Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

If Art is Subjective....

innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2011 8:57:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
If art is subjective, and you cannot really judge one piece of art to be superior to another because it is an individual and subjective determination, then you also cannot judge one artist over another. You cannot call the art of Picasso superior to that of Rembrandt because they're product is highly subjective in determining it's worth (we are leaving out market forces here). So if you cannot deem one artist over another you also cannot say that one is more talented than another. Talent would also need to be a subjective determination in such a realm. A talented artist could really mean anything, right? Therefore the art produced by Freedo's little sister really has as much a place among the art produced by DaVinci.

Or does talent mean something? Can one artist be more talented than another, therefore their product is better than another's. Are we afraid to say when something is crap because in the world of subjectivity you cannot deem something crap except by your own opinion? Or perhaps if someone has a degree in fine art, are they then elevated to a greater product of art because they have a diploma saying so?
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2011 11:33:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/11/2011 8:57:04 AM, innomen wrote:
If art is subjective, and you cannot really judge one piece of art to be superior to another because it is an individual and subjective determination, then you also cannot judge one artist over another. You cannot call the art of Picasso superior to that of Rembrandt because they're product is highly subjective in determining it's worth (we are leaving out market forces here). So if you cannot deem one artist over another you also cannot say that one is more talented than another. Talent would also need to be a subjective determination in such a realm. A talented artist could really mean anything, right? Therefore the art produced by Freedo's little sister really has as much a place among the art produced by DaVinci.

Or does talent mean something? Can one artist be more talented than another, therefore their product is better than another's. Are we afraid to say when something is crap because in the world of subjectivity you cannot deem something crap except by your own opinion? Or perhaps if someone has a degree in fine art, are they then elevated to a greater product of art because they have a diploma saying so?

Art is judged entirely subjectively, yes, and people judge art based on many different things. Whether anyone likes it or not.. Basshunter is going to elicit the same type of response from one person as another might get from listening to Chopin. If either of these people listened to the other's music, they might be violently opposed to it.

I can make these judgments, anyone can.. And I think most people are consistently absurd in their judgments, even if they don't realize it.

Now, objectively, you might say you can judge certain aspects of art on technique and such, but even this is not completely objective.

Art gains its "timelessness" because academic types who appreciate an artist will put that artist in books.. Artists who were influenced by another artist will often times perpetuate names..

If art is marketed towards the right people, it will be remembered in some way for decades, centuries, and maybe even longer.

But does this make the remembered piece of art superior to the art that has been forgotten? I wouldn't say so.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2011 2:39:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/11/2011 11:33:48 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 6/11/2011 8:57:04 AM, innomen wrote:
If art is subjective, and you cannot really judge one piece of art to be superior to another because it is an individual and subjective determination, then you also cannot judge one artist over another. You cannot call the art of Picasso superior to that of Rembrandt because they're product is highly subjective in determining it's worth (we are leaving out market forces here). So if you cannot deem one artist over another you also cannot say that one is more talented than another. Talent would also need to be a subjective determination in such a realm. A talented artist could really mean anything, right? Therefore the art produced by Freedo's little sister really has as much a place among the art produced by DaVinci.

Or does talent mean something? Can one artist be more talented than another, therefore their product is better than another's. Are we afraid to say when something is crap because in the world of subjectivity you cannot deem something crap except by your own opinion? Or perhaps if someone has a degree in fine art, are they then elevated to a greater product of art because they have a diploma saying so?


Art is judged entirely subjectively, yes, and people judge art based on many different things. Whether anyone likes it or not.. Basshunter is going to elicit the same type of response from one person as another might get from listening to Chopin. If either of these people listened to the other's music, they might be violently opposed to it.

I can make these judgments, anyone can.. And I think most people are consistently absurd in their judgments, even if they don't realize it.

Now, objectively, you might say you can judge certain aspects of art on technique and such, but even this is not completely objective.
So it's partially objective?


Art gains its "timelessness" because academic types who appreciate an artist will put that artist in books.. Artists who were influenced by another artist will often times perpetuate names..

