of knowing the classics. This produced works that were fresh but still appeared to be beautiful and high quality to everyone, as they were still heavily based in the traditional styles everybody thought was beautiful and high quality.

>> No.6554440

>>6554402
>one thing cannot be better or worse than another
Congratulations you got the answer on your first sentence.

>I feel like the most universally appreciated and respected art is made when..
Keywords here are "I feel like", this is your preference and is no better nor worse than all others.

Most people who believe in objetivity arrive at this conclusion but discard it because it seems absurd to them. It's like doing a direct mathematical proof, succesfully proving your theorem and then saying it's reductio ad absurdum.

>> No.6554450

You can't use a word without it having a definition, so every statement is either objective or it is nonsense.

>> No.6554477

>>6554127
>Is basically everyone believing in subjectivity a dangerous thing for art?

>basically everyone

Unnecessary equivocation.

>believing in subjectivity

You obviously mean the bourgeois form of the Cartesian individual here.

>a dangerous thing for art

How can a belief be a thing?

How can art be endangered?

Poor expression, sloppy language. 4/10. Rewrite and resubmit.

>> No.6554502

>>6554440
While subjectivity may be 'true', societies will pretty much always agree on a certain reference point for perfection, a sort of artistic ideal. Whether it's a certain composer or a specific sculpture, cultures tend to agree that certain works and artists are the mark by which all other works and artists are judged. From this we get artists that are continuously trying to outo the previous generation by first learning the ins and out of their idols and then trying to go beyond it. This is how art develops.

When you look at ugly, minimalist, strange, or shocking modern art, it seems like it was mostly significant because it was created while classical ideals were still the ideals. And often times, they're either so complicated or so plain that it's easy to get the impression that the artist had totally disregarded that ever increasing mark of perfection. When new artists grow up and these strange and ugly things that appear strange and ugly because they have nothing to do with cultural ideas of beauty and perfection are lauded, they soon become the new bar. But because this new bar exists seemingly because the new art is shocking and ugly, newer generations of artists continue to try to do what the new classics did- make something even more shocking and ugly in the context of traditional ideals.

As you can guess, this leads to a vicious circle where we're still aware of the classical greats and how they're the bar of perfection, but people are continuously trying to go as far as possible in the opposite direction of them, making things that are ugly, shocking, and strange in the context of these traditional ideas being the epitome of art. And because we're still aware that the classical ideas are considered to be the pinnacle, most people think that this new art appears to be the opposite of beautiful and perfect.

Instead of continuously trying to improve upon what has been considered the best, we've almost tricked ourselves into continuously trying to make something as far from the best as possible. This may have been difficult and required an unmatched and intimate understanding of the classics in the past, but now all an aspiring artist requires to feel satisfied is to basically make something worse than what has been done.

This seems absurd, does it not?

>> No.6554510

>>6554502
Not really, I, for one, genuinely enjoy a lot of minimalist and "strange" art. Kadinsky and Pollock are two of my favorite artists from a purely visual standpoint and I have next to no clue over their significance.

Some people just like different things.

>> No.6554515

>>6554127
If by subjectivity you mean this sort of pomo perspectivism which is basically saying everyone,

"Everyone has opinions of equal value and anything sincere or any form of sincere judgement is thus justificated," then yes, it is a dangerous thing. YA and subliterature comes from this idea. Not everyone has something worthwhile to say, and people should not be encouraged to word their opinions and/or feelings.

>> No.6554525

>>6554515
But your opinion leads to idiots like this spouting nonsense >>6554502

>> No.6554554

>>6554502
Wow, what a load of text that says nothing.

This thread's question is the most mundane, simplistic question ever posed to humanity. I don't even know how to paraphrase it without making it longer, here goes...

'Is everyone interpreting artwork according to their own mental framework a good thing, or a bad thing for the future of artistic expression?'

Artistic expression, at its creation, is subjective, because it is simply an imitation of reality or a perception in reality.

>> No.6554574

>>6554127
Only degenerates believe in some sort of objectivity.

