/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6881441]

>art is subjective

[Anonymous No.6881446]

>>6881441
art is conventional

[Anonymous No.6881450]

>everything is art

[Anonymous No.6881454]

>>6881441
>subject is artistic

[Anonymous No.6881469]

>>6881441
prove it you fucking shithead

[Anonymous No.6881470]

>he doesn't adhere to the formalist theory of art

[Anonymous No.6881474]

>>6881469

[Anonymous No.6881487]

>>6881441
you are right.

[Anonymous No.6881495]

>"art"

[Anonymous No.6881505]

>>6881495
now THAT'S what I call art !

[Anonymous No.6881513]

>>6881441
>modern art

[Anonymous No.6881522]

>>6881513
>modern art
>art

[Anonymous No.6881563]

>>6881495
Mods ?

[Anonymous No.6881577]

>>6881563
Mods are known to be connoisseurs of modern art

[Anonymous No.6881612]

>>6881577
You moust be talking about modern mods.

[Anonymous No.6881615]

>>6881612
POST-modern mods you shitlord.

[Anonymous No.6881673]

It's a combination of objective physical reaction and subjective meaning.

Kant was right, Hume was a faggot.

[Anonymous No.6881731]

>>6881495
so what, anuses are not worth your critic?

[Anonymous No.6881940]

Well if it's not subjective, what is it then smarty pants?

HOW is it objective and what's the metric?

[Anonymous No.6881951]

>>6881615
I'm totally applying to be a janitor next time it rolls around faggots.

[Anonymous No.6881955]

>>6881951
Redneck shitlord, a Janitor wouldn't know Art if they tripped over it.

[Anonymous No.6881966]

>art isn't literature

[Anonymous No.6881974]

>>6881940
art objectively exists ∴ art is objective

[Anonymous No.6882139]

Okay, I don't know why I expected this kind of thread to go any better here than on /mu/.

[Anonymous No.6882387]

>>6881673
>subjective meaning

Aint no such thing. Have you even studied phenomenology?

[Anonymous No.6882400]

>>6882387
Elaborate

[Anonymous No.6882401]

>>6881441
>Art is objective

[Anonymous No.6882405]

>>6882401
You got that right

[Anonymous No.6882411]

>>6882405
For sure Brother

[Anonymous No.6882413]

Interesting as fuck

[Anonymous No.6882862]

>"beautiful" isn't merely a predicate like "large" or "smelly"

[Anonymous No.6882913]

What are some good intros to the philosophy of art?

[Anonymous No.6882956]

>>6881495
MODS
clever filename

[Anonymous No.6882972]

>>6882913
This thread

[Anonymous No.6883065]

>>6881446
not really because we can apreciate art from other cultures and times.

>>6881470
formalism fails to explain almost everything about art, it just exists to promote the absurd overprice market.

>>6881673
Kant also proposed that the only important part is the main narrative our head enters, solidified in following the line and ignoring the color in a painting. Then came impresionism and recked him.

>>6881940
It's intersubjective. A full culture can get the same reception of a work, for example think of greek temples and statues representing gods. Now we see it again and we understand what they saw plus the implications born from the pass of time. There is not a single absolute result to be found, but a general mass can agree on multiple things.

[Anonymous No.6883074]

>>6882913
I tried this once, if you wants like it I can keep it up some day.
>>/lit/thread/S6790434

[Anonymous No.6883142]

art is a joke.

[Anonymous No.6883144]

>>6883142

[Anonymous No.6883154]

>>6883142
Top kek

Reminds me of this scene from La Grande Bellezza
https://youtu.be/plG2KDit-Kc

[Anonymous No.6883156]

Defining "art" is largely a useless endeavour because the term put forward is either all-encompassing or arbitrarily excludes different media.

I believe all human expression is art. Which means basically everything is art, if you want to view it as such.

Artistic value is subjective, like all value. It is dependent on the personal preferences which arise from a person's biology and their lifetime's worth of existential experience.