If art is marketed towards the right people, it will be remembered in some way for decades, centuries, and maybe even longer.

But does this make the remembered piece of art superior to the art that has been forgotten? I wouldn't say so.

Okay, so technique, which might be considered talent, is somewhat irrelevant if all art is subjective. If one artist cannot be judged better than another artist their ability is an irrelevance to their product. Actually, the relevance of their product is completely up in the air. Again, i go back to FReedo's little sister who might be creating a master piece with crayons and construction paper, and you are afraid to say that: compared to Rembrandt, Freedo's sister is not an artist.

Also, just to be clear, that Michaelangelo's David is only considered great art, and has survived, is because academics have put it in art books, that's really good to know. Oh and that they have a great marketing rep keeping it popular.

Do you ever question this?
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2011 3:09:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/11/2011 2:39:27 PM, innomen wrote:
At 6/11/2011 11:33:48 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 6/11/2011 8:57:04 AM, innomen wrote:
If art is subjective, and you cannot really judge one piece of art to be superior to another because it is an individual and subjective determination, then you also cannot judge one artist over another. You cannot call the art of Picasso superior to that of Rembrandt because they're product is highly subjective in determining it's worth (we are leaving out market forces here). So if you cannot deem one artist over another you also cannot say that one is more talented than another. Talent would also need to be a subjective determination in such a realm. A talented artist could really mean anything, right? Therefore the art produced by Freedo's little sister really has as much a place among the art produced by DaVinci.

Or does talent mean something? Can one artist be more talented than another, therefore their product is better than another's. Are we afraid to say when something is crap because in the world of subjectivity you cannot deem something crap except by your own opinion? Or perhaps if someone has a degree in fine art, are they then elevated to a greater product of art because they have a diploma saying so?


Art is judged entirely subjectively, yes, and people judge art based on many different things. Whether anyone likes it or not.. Basshunter is going to elicit the same type of response from one person as another might get from listening to Chopin. If either of these people listened to the other's music, they might be violently opposed to it.

I can make these judgments, anyone can.. And I think most people are consistently absurd in their judgments, even if they don't realize it.

Now, objectively, you might say you can judge certain aspects of art on technique and such, but even this is not completely objective.
So it's partially objective?

I don't know how you can be partially objective.

I'm saying that there is no real set way to define technique, and usually it is the people who deviate from the established technique that stick out.

If you are judging based on technique, are you judging the artwork, or are you judging the technique? How can you objectively judge the technique?

You know, this might come as a shock to people, but it is often times harder to replicate what is considered to be "bad" technique than it is to replicate what is considered to be "good" technique.

Then you have artists who have demonstrated early in their careers that they have great orthodox technique, and then choose to create in a style that goes contrary to this later on.

It gets really fuzzy.



Art gains its "timelessness" because academic types who appreciate an artist will put that artist in books.. Artists who were influenced by another artist will often times perpetuate names..

If art is marketed towards the right people, it will be remembered in some way for decades, centuries, and maybe even longer.

But does this make the remembered piece of art superior to the art that has been forgotten? I wouldn't say so.

Okay, so technique, which might be considered talent, is somewhat irrelevant if all art is subjective. If one artist cannot be judged better than another artist their ability is an irrelevance to their product. Actually, the relevance of their product is completely up in the air. Again, i go back to FReedo's little sister who might be creating a master piece with crayons and construction paper, and you are afraid to say that: compared to Rembrandt, Freedo's sister is not an artist.


The thing is, even technique isn't something that is always easy to measure. Then, you get artists with great technique in differing areas.. Art is not all about technique. It really depends on what you are trying to do.

One person might paint a house, and it will very closely resemble a photograph. Another might paint a house, and it will resemble a very ornate cartoon. Another might paint a house, and it looks like a kindergartner drew it. Someone else even might paint a house, and it hardly even resembles a house, it just looks like paint splattered on a paper.

Art is a self outlet, and nothing more. I'm not going to say that Freedo's sister is not an artist if she clearly makes an artistic output.