>> No.6554582

>>6554502
If it was up to the masses, Picasso wouldn't be a thing.

>> No.6554583

>>6554554
But as history has shown, certain artistic expressions are considered to be better than others, and are imitated and developed by artists from future generations. Because recently artists that have made something that seems to be the opposite of the time honored classics that people consider to be beautiful and well made and said artists have been revered, people have now been making art that strives to be the opposite of what is still at the moment considered to be beautiful and well made.

>> No.6554600

>>6554127
Belief in subjectivity is the realization that your personal preferences don't constitute a universal standard

Now we could talk about broader standards, like those of communities or societies or cultures, which are closer to, but not quite, universal; or we could talk about some hypothetical objective aesthetic standard that is supposedly built into the fabric of the universe. Which would you prefer?

>> No.6554605

>>6554583
Spoken like a true charlatan.

>> No.6554609

>>6554600
None, perhaps we could smoke some dank california k and rep that family guy up

>> No.6554616

>>6554600
>or we could talk about some hypothetical objective aesthetic standard that is supposedly built into the fabric of the universe.
I would love to hear more about this fable.

>> No.6554626

>>6554600
>Belief in subjectivity is the realization that your personal preferences don't constitute a universal standard

This is, like, objectively not true

it is possible that there is a universal standard that is distinct from one's own preferences

>> No.6554631

>>6554583
And it continues ad infinitum, the art that strives to be the furthest from reality to be the most 'perfect', so when does this duple sesquialter ratio with art stop? The philosophical problem of separation presents itself here, and the transcendental concept of art, being a mere imitation of nature, which is perfected in God, also applies.

Art always deriving its value from the degenerate horde that is shocked and appalled at its apparent 'genius'.

This isn't to say art cannot say something, and I like Warhol and Pynchon and art with thought put into it, but there is clearly a trend here and we are at the end of this decrepit train.

>> No.6554639

>>6554626
But why don't you prefer the universal standard? Why do you even have personal preferences if there is a set of objectively better preferences?

>> No.6554645

>>6554127
Don't we find certain harmonies in music appealing because in nature a pitch has a bunch of different overtones that are within that pitch? Don't we find certain paintings appealing because they realistically depict certain things except with a subtle and geometric style that's more 'perfect' than the real world (as in scenes that seem to be perfectly symmetrical)? Don't we find certain poetry to be appealing because of the rhythm within the words? Aren't these basic ideas things that originally indicated quality in art and resulted in the development of the art form's theory? And doesn't completely disregarding these natural and basic qualities that many people and societies throughout history have found appealing result in something that could be considered 'unnatural' or 'ugly'? Now, we will always prefer different things than our neighbor. I may like one color, you make like another. It's the same with many poems, sculptures, or symphonies. But is it wrong to say that the different forms of art still has certain natural and fundamental values that make them appealing?

>> No.6554648

>>6554631
How does music fit into this whole distance from reality/imitation of nature thing

>> No.6554650

>>6554639
Because human beings are imperfect

Also, I mean, if there is a universal standard, we certainly don't know for certain what it is.

>> No.6554656

>>6554648
'By means of music the very passions enjoy themselves' - Nietzsche

There is something in regards to music that is purely enjoyment, it is life for some.

>> No.6554662

>>6554656
MUSIC IS PURE WILL AND THE BEST WAY FOR WILL TO NEGATE ITSELF AND READ ASCETIC STATE OF PURE CONTEMPLATION OF NOTHINGNESS

>> No.6554663

>>6554127
Everything is a dangerous thing for art and at the same time not and everythign in between you're pushign two things of the same ilk together and trying to say it's something mutually exclusive

What a lame torll

>> No.6554664

>>6554656
Okay, but it it better for music to imitate nature just like realist or photorealist paintings do, or not?

>> No.6554670

>>6554127
Subjectivity is objectively correct

>> No.6554672

>>6554650
to save you the trouble: there isn't.