For some reason, this hasn't permeated western culture. If it had, criticism would be seen for what it is - non-objective. I think the reason it continues to persist is because the human mind is easily suggestible. Even knowing that music reviews are basically useless to me, I avoid reading about any kind of reception because I can feel it tainting my personal experience with the art.

[Anonymous No.6883164]

>>6883074
Anime a shit, and I don't know if you're talking out of your ass. I'd rather a book from a trustworthy source (like a university professor of philosophy or something)

[Anonymous No.6883165]

>>6883156
>>6881450

[Anonymous No.6883175]

Conceptual art is garbage, but most 'modern' forms of art are alright. Just because it's easy to make doesn't take away its aesthetic value. A sunset is made by nobody and it's still quite beautiful.

[Anonymous No.6883179]

>>6883156
>For some reason, this hasn't permeated western culture.
Maybe you're ignoring the parts of the culture that have read authors dealing with the topic or, you know, that authors in question.

Internet criticism is just puking the first thing that comes to their mind and shouldn't be considered more than this. Most pop culture has very little to analyse in the first place so educated critics will obviously stay away from that.

>>6883164
I like anime and manga as general time waster, like watching a sitcom or listening to the radio. It doesn't need to be good.

>I don't know if you're talking out of your ass
while I'm sure you'd like thinking about my ass if you checked the thread you would had seen that it is about particular texts by Heidegger and Danton, philosophers who deal with the question of what is art during the big break of the ready mades and modern art. I also site the secondary reading I used to synthesize the topics.

[Anonymous No.6883180]

>Art is comprised of two sections: 1) form and 2) content. Form covers the materials and skills used to create the art and the content is the portrayed/inferred meaning of the art. Work that is created without advanced skill is going to be flawed in design thus the form will be bad. Bad form can be compensated for and overcome by those of us who have intense drive and perspective. But, these few are the exception to the rule. As I referenced earlier we tend to grasp tightly to these exceptions to the rule in an attempt to elevate the crap that we listen to and look at to an undeserved level of greatness.

>Let us examine the works of Taylor Swift to make a point. While Miss Swift might be a great "entertainer" she is a terrible artist. Her form: guitar playing is basic and often out of rhythm. Her singing voice is weak and often flat or off key. Her lyricalcontentis neither groundbreaking nor is it well crafted (from a creative writing perspective). What remains then is uninspired drivel that has no artistic significance.I don't care if Koko the signing gorilla took up finger painting and sold a few prints at Sotheby's. 99.9% of ape artwork is crap simply because apes can rarely tell the difference between smearing their shit on a wall or painting on canvas. We might be able to infer some unintended meaning from Koko's painting or glean an ironic message from a taylor swift lyric but generally speaking what they churn out is predominantly disposable.

[Anonymous No.6883183]

>>6883142
it looks kind of nice, in a naive way. nice brushstrokes. the right leg is a bit wonky.
had to google to see if it was actually real

[Anonymous No.6883191]

>In all other areas of life we make judgments based upon information. We don't elect to get surgery from a doctor who looks hot in their lab coat and custom Converse shoes. Conversely, we don't rustle up a local crack head and ask him for advice on what stocks to buy. We don't do this because we want a qualified specialist tinkering with our organs and we want a qualified specialist with a history of financial success tinkering with our money. Following this example do we have to regard every 17 year old kid from the suburbs with generic life experiences and a guitar an artist?

>Why then would people be so cavalier with their choice of art? Because, most people don't really care about the art that goes into their bodies. We as a species spend hours picking out the food we eat and the cars and clothes we buy. Yet, we expect art to impress upon our eyes and ears as we casually float through the world and should it move us is the particular way that we like to be moved then we will call it art. The odd thing about our "art" is even though many of us are casual with our selection process we become fiercely defensive should someone call our taste of art into question. Why are many of us afraid to admit that we have little to no interest in artistic expression? Why is it so difficult for people to say that they simply like to party and because of this fact Radiohead rarely gets shuffled onto their Ipod? Why are we so resistant to admitting that in whole or in part our taste in art is poor? Because one time someone said that art is subjective and every no talent ass clown in the world got behind the excuse to veil their inability to discern what is meaningful and valid.