Also, just to be clear, that Michaelangelo's David is only considered great art, and has survived, is because academics have put it in art books, that's really good to know. Oh and that they have a great marketing rep keeping it popular.

Do you ever question this?

Michaelangelo's David is considered great art, because the patrons who paid him were satisfied with the work. It also helps that it is still standing, and you know, showcased by one of the largest, richest, and most influential organizations in the world. It has been stuck in the minds of people, it has been given a lot of exposure.

I guarantee there are sculptures out there that people would find more interesting if they actually knew they existed.

If I didn't question my opinions, I wouldn't have such unorthodox views to begin with.

It is very easy to get pretentious about art, especially if you yourself are an artist. Pretentiousness when it comes to art not only automatically makes you a hypocrite often times without you realizing it, but it also is a good indicator of a closed mind.

Art is an outlet. The enjoyment of art is subjective. It isn't something that can really be over-analyzed. Everyone's idea of what makes art good is different. This is the reason why if you look through history even, the aesthetic sensibility of artists is always changing.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2011 3:41:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Now, objectively, you might say you can judge certain aspects of art on technique and such, but even this is not completely objective.
So it's partially objective?

I don't know how you can be partially objective.

Nor I, but those are your words.
I'm saying that there is no real set way to define technique, and usually it is the people who deviate from the established technique that stick out.

If you are judging based on technique, are you judging the artwork, or are you judging the technique? How can you objectively judge the technique?

You know, this might come as a shock to people, but it is often times harder to replicate what is considered to be "bad" technique than it is to replicate what is considered to be "good" technique.

Then you have artists who have demonstrated early in their careers that they have great orthodox technique, and then choose to create in a style that goes contrary to this later on.

Technique =/= Most accurately reproducing reality. But i think you know that.


Art gains its "timelessness" because academic types who appreciate an artist will put that artist in books.. Artists who were influenced by another artist will often times perpetuate names..

If art is marketed towards the right people, it will be remembered in some way for decades, centuries, and maybe even longer.

But does this make the remembered piece of art superior to the art that has been forgotten? I wouldn't say so.

Okay, so technique, which might be considered talent, is somewhat irrelevant if all art is subjective. If one artist cannot be judged better than another artist their ability is an irrelevance to their product. Actually, the relevance of their product is completely up in the air. Again, i go back to FReedo's little sister who might be creating a master piece with crayons and construction paper, and you are afraid to say that: compared to Rembrandt, Freedo's sister is not an artist.


The thing is, even technique isn't something that is always easy to measure. Then, you get artists with great technique in differing areas.. Art is not all about technique. It really depends on what you are trying to do.

One person might paint a house, and it will very closely resemble a photograph. Another might paint a house, and it will resemble a very ornate cartoon. Another might paint a house, and it looks like a kindergartner drew it. Someone else even might paint a house, and it hardly even resembles a house, it just looks like paint splattered on a paper.

Art is a self outlet, and nothing more. I'm not going to say that Freedo's sister is not an artist if she clearly makes an artistic output.
"if she clearly makes an artistic output"? I don't understand that sort of judgment given the context of this thread.
Also, just to be clear, that Michaelangelo's David is only considered great art, and has survived, is because academics have put it in art books, that's really good to know. Oh and that they have a great marketing rep keeping it popular.

Do you ever question this?

Michaelangelo's David is considered great art, because the patrons who paid him were satisfied with the work. It also helps that it is still standing, and you know, showcased by one of the largest, richest, and most influential organizations in the world. It has been stuck in the minds of people, it has been given a lot of exposure.

No merit to the piece, no talent from it's creator, no beauty in its existence beyond the subjective and the artificially created.
I guarantee there are sculptures out there that people would find more interesting if they actually knew they existed.

Why would they find them more interesting? Gah tangent, ignore.
If I didn't question my opinions, I wouldn't have such unorthodox views to begin with.
Huh? What exactly is unorthodox about your views? They seem incredibly main stream. I would say that my position of objectivity within art is far less excepted today.

