[ 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: 172 KB, 1073x790, renoir.moulin-galette.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6054720 No.6054720 [Reply] [Original]

Should art be measured by objective standards?
or
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder

>> No.6054731

>objective standards

oxymoron

>> No.6054745

There is no point in studying art if it's all subjective

>> No.6054754

>>6054745

There is no such thing as a judgement of value outside of subjectivity

>> No.6054762
File: 14 KB, 260x195, film_main_hibari-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6054762

Both questions are silly when you take in consideration both the huge amount of artwork that exists and how people interact with it.

>meassure objective standards
Usually people will wonder what those standards would be, but a better question is why would you need to measure a pre intellectual response? If a work of art doesn't affect you then you move on, but if it reaches you then it has already worked.
Heidegger uses the term "Dasein" that apparently english translators take as "existence" but in spanish we go to the root and say "being-there" (ser-ahí, si alguien lo quiere traducir diferente). The idea is that art doesn't exist completely in the objects, it's closer to a phenomenon that happens when it's received by someone.

>beauty in the eye of the beholder
Yes, of course, beauty doesn't exist as a concept outside of human existence. But we still can coincide with what other people find beautiful, that's called inter subjectivity. When you try to analyze art you should try to understand that any interpretation is tied to a certain context and that's part of the work too.

Haven't you read any 20th century phil?

>> No.6054769

I tend to hold the idea that quality of art and enjoyment of art are separate things. If we relate this to food, and you were to ask "does gourmet food exist" surely you'd say yes. Gourmet art (so to speak) also exists. There are certain metrics by which people tend to measure quality. Sweet spot of complexity, genre bending, originality etc. Of course this isn't tantamount to enjoyment (the subjective element) just as someone may enjoy McDonalds far more than a weird gourmet cuisine.

>> No.6054776

>>6054720
It's a bit of both. It strives for the Form and we try to see it, but in our subjectivity we cannot percive which one is the closest to it.

>> No.6054783

>>6054776
>Using platonic principles to deal with modern constructions
i'm sure you also use two stones instead of a lighter and go to the gym to be naked around people

I'm comparing the situations, not shitting on public nudity

>> No.6054789
File: 3.70 MB, 3973x2933, Pierre-Auguste_Renoir_-_Luncheon_of_the_Boating_Party_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6054789

>>6054720
>Should art be measured by objective standards?
Like what?

>> No.6054797
File: 163 KB, 841x457, Standards declining.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6054797

>>6054789
you know, standards.

>> No.6054798

>>6054720
>Should art be measured
Is a better question.

>> No.6054809

>>6054783
>implying there is something wrong with platonic principles


Also public nidity is for faggots

>> No.6054819

Read Kant on aesthetics

>> No.6054821

>>6054809
Platonic principles are based on opinions and then forced on every aspect of life. Plato spent more time forcing things into his ideas than thinking them out, the only decent thing he did was fucking Aristotle who was way more open to new ideas and translating common knowledge into theories.

And I guess that public nudity is for faggots if you like men, yes, otherwise I rather see women naked.

>> No.6054826

>>6054819
Why would you do that? Hume had the same ideas and presented them much clearer and they both are saying pretty silly stuff that could only come out of having lived the start of the enlightenment and just having to find some justification. Aesthetics start being respetable a couple of decades in the 20th century just like semiotics and narratology.

>> No.6056378

>>6054797
I need a link to that video

>> No.6056561

>>6056378
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNI07egoefc

>> No.6056567

>>6054819
Kant is rubbish.

>> No.6056593

MEASURE ART BY ITS PREDECESSORS

>> No.6056600
File: 46 KB, 480x480, 1406240494852.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6056600

I want to say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder
But then I remember that woman who shoved Spaghetti-Os up her vagina as performance art

>> No.6056604

If there are no objective standards in art then why did it take so long for people to start shitting injected paint on canvas?

where was piss christ during the renaissance?

>> No.6056612

>>6054720
After all these years, do you still get a kick out of it? You're probably the same guy who used to post "does free will exist?" threads.

>> No.6056620

>>6056612
It's a pretty standard question in art debate, dude. I think you'd better lay off a little bit on the personal attacks.

>> No.6056633

>>6056620
Didn't you get your answer by your third thread?

>> No.6056635

>>6056600
For anyone who has not seen it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9lmvX00TLY
The best part is the crowd

>> No.6056636
File: 520 KB, 1224x2000, 1388745509694.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6056636

in my mind, art has two sides
self-expression, the quality and aspect of which is largely subjective
and artistic skill employed in creating the piece of art. this can be objectively measured because there are artists that are less or more skilled in painting, sculpting, drawing, etc. than others.

in modern times it seems like people place an all important emphasis on self-expression and the "uniqueness" and the political message of self-expression while completely neglecting the skill involved in creating a truly impressive work of art.

generally no substance. much like society

>> No.6056644

>>6056633
I'm not the OP.