>> No.6554677

>>6554650
I'll concede. Your accusation was technically correct though, I phrased my original post like that to provoke a point

>> No.6554680

>>6554510
>Not really, I, for one, genuinely enjoy a lot of minimalist and "strange" art. Kadinsky and Pollock are two of my favorite artists from a purely visual standpoint
Why?
>Some people just like different things.
But certain people can logically explain why they appreciate certain things using the centuries of theory and artistic development they have devoted their lives to studying.

>> No.6554683

>>6554680
>Because I like it.
There.

>> No.6554684

>>6554554
>Artistic expression
What the fuck does that even mean? We use the term 'art' to exemplify things that we place above others, it serves as a label
>at its creation, is subjective,
What you mean by 'subjective' is 'relative', the notion of a subject is an intellectual myth on the level of the soul and free will; and this can come to be known whether you read Althusser on interpellation, Baudrillard on the sign system or the Tao or Zhuangzi or anyone else
>an imitation of reality or a perception in reality.
I want you to show me an example of something that isn't reality bro

Confirmed for not knowing what the fuck you're talking about, why don't you imbeciles go to college or actually read something for once

>> No.6554686

>>6554664
There is something in music that is pure, like a unifying energy that ties together aspects of the soul and is closer to that level of platonic understanding regarding reasoning than many other things. It is nature, already, to enjoy music.

>> No.6554692

>>6554680
>Why do you like thing?

>> No.6554694

>>6554686
That's a damn meaningless pile of dank-ass bullshit.

>> No.6554698

>>6554684
Are you seriously saying that this faggot >>6554502
is right? You're so retarded.

>> No.6554703
File: 1.46 MB, 1496x1927, IKB_191.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6554703

>>6554686
Could you say the same thing about monochromes and color fields and other abstract art?

>> No.6554707

>>6554692
If you can't explain why you like something you should probably begin questioning if you like it at all. Especially if the thing you like is incredibly controversial and is far from the classical standard.

>> No.6554709

>>6554703
definitely, i don't see why people think of music as 'more pure'

>> No.6554711

>>6554684
>I want you to show me an example of something that isn't reality bro
Art.

>> No.6554715

>>6554698
no, that's you projecting that I am, fucking retard

>> No.6554716
File: 134 KB, 816x436, pollock.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6554716

>>6554703
Question for all of the fags who like this here: what makes pic related any worse than that blue rectangle?

>> No.6554720

>>6554716
>le trickery charlatan art teacher face

>> No.6554721

>>6554703
No, I would not.

>> No.6554722

>>6554715
At least I'm not the one that supports stupid walls of texts.

>> No.6554723

>>6554709
Because music has the greatest capacity for abstraction.

Music signifies, except for degenerate shit starting with Wagner, nothing but music.

(Vocal music is counted out)

>> No.6554724

>>6554711
Art doesn't pop out of a vacuum or come into existence ex nihilo, you do realize this much right?

>> No.6554726

>>6554716
that picture looks nothing like a pollock.
>>6554723
you could change 'music' with 'abstract art' and the sentence would be the same.

>> No.6554727

>>6554711
Show me a piece of art that does not exist.

>> No.6554728

>>6554724
So are imitations of reality or imitations of perceptions in reality not imitations, but reality?

>> No.6554733

>>6554726
No. Please think.

>> No.6554734

>>6554707
If you seriously feel the need to explain why you like things you should get your autism checked.

I can't put to words why I like the artists I like because, unlike literature and music, I don't know enough of the medium to actually describe what I like in their painting other than I like it. That was my entire point actually, that even a pleb can like something usually seen as only appealing to people knowledgeable of the medium simply because he just so happens to like what he sees, therefore meaning that the notion of one single universal standard for beauty is bullshit.

>> No.6554735

>>6554721
Why?

>>6554723
Abstract paintings. Four Seasons.

>> No.6554737

>>6554728
everything is reality

>> No.6554738

>>6554733
see>>6554703
i find that to be one of the better examples.
it is literally pure aestheticism.