[Anonymous No.6883195]

>>6883179
>Maybe you're ignoring the parts of the culture that have read authors dealing with the topic or, you know, that authors in question.

When I say is hasn't permeated western culture, I am referring to popular, mainstream culture - there is a very large number of review sites for music, literature, videogames, movies, etc., both professional and amateur. I'm ignorant of the opinions of academia, although I've heard something like 50% of philosophy professors believe in objective arttistic value.

[Anonymous No.6883196]

>>6883175
>A sunset is made by nobody

[Anonymous No.6883207]

>>6883196
>even implying that there is no God makes you a fedora-tipper

[Anonymous No.6883218]

>>6883195
A lot of professors will believe stupid stuff, since getting the position has more to do with memorization and people skills rather than innovative thinking, interest, or talent of any kind. But just becase The Cinema Snob reviews a movie by Ozu it doesn't mean you have to watch that instead of reading Hobbsbawn's great work on that director. There will always be a mass audience interested in the most basic things they can get and a specialized one that cares about the value of what they're reading and will search for the best possible text.

>>6883180
>>6883191
where's this from?

[Anonymous No.6883232]

>Am I being detained?

[Anonymous No.6883255]

>>6883218
dronetalker dot blogspot dot co dot uk/2012/04/art-is-subjectivenot-really dot html?m=1

[Anonymous No.6883257]

>>6881441
>art

[Anonymous No.6883258]

>>6883191
When I put this into Google to find out where it's from, why does Google tell me my client made a malformed or illegal request?

[Anonymous No.6883281]

/r/ring the book that talked about modern art no longer being uplifting but more focused on being "unique" to the artist

[Anonymous No.6883297]

Everyone here should read The Invention of Art by Shiner.

Dude really gets at the problem of the modern idea of art--how we no longer differentiate between arts and crafts. He also spent ten years on the book.

[Anonymous No.6883300]

>>6883258
see >>6883255

[Anonymous No.6883325]

>>6883297
>yfw Oswald Spengler predicted this degeneration of art

http://www.thefullwiki.org/Spengler's_civilization_model#Artistic_epochs

>Civilization
Existence without inner form. Metropolitan city art as a commonplace: luxury, sport, nerve excitement. Rapidly-changing fashions in art (revivals, arbitrary discoveries, borrowings)

The trend for all civs is

1. Exhaustion of strict creativeness. Dissolution of grand form. End of style. "Classicism" and "Romanticism" (neoclassicism)

2. Modern art. "Art problems". Attempts to portray or to excite the metropolitan consciousness. Transformation of music, architecture and painting into mere craft-arts (Wagner, American Architecture)

3. End of form development. Meaningless, empty, artificial, pretentious architecture and ornament. Imitation of archaic an exotic motives

[Anonymous No.6883334]

>he can't step outside the subjective experience and view the world from an objective perspective

[Anonymous No.6883342]

>>6883142
more like national competitions that try to "pick the best work" is a joke.

[Anonymous No.6883564]

>art is objective

[Anonymous No.6883568]

>>6883564
You got that right

[Anonymous No.6883633]

You guys are all idiots. Goddamn. This is the exact fucking same as trying to understand the meaning of the universe, or the meaning of anything, as an objective discussion of art must include a discussion of the meaning of art itself among other things. And, seeing as the concept of meaning is inherently abstract and infinitely multifaceted, we should all just drop this shitty as discussion and focus on the more, immediately tangible aspects of out existence and occupations. Motherfuckers. Fuck you.