It is very easy to get pretentious about art, especially if you yourself are an artist. Pretentiousness when it comes to art not only automatically makes you a hypocrite often times without you realizing it, but it also is a good indicator of a closed mind.
Not that a person has convictions and standards, but a "closed mind"? Is that an unorthodox observation, or is it pretty predictable?


Art is an outlet. The enjoyment of art is subjective. It isn't something that can really be over-analyzed. Everyone's idea of what makes art good is different. This is the reason why if you look through history even, the aesthetic sensibility of artists is always changing.

Yeah i know. Of course we dare not question them.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2011 4:08:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If I didn't question my opinions, I wouldn't have such unorthodox views to begin with.
Huh? What exactly is unorthodox about your views? They seem incredibly main stream. I would say that my position of objectivity within art is far less excepted today.

No, there is a big difference. My view of what constitutes as being art is very broad. Most people will stick to some form of art, and then call anything they don't like trash. Which is fine, except most of them mean trash in an objective sense.

Your position is actually very common among art snobs.

It is very easy to get pretentious about art, especially if you yourself are an artist. Pretentiousness when it comes to art not only automatically makes you a hypocrite often times without you realizing it, but it also is a good indicator of a closed mind.
Not that a person has convictions and standards, but a "closed mind"? Is that an unorthodox observation, or is it pretty predictable?


Art is an outlet. The enjoyment of art is subjective. It isn't something that can really be over-analyzed. Everyone's idea of what makes art good is different. This is the reason why if you look through history even, the aesthetic sensibility of artists is always changing.

Yeah i know. Of course we dare not question them.

I don't know what you are getting at. Artists are notoriously pretentious about their craft. My view is the opposite of pretentiousness, it is getting real about the matter.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2011 4:36:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/11/2011 4:14:26 PM, Contradiction wrote:
Cosmic, what's your argument against aesthetic objectivism?

Without the human vantage point, there is no such thing as aesthetics. It is something that falls completely in the realm of subjectivity, and can not be objectively measured with any degree of accuracy.

This is a statement of fact.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2011 4:51:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Yeah, you are right.

I'd like to think that any deeper thought on the matter will make this apparent.

I know some people hate the thought that their vibrating air molecules are on the same level as that other jerk's inferior vibrating air molecules... Or that their favorite colors splashed in some kind of symbolic representative arrangement is somehow on the same level as some dude's inferior crappy insipid doodle.

But objectively, they are the same. They are what they are.

If you want to get pretentious and put scales of measuring, go ahead, but when you do this, you aren't actually looking at the piece of art itself.

It's like when people judge a guitarist based on how fast they can play, or judges a painting based on how closely it resembles a photograph.

But objectively, a piece of art is what it is, and nothing more. There is nothing superior about it, there is nothing inferior about it. It's just there.

This does not mean that you have to like Bob's paintings of circles, or that you have to like Ted's experiment with finding the brown note. The point of art is to let out your own mental illness. It's a personal thing. If other people enjoy it, that is cool.

But when it comes right down to it.. Philosophy is mental masturbation. Art is mental masturbation with toys.

Masturbation has its purposes.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Contradiction
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2011 4:57:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
All I'm seeing is more assertions. You approach art from a reductionist perspective, yet you fail to justify it. I'm still waiting for an argument.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2011 5:01:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/11/2011 4:08:59 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
If I didn't question my opinions, I wouldn't have such unorthodox views to begin with.
Huh? What exactly is unorthodox about your views? They seem incredibly main stream. I would say that my position of objectivity within art is far less excepted today.

No, there is a big difference. My view of what constitutes as being art is very broad. Most people will stick to some form of art, and then call anything they don't like trash. Which is fine, except most of them mean trash in an objective sense.

Your position is actually very common among art snobs.

I really doubt you will find an art snob who believes in objective beauty today, or that there is good or bad art by objective standards. Your view is far more common, i.e. subjectivity in art not objectivity.

It is very easy to get pretentious about art, especially if you yourself are an artist. Pretentiousness when it comes to art not only automatically makes you a hypocrite often times without you realizing it, but it also is a good indicator of a closed mind.
Not that a person has convictions and standards, but a "closed mind"? Is that an unorthodox observation, or is it pretty predictable?