>> No.6056651
File: 101 KB, 700x693, Rembrandt_Harmensz_van_Rijn_REH013.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6056651

could humans make an objective observation about art?

>> No.6056658

>>6056644
You do realise these threads are shitposting, don't you?

>> No.6056668

Your question is faulty because it implies art need be beautiful to be art.

>> No.6056671

>>6056651
yes. art painted by rembrandt is objectively better than art painted by an art school freshman

the gap of skill between the two is objectively apparent

>> No.6056675

False dichotomy.

>> No.6056681

>>6056675
Digress:

>> No.6056685

>>6056668
This.

>> No.6056696

>>6056671
>yes. art painted by rembrandt is objectively better than art painted by an art school freshman
How so?

>> No.6056703

>>6056696
the gap of skill in the craft of painting between the two is objectively apparent

one is an accomplished painter the other is an amateur. this isn't hard to understand

>> No.6056711

>>6056703
>the gap of skill in the craft of painting between the two is objectively apparent
So skill is one of the objective standards that make a painting better?

>> No.6056712

>>6056636
I can agree with that

>> No.6056714

>>6056681
You can and should judge an artwork objectively by the technical skill that went into making it and also appreciate it for it's beauty.

>> No.6056715
File: 143 KB, 446x631, tsukimiya_ringo yuzumame.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6056715

>>6056600
Art doesn't need to correlate with beauty, that's a silly thing that only Hume and other merchants could pretend. Kant was already working around the concept of beauty, a century before that beauty was a tangential thing in art, second to the imitation of classics and the mimesis.

>>6056604
There could had been and it didn't survive, just like poop paint paintings haven't survived more than a couple years and only as a funny thing to remember.

>>6056620
what is? that particular dichotomy? those two concepts?
it's an old discussion and can easily be answered with things like
>Go read Adorno
>Go read Heidegger
>Go read Ficino
usually discussion comes after both parts are on even terms and can support their ideas on bigger conceptions.

>>6056636
>and artistic skill employed in creating the piece of art
Not really, many artists just hire other people, usually grad students, to paint their ideas. A lot of the time a work will have a big computer angle and they'll call some IT guy to make their ideas happen. And then the work will be send to another country where it will be remade from scratch by the museum there.

Most grad students could mimic most of the iconic classic styles, they do that during college. Academia has destroyed the uniqueness of style, artists used to have just a handful of students and now everyone is taught every minute detail that has been analyzed of their works, and their students' work and so on.

>> No.6056718

>>6056636
Then again, pure skill is shit too. It means wading through Bob Ross pictures.

>> No.6056720

There is visceral, carnal beauty and then there is spiritual beauty.

Carnal beauty can be measured in a reasonably objective way, as it's beholden to a shared perception of a group, but spiritual beauty is personal and beholden only to your soul.

>> No.6056727

>>6056714
>You can and should
Where is that written?

>> No.6056750

>>6056718
balance

>> No.6056780

>>6056718

I hope you're not implying that Bob Ross was a technically skilled painter.

>> No.6056796
File: 110 KB, 361x480, scull-by-Billy-Childish.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6056796

The purpose of art, in my opinion, is to induce within the subject a certain experience of consciousness, whether it is an experience that the author has had already and wishes others to experience, or one that is entirely new. Why does that experience necessarily have to be beautiful? An "ugly" piece of art could inspire within the viewer a much more profound experience than a beautiful one.

Furthermore, how can there even be objectivity in art? How would you measure its value- complexity? I honestly don't know how anyone could perform an objective analysis of art.

To the stuckists and old people: Art develops. Get over it.

>> No.6056802

>>6056720
This is the 21st century. The soul doesn't exist.

>> No.6056805

>>6056780
No, but the result of pure skill would be wading through bob-ross type paintings.

Mountain ranges, horses, trees. The stuff your mom has stored in the attic from her "artistic" phase.

>> No.6056821

>>6056671
>"objectively apparent"

What does this even mean?
I'm not saying that I don't like Rembrandt's art more than a college freshman's, but there really is no objectivity when it comes to art. Did Rembrandt train for longer than the freshman? Yes. Does he employ more advanced techniques in his painting than the freshman? Yes. Does this make his art "better" (whatever that means)? No. This whole argument is futile and results from ambiguities caused by language.

>> No.6058513

>>6056671
>>the gap of skill between the two is objectively apparent
This is the point: you talk about techniques and skills where there is progress. There is no progress in art.

>> No.6058552

Art should be measured by objective standards yes.
These standards should be set by a study of the history of art as well as specific artworks.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder should fit into this.

>> No.6059393

>>6054745
What a fucking silly thing to say.

>>6054720
Neither
Quality in art can be understood insofar as it is arranged into a structure which corresponds with its intersubjective value but there can never be an 'objective' hierarchy

>>6054809
Platonic principles might have sparked the intellectual development of the western world, but we've been experiencing the negative effects of its idealistic presuppositions for a long time now. The concept of ideal form - in claiming that one 'form' is right, and all others imperfect - naturally fans the flames offence, conflict and subjection, as very few cultures and peoples will agree on simply one 'perfect' form.