[Anonymous No.6883643]

>>6883065
>formalism fails to explain almost everything about art, it just exists to promote the absurd overprice market.
THIS
H
I
S

[Anonymous No.6883645]

>My opinion will be more credible if I say it's objectively true

[Anonymous No.6883654]

>>6883074
pretty based tbh but tbh disappointed hibari and marx-hibari aren't the same :^(

[Anonymous No.6884009]

>>6883342
I like you.

>>6883633
Heidegger does this through his beloved hermeneutics. He focus on analyzing the experience of different works and from there he proposes the characteristics that he thinks are common to everything to produces an artistic experience.

>>6883654
Marx Hibari isn't too much of a buff on the subject, she just realy likes it.

[Anonymous No.6884112]

>>6881495
>literally fart

[Anonymous No.6884345]

How do abstract/experimental artists make a living?

[Anonymous No.6884579]

>>6884345
They either hold a side job and save the money from the occasional sale or they get friends in some powerful place to put their works out. It could be in a galery, other artists or even things like rich people showing his work in their houses or shit like that.

[Anonymous No.6884616]

>Art is the exploration of the human condition through media.
>Well that's just how YOU define it.

[Anonymous No.6885642]

>>6883568
why is it objective

[Anonymous No.6885793]

>>6884616
you forgot how art is supposed to only be painting that must be precisely well drawn and perspectival with a nostalgic pining for the old days when art used to be culturally centered

[Anonymous No.6885800]

>>6883156
this post sux

[Anonymous No.6885806]

>>6883175
conceptual art is good if you stop looking at troll images faggot

[Anonymous No.6885923]

>>6884009
who is this semen demon?

[Anonymous No.6886106]

>>6885642
>>6883180
>>6883191

[Anonymous No.6886359]

>>6881441
>art isn't subjective at all
>art isn't objective at all
>everyone has same standards and needs
>being art holds intrinsic value by itself
>everyone is a special snowflake
>everyone is the same
>art meaning anything else but its etymological definition
>"muh true art"

[Anonymous No.6886450]

>>6881441
Why not both?

[Anonymous No.6887640]

>>6886359
>>art meaning anything else but its etymological definition
So a characteristic of good roman architecture?

[Anonymous No.6887787]

>>6883191
I was cool with this until he meantions Radiohead as serious art. Sure they are top-tier pop but I wouldn't really call them art

[Anonymous No.6887821]

>>6887787
Well, they have pieces that don't have a particular desired effect but still produce different things in people and they have shown little interest in the money they were to get from at least one album. So they have an interest in the abstract workings of music above it's product value. It's still a hard middle point, it always is with pop music, but I think you could make a case in favor of that.

[Anonymous No.6887835]

>>6887821
they certainly are. They do strive for more than most and do create some pretty experimental sounds that can have a wide range of emotional effects so yes they do have artistic value but it just wouldn't be my go to, especially when a lot of people do listen to radiohead when that quote implies that they are basically a forgotten musical jewel

[Anonymous No.6887874]

>>6887787
Well replace Radiohead with a more artistic ensemble and the argument stands

[Anonymous No.6889201]

>>6881441
Subjectivism is a self-defeating philosophy. Learn basic logic, then post threads.

[Anonymous No.6889270]

>>6889201
Elaborate

[Anonymous No.6889303]

>art is adjective

[Anonymous No.6889554]

>>6889270
If subjectivism is to be considered true, it must serve as a blanket statement for how things are (that is, what is true is subjective, rather than objective). Subjectivism as a truth statement encounters a problem: the perception of one individual is true, and the perception of a different individual, though the polar opposite of the former's perception, must also be true. As this occurs, truth is at odds with itself, and a thing that is at odds with itself does not exist.

Subjectivism as a personal model is also false (this is to say something is true for someone, rather than true ultimately). My subjective perception could /mu/ is full of intelligent people that know their subject very well; my believing that may make it true for me, but it does not make it any more true independently of me; this is why we separate opinion from truth. Saying something is true for an individual is an incorrect way of saying that that individual has an opinion; something that is true is independent from opinion.