Art is an outlet. The enjoyment of art is subjective. It isn't something that can really be over-analyzed. Everyone's idea of what makes art good is different. This is the reason why if you look through history even, the aesthetic sensibility of artists is always changing.

Yeah i know. Of course we dare not question them.

I don't know what you are getting at. Artists are notoriously pretentious about their craft. My view is the opposite of pretentiousness, it is getting real about the matter.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2011 5:01:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/11/2011 4:57:24 PM, Contradiction wrote:
All I'm seeing is more assertions. You approach art from a reductionist perspective, yet you fail to justify it. I'm still waiting for an argument.

By all means, argue your own position.

I never said I was going to give an argument. If you want to explain your perspective, I'll show you how you exactly what it is I see is wrong with it.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Contradiction
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2011 5:12:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm more interested in seeing the positive arguments you have for your position instead of the negative arguments against mine (I haven't even revealed my own position yet, I'm just wanting to know your arguments).
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2011 5:20:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/11/2011 5:12:11 PM, Contradiction wrote:
I'm more interested in seeing the positive arguments you have for your position instead of the negative arguments against mine (I haven't even revealed my own position yet, I'm just wanting to know your arguments).

I'll give you a hint, it's the same argument I have against objective morality.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2011 5:34:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If you understood what a memeplex is, you wouldn't be asking these questions, it is patently obvious.

Combine this with any argument used to present something subjective as being objective, and it is becomes more evident, except for those who do not understand the terminology, or those who suspend rational thinking.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2011 6:28:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
"In reality there is no kind of evidence or argument by which one can show that Shakespeare, or any other writer, is "good". .... Ultimately there is no test of literary merit except survival, which is itself an index to majority opinion." - George Orwell
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2011 6:42:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/11/2011 6:19:43 PM, Contradiction wrote:
I'm still not seeing any arguments here.... WHY is it a "memeplex"? Why not think beauty actually exists?

It does exist objectively, but not in the way you think it does.

It exists on the same level that thoughts live on. The same level that a video game world lives on. It is entirely a perceptual phenomena, and this phenomena is experienced differently from person to person.

My idea of beauty is certainly different than another's idea of beauty. To me, some of ugliest things in the world have a strange beauty to them.. You put enough ugly in one spot, and there is something beautiful about it(Like your mother).

Now, this isn't the same thing as many people having a differing opinion on 2 + 2 = ?. Beauty is not something that can be objectively measured. It is something that falls outside of the realm of objectivity... It only exists objectively as a perception.

Ideas and concepts that are have other ideas attached to them, and appear to be entirely cultural are by definition memeplexes. Beauty is one such thing.

Objectively, something can only be what it is. You can't look at something from a non-human standpoint and measure something as "beautiful". Beautiful is not an objective attribute.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2011 6:44:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/11/2011 6:28:16 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
"In reality there is no kind of evidence or argument by which one can show that Shakespeare, or any other writer, is "good". .... Ultimately there is no test of literary merit except survival, which is itself an index to majority opinion." - George Orwell

yah, dawgg, knowwhattamean.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2011 5:11:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/11/2011 6:42:27 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 6/11/2011 6:19:43 PM, Contradiction wrote:
I'm still not seeing any arguments here.... WHY is it a "memeplex"? Why not think beauty actually exists?



It does exist objectively, but not in the way you think it does.

It exists on the same level that thoughts live on. The same level that a video game world lives on. It is entirely a perceptual phenomena, and this phenomena is experienced differently from person to person.

My idea of beauty is certainly different than another's idea of beauty. To me, some of ugliest things in the world have a strange beauty to them.. You put enough ugly in one spot, and there is something beautiful about it(Like your mother).

Now, this isn't the same thing as many people having a differing opinion on 2 + 2 = ?. Beauty is not something that can be objectively measured. It is something that falls outside of the realm of objectivity... It only exists objectively as a perception.

Ideas and concepts that are have other ideas attached to them, and appear to be entirely cultural are by definition memeplexes. Beauty is one such thing.