>> No.6554739

>>6554716
I know what that picture is and my first thought when I first saw it was "that looks nothing like a Pollock, some study or something he did at most maybe". Just because you don't get Pollock doesn't mean no one does.

>> No.6554740

>>6554735
The Four Seasons are not symphonic poems; this is a common mistake caused by a profound misunderstanding of baroque music.

>> No.6554745

>>6554740
verklärte nacht, don quioxte

>> No.6554755

>>6554745
see >>6554723

>> No.6554759

>>6554735
Art is not reality. This is the objective of art in the first place. Even music is purity abstracted.

Not reality, but dissonance is required for harmonic enjoyment, after all.

There is something pure in listening to music certainly, but there is also something pure in reading and seeing, so it seems to be true that in all we do, all the modes of our senses we use to appreciate art, purity is found, ergo the art itself could be said to be pure since it evokes the senes within us that are pure, but I believe it should be said that unless the art has a message that would enhance our reality, it's objective has failed at entertainment, because reality is always more interesting than that which is already made, done, and set to stone. And even then, it is also a fabrication.

>> No.6554765

>>6554759
wtf niqqa u trippin, its words on paper and soundwaves

>> No.6554767

>>6554127
Art should be considered, in the first place, as a form of communication.
What you do with that it's up to you.

>> No.6554770

>>6554740
Spring. Summer. Autumn. Winter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuF4oYRktcA
A storm.

>> No.6554771

>>6554728
It depends on what you mean by reality, they are all just about a part of reality as everything else is, but of course they're not a mirror image of our surroundings, neither do they have to be, hence what we label as art. But that's just being specific to a relative end, on the grand scale of things everything is "reality".

>> No.6554779

>>6554765
tallis put this faggot in his place for me please >>6554502

Thanks

>> No.6554784

>>6554770
It does not represent a storm; it is the fast movement of the concerto.

Where do you hear thunder? Do you hear any form of imitative harmony?

If you can point it out in the score, I will be glad to agree with you; but for now, this work is a concerto whose fast movement was associated to a poem written, probably, by Vivaldi himself, creating a 'thematic' work, but not a work of /representative music/.

>> No.6554785

>>6554759
Okay, I don't think you understood. Now you seem to be agreeing that both music and abstract art are "pure." Do you?

>> No.6554789

>>6554765
It is not pure reality though, it is reality through a lens as it were.

God on an inkblot.

>> No.6554790

>>6554722
That guy is just as misguided and clueless as you are (if you're the one who posted that other load of horseshit)

>> No.6554792

>>6554784
could you not say the same about a painting?

>> No.6554793

>>6554759
Damn man how fuckig long you beenhere lmao are you learning middle english and working on a novel (because everyone's got a novel)

>> No.6554795

>>6554785
No see the above statement>>6554789

>> No.6554800

>>6554795
This is some hardcore fucking shit you're slinging there jackass.

>> No.6554802

>>6554790
How so? All I pointed out is that cultures tend to agree that certain things are beautiful and others aren't, and that now that modern art that rejects the things we consider beautiful is considered to be high quality, we are making art that we consider ugly because we think that ugly is good and beautiful is boring. I actually want to know what's wrong with thinking this.

>> No.6554806

>>6554802
Because everything you've ever thought is wrong. Ever. Everyone. EVER.

We're not here to play like children. We're here to share our works and not argue and allow a flourishing atmosphere of salons and whatever... go fuck yourself you twat

>> No.6554809

>>6554795
Are you saying that music is pure reality and paintings are not? Why?

>> No.6554812

>>6554800
You are trying to stir up negativity

>> No.6554813

>>6554809
Because it's obvious

>> No.6554814

>>6554779
I am in complete agreement with >>6554502 and am willing to debate any one of you uneducated faggots.

>> No.6554818

>>6554759
>Art is not reality. This is the objective of art in the first place. Even music is purity abstracted.