[Anonymous No.6889569]

>>6889554
You're right. "Truth" is at odds with itself, and does not exist. All that exists are different perceptions, there is no truth independent from opinion.

[Anonymous No.6889572]

>>6889554
So what's your point

[Anonymous No.6890062]

>>6889569
If truth does not exist, then there is no existence; however, given reality, there is existence, and thus truth. Truth comes from objectivity, which, in turn, comes from the Absolute.

>>6889572
Subjectivisim is bullshit.

[Anonymous No.6890162]

>>6882387
this

[Anonymous No.6890506]

>>6883297
>how we no longer differentiate between arts and crafts.

This was explained a bit further here >>6883325 but could you give the general brushstrokes in The Invention of Art about it? I'm intrigued by this since in my shitty country the only local art that gets shown are mere crafts.

[Anonymous No.6890991]

>>6890062
What can I read to find out more about this

So art literally is objective?

[Anonymous No.6891002]

>>6890062
what is the absolute, poetic man?

[Anonymous No.6891078]

Question for any musicians here:

Do you find most philosopher's discussions of music to be wildly out of touch with your own ways of thinking about the subject?

I'm an artist and nearly every time I'm reading philosophy and they start talking about art their ideas sound totally foreign to me. I think the issue is that as an artist I'm much more concerned with the practicalities of producing an image than analyzing one. My first thoughts looking at a drawing or painting are about how well observed or understood spatially the subject is and how economically the medium has been handled. It's strange reading a philosopher's ideas about art since they're more developed than a layperson's thoughts but the focus is totally different from my own

Anyone have any similar experiences? Any discipline is fine, I'm just curious to hear if other people with a level of expertise in a field get that same sense of disconnect when they read philosophy about that subject

[Anonymous No.6891110]

>>6891078
I lot of philosophical film analysis comes off as quite contrived bullshit to me

[Anonymous No.6891303]

>>6881441
If you look at art through non-human eyes, it's just a re-arranging of atoms

[Anonymous No.6891304]

>>6887640
Never heard that one. What are your sources?

>"skill as a result of learning or practice," from Old French art (10c.), from Latin artem (nominative ars) "work of art; practical skill; a business, craft,"

[Anonymous No.6891312]

>>6891078
Sounds like you read one philosophy book and decided that it's garbage.
Philosophers don't have a specific function or practicality they should aim for.
It's literally "love for thinking", if they feel like it they can just seek out new ways of seeing a medium.

[Anonymous No.6891325]

>>6891078
>it's strange reading a philosopher's ideas about art since they're more developed than a layperson's thoughts
but it's the point. Do you know philosophy at all?
and "layperson"? what?
"how well observed or understood spatially"? not sure what you mean there.

[Anonymous No.6891329]

>>6891303
yeah i'll have to put on my venusian glasses next time i go to a gallery, thanx.

[Anonymous No.6891469]

>>6882387
>Phenomena
>Not inherently subjective

[Anonymous No.6891486]

>>6883191
>doctor
>stock market

This is a false analogy, and it kinda works against your argument. A good doctor would not prescribe the same medication or surgery to every patient regardless of their individual physiques, genetics, allergies, conditions etc. so health IS to a degree subjective - that is, dependent on the subject. Likewise, if we assume the purpose of art is to evoke appreciation from the audience, and that the artist is the craftsman of this trade, it stands true that different forms of art will achieve this affect for different people.

[Anonymous No.6891513]

>>6882139
ya gotta wait for it.
it's /b/ or /mu/ level shitposting then it's /lit/ anti-shitposting, and it cycles back and forth through the thread.
are you new?

[Anonymous No.6892004]

>>6881441
Yes it is, but not in the way plebs say it in order to justify their philistineness when they feel somehow intimidated why other people's tastes.

Go and read In Search of Lost Time and Proust will give you a nice explanation in the very first volume.
The appreciation of art depends heavily on the observer, on the subject; it can vary a lot depending on your past experiences, your memories, your preconceived ideas, your formation, the precise moment you contemplate/apreaciate it, your mood, etc.