>> No.6059412

>>6059393
>naturally fans the flames offence, conflict and subjection
This is a good thing though

>> No.6059417

>>6056636
>in modern times it seems like people place an all important emphasis on self-expression and the "uniqueness" and the political message of self-expression while completely neglecting the skill involved in creating a truly impressive work of art.

I know that Schwitters once claimed that 'what the artist spits is art', but I had no idea it would cause so many to misunderstand the entire premise of modern art

Spitting is an act of revulsion and disgust, however one which is deliberately externalised by the projected saliva. It is not that the saliva originates in the artist (IE, self expression) which is significant, but the act of spitting as reactionary behaviour in regards to something in the external world. Art is still in a sense responding to the forms of the world much in the same way classical art did. However, the crucial form that modernity responds to is, ironically, the 'formlessness' of the world - if the development of intellectual thought has rendered Meaning, Truth and Form as entirely inaccessible, then art will respond to the perceived formlessness of the universe.

>> No.6059419

>>6056651
>could humans make an objective observation
no

>> No.6059431

Art should rouse the emotions which you would like to feel, it's like a drug in that way.

>> No.6059514
File: 84 KB, 374x500, Head of a Smiling Young Woman in Three-Quarter View, circa 1542-43..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6059514

There needs to be skill because if there isn't the lack of skill becomes noticeable, and it shouldn't be too realistic because then it becomes about the technique. Art is the hiding of art's art.

Anyway, what makes art great in the Renaissance and what not isn't it's objective qualities, although mastery of skill is indeed important. Anyone who has insight and has read any art theory treatises from that time will know that. Why else do we praise Raphael for his charm, Michelangelo for his contempt for baseness, or read about the influence of polite literature on painters? There are stories involved based on symbols and forms. It's only when art became into the favor of purely subjective that culture start to view "old art" as all about objectivity, including the artists who hold old master art in high regard. These new "logical objective" painters don't know anything about iconography or poetry, and subjectivists who think that masterly painted art was only about portraying realism (and consequently obsolete since photography) might as well deny the influence of literature and other liberal arts on visual art.

>> No.6059549

>>6059514
>There needs to be skill because if there isn't the lack of skill becomes noticeable, and it shouldn't be too realistic because then it becomes about the technique. Art is the hiding of art's art.

That said, the style shouldn't be an arbitrary breaking away from reality for its own sake. Breaking away from reality isn't necessarily good. We judge art's success on its success in the style with the underlying philosophy, the content to supply the philosophic meaning with, and also on the soundness of the underlying philosophy itself.

>> No.6059558

>>6054720
Two things:
If art was meant to be measured by objective standards only, it wouldn't be art.
If you look for beauty in art, you'll find yourself soon in a cul-de-sac, cause beauty as such is limited. You can find something beautiful without it expressing beauty though.

>> No.6059577
File: 263 KB, 609x856, cesare-ripa-iconologia-page-41.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6059577

>>6056720
No, the opposite is true. Carnality is in line with affection. True beauty with good judgment which is a certain knowledge of measure and is aided by study. The true essence of the soul isn't about passion. It comes from measure. Carnality and passion are the stuff of excess.

>> No.6059695

>>6054720
>Should art be measured by objective standards?
Should art be measured at all?
Are other modes of communication measured?
Does anyone that isn't an ass compare entire media like music and literature to each other with any profound results?
No?
Then why 'measure' and compare art within one medium?
For what purpose? What does that actually achieve

>> No.6059745

>>6054720
por que no los dos?

>> No.6059768

Obviously it should be done by both.
The quality of a work doesn't derive from objective or subjective standards. It's the objective and subjective standards that derive from quality.

>>6056561
lol this is comedy gold

>> No.6059799

>>6059695
>Should art be measured at all?
Yes.
>Are other modes of communication measured?
of course.
>Does anyone that isn't an ass compare entire media like music and literature to each other with any profound results?
ad hominem directed at those educated enough to understand such parallels which, evidently, sail far over your head.

>> No.6059805

>>6059799
It is measured by the beholder, as it has always been

>60+ posts
There's NOTHING to this thread.
Please stop responding to this crap.

>> No.6059813
File: 211 KB, 300x395, 1415699397185.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6059813

>>6059799
>Yes.
Care to expand?
>of course.
Okay, give some examples.
Which modes of communication are measured?
Are they measured for any other purpose than utility due to their relevance?
Such as people claiming a language is superior in specific application of understanding text written in the same language, compared to translations.
>ad hominem directed at those educated enough to understand such parallels which, evidently, sail far over your head.
Well if they sail so far over my head, why did you bother replying at all without answer the last and most important question?
If you're well aware of such parallels, why do you avoid them?

>> No.6059820

>>6059768
>It's the objective and subjective standards that derive from quality.

Quality which is subjective.