Do you teleport to metaphysical realms to look at art or what bro, I mean jesus christ get fucking real. What we label as art is a set of works that we value and which make us flourish as human beings, this is just about the same part of reality as a cow taking a shit

Guys don't listen to this degenerate charlatan, he's attempting to bullshit and hoodwink every one of you without restraint

>> No.6554819

>>6554812
I'm making fun of you because you're a... 4channer. Is this the only board you use snoot mc'toots?

">the psychology professor"

>> No.6554822

>>6554809
Ah no, I am sorry. I believe there is a pure essence to music that is within us all that should be explored a bit more than sight or linguistics is, for other artforms use those, but no, music is not purity in itself. It cannot be. Especially not recorded music.

>> No.6554828

>>6554822
>purity in itself

Gosh. You have a pocket protector, dewt yeww? Yioughls. Indeed good Sire. :B

>> No.6554829

>>6554814
really fucking embarrassed for you right now my dude

>> No.6554830

>>6554819
I read often enough, so usually yes. I also post on /sci/ sometimes as well just for the mathematics.

>> No.6554836

>>6554784
I'll give you an easier one from Spring, Allegro
https://youtu.be/znptyp4apW0?t=1m44s
It imitates birdsong.

>> No.6554837

>>6554723
>Music signifies, except for degenerate shit starting with Wagner, nothing but music.

Why does this myth still persists? Of course even Mozart is steeped in ideology and reflects the obsession with grand form in his era. It's not "pure music", no such thing exists.

>> No.6554840

>>6554830
Ahh ahh indubitably. Mmmm Magnifique! Inspired.

Yes. I read very much... and death.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obTNwPJvOI8

Fucking faggot.

>> No.6554846

>>6554830
that's so smart. does this mean anything to you? :)

>> No.6554849

>>6554837
Do not misunderstand me.

>>6554836
Thus it is but the quote of a musical pattern...?

>> No.6554851

>>6554830
>mathematics
>started speaking this way after using this board
>literally 18 years old
>freshman year: "I am going, to go, to Harvard."

>> No.6554855

>>6554849
DESERVES THE USERNAME EVERY LITTLE BIT YOU'RE JUST TOYING US INTO THE PALM OF YOUR HAND HAHAHHA FAN-TAS-TIC

YOU FUCK.

>> No.6554859

>>6554802
Cool, just next time take it easy with metaphysical concepts like subjectivity and dividing art from reality, or at least substitute reality for something else, like, "surroundings", so that those of us who don't throw around misleading words placed out of context don't ridicule you

>> No.6554865
File: 9 KB, 194x259, tallis.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6554865

I can't believe there are newfags on /lit/ who never heard of Tallis. I missed ya buddy. I had heard you killed yourself. Glad that's not the case.

>> No.6554872

>>6554477

A very generous 4. You can't just fart out a topic and hope for someone else to come along and develop it for you.

>> No.6554873

>>6554865
Oh, qui est riche.

>> No.6554875

>>6554872
Half of you guys litereally live in new york a quarter of you wish you did a quarter of you are just acting like it

>> No.6554950

>>6554865
Yes, because the list of 'English composers' are so important in relation to the lists of 'English kings', 'English legendary figures', 'English queens', 'English authors' 'English whores.'

>> No.6554963

>>6554554
>Artistic expression, at its creation, is subjective, because it is simply an imitation of reality or a perception in reality.
>implying all art is mimesis

Get a load of this faggot

>> No.6554969

>>6554846
Yes thank you, those types of comments are infrequent and rare, so it means as much as alms do to the poor.

>> No.6554975

>>6554963
Yes all art is, by its nature mimetic.

>> No.6554995

>>6554814
Hm, a trip embarrassing himself? Nothing new here

>> No.6555059

>>6554837
Signify as in the same sense in which words and paintings that depict objects, landscapes etc signify. Music can have its harmonies and cadences based on the history of music, but it is no symbol.

>> No.6555064

>>6554975
Music? Abstract art? Poetry?

>> No.6555078

I think the creator of that woodcut could have benefited from understanding that dinner tables aren't typically on a fucking near vertical incline

>> No.6555190

tallis is a retard edition