Which it doesn't mean is "HURRR DURRR since art is subjective I can say that this boring Tolstoi/Shakespeare stuff is lame and Tarantino, a true genius, and you can't do nothing to stop me since every opinion is valid and we live in a democratic country, you smug face; also, you don't even read that shit cuz a friend told me that is boring".

[Anonymous No.6892020]

>>6892004
There's literally nothing wrong with Tarantino. His audience is stoners with slightly above average intelligence and he knows it.

[Anonymous No.6892120]

>>6892020
I know. Some of his movies are still quite funny and he's not a total hack, but it's not the 'definitive artist and cinema genius' their fans claim him to be, based on the impact of popular culture as only argument.

[Anonymous No.6892125]

>>6892120
He is. You expect too much of cinema.

[Anonymous No.6892297]

Art is based on arbitrary axioms that have no epistemic privilege

[Anonymous No.6892317]

>>6892004
lol you misunderstood Proust faggot
I bet you didn't even read it in french

[Anonymous No.6892340]

>>6892317
Well, I also added some stuff from my own, but I'm quite sure that in Swann's Way Proust stated something mildly similar, but I should check my notes since I don't have the book right now.

[Anonymous No.6892344]

>>6892020
Tarantino is shit
>>6892120
He is literally a total hack
>>6892125
Is not

[Anonymous No.6892346]

>>6881441
nah

[Anonymous No.6892355]

>>6892344
Why are you even responding

[Anonymous No.6892363]

>>6892355
Just giving a bit of objectivity

[Anonymous No.6892406]

>>6891078
>I think the issue is that as an artist I'm much more concerned with the practicalities of producing an image than analyzing one. My first thoughts looking at a drawing or painting are about how well observed or understood spatially the subject is and how economically the medium has been handled.
So when you look at art you think about
>means of production
>technical skill
>market
I'm not too sure that what you do is art, you sound more like a human copying machine.

[Anonymous No.6892448]

Expecting something without a clearly defined purpose to have an objective value or definition.

A chair is made for sitting, a chair can be better than another chair if it holds more weight, or has a nicer cushion, and even then the value of the different factors is subjective.

[Anonymous No.6892478]

>>6891304
Mh... the root of the world is the greek term for anything made by men so even then you have the wrong source of the term, that's why through the middle ages there was a distinction between fine arts and the rest. But the particular root for the world art as we understand it, according to Ficino, can be traced to a roman treaty on architecture that defined the three things that it must meet to be a perfect work. Right now I can't find the quote, leave the thread on watch and I'll eventually post it at some point today.

[Anonymous No.6892483]

My dick is art. I think it is, some other people think it is aswell. Therefore; my dick is art.

[Anonymous No.6892517]

>>6892125
if you have to lower your standards for him he isn't a definite genius

[Anonymous No.6892524]

>>6892483
no it isn't, you were born with it. that would be like saying mountains and fires are art. if you worked your dick into an unique shape after years of agressive masturbation then maybe we can discuss it's spot as a sculture.

[Anonymous No.6892531]

>>6892524
>if you worked your dick into an unique shape after years of agressive masturbation

[Anonymous No.6892541]

>>6892524
>implying mountains and fires aren't gods art

atheistcuck pls.

[Anonymous No.6892580]

>>6892541
funny you should mention christianity. during the raise of the neo-platonism and neo-aristotelism the idea was that art was a lesser recreation of god's work, and the focus was on the concept of "mimesis", something like imitation. The artist was taking the role of a demiurge.

Remember that time in which 4chan was in love with the concept of the demiurge?

[Anonymous No.6892588]

>>6892580
AH yes I still remember and cringe at it. Why do they accept the concept of the demiurge so easily yet dont dive head on into gnosticism in its full glory? Well that is more scholar work than anyone might want to bother themselves with so I can't blame them