Objectively, something can only be what it is. You can't look at something from a non-human standpoint and measure something as "beautiful". Beautiful is not an objective attribute.

Is it possible you're wrong? Because it is likely that this is a subjective opinion.

Your definition of beauty is the same as attractiveness. Whereas if i were to put together a definition with set parameters (limitations of a sort) on beauty then there would be a greater degree of objectivity in the object being judged.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2011 11:25:06 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Aesthetics and Art and great philosophical topics. Notice that many "regulars" have avoided responding, probably because Mises doesn't have an article on it so they have no idea what to say.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2011 11:25:43 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/12/2011 11:25:06 AM, Danielle wrote:
Aesthetics and Art are great philosophical topics. Notice that many "regulars" have avoided responding, probably because Mises doesn't have an article on it so they have no idea what to say.
President of DDO
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2011 12:21:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/12/2011 5:11:11 AM, innomen wrote:
At 6/11/2011 6:42:27 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 6/11/2011 6:19:43 PM, Contradiction wrote:
I'm still not seeing any arguments here.... WHY is it a "memeplex"? Why not think beauty actually exists?



It does exist objectively, but not in the way you think it does.

It exists on the same level that thoughts live on. The same level that a video game world lives on. It is entirely a perceptual phenomena, and this phenomena is experienced differently from person to person.

My idea of beauty is certainly different than another's idea of beauty. To me, some of ugliest things in the world have a strange beauty to them.. You put enough ugly in one spot, and there is something beautiful about it(Like your mother).

Now, this isn't the same thing as many people having a differing opinion on 2 + 2 = ?. Beauty is not something that can be objectively measured. It is something that falls outside of the realm of objectivity... It only exists objectively as a perception.

Ideas and concepts that are have other ideas attached to them, and appear to be entirely cultural are by definition memeplexes. Beauty is one such thing.

Objectively, something can only be what it is. You can't look at something from a non-human standpoint and measure something as "beautiful". Beautiful is not an objective attribute.

Is it possible you're wrong? Because it is likely that this is a subjective opinion.

Your definition of beauty is the same as attractiveness. Whereas if i were to put together a definition with set parameters (limitations of a sort) on beauty then there would be a greater degree of objectivity in the object being judged.

Sure, it is always possible that I am wrong. In this case, I highly doubt it.

If you can set up parameters that can be OBJECTIVELY MEASURED, go ahead. Though, I'm inclined to believe that it would be a very odd way to judge a piece of art.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2011 12:32:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/12/2011 11:25:06 AM, Danielle wrote:
Aesthetics and Art and great philosophical topics. Notice that many "regulars" have avoided responding, probably because Mises doesn't have an article on it so they have no idea what to say.

I think art may be more psychological. Perhaps the reason one picture may be more pleasing than another art picture has to do with the childhood memories they invoke. Is this cultural or natural? Even if it is a mix, at least you can say there exists a criteria where your daughter's scrawl on the wall is not held to the same standards as the Mona Lisa.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2011 3:31:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I definitely think there are some objective qualities to aesthetics. I know, for instance, in mathematics (and to a lesser extent some sciences) theorems/theories that are aesthetically pleasing are prized.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2011 11:12:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/12/2011 5:11:11 AM, innomen wrote:

Your definition of beauty is the same as attractiveness. Whereas if i were to put together a definition with set parameters (limitations of a sort) on beauty then there would be a greater degree of objectivity in the object being judged.

There is a significant level of research on that and using the findings scientists could morph photographs and make people more beautiful, and of course photoshop is now an essential skill.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2011 11:58:24 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/11/2011 8:57:04 AM, innomen wrote:
If art is subjective, and you cannot really judge one piece of art to be superior to another because it is an individual and subjective determination, then you also cannot
judge one artist over another.

Well, if each art is the product of the individual, and each individual is different from each other, then the art of one man is different from the other. So, it is "subjective" to judge them, although a comparison, in my view, would give some sort of insight to both style, content, and similarities in meaning.

You cannot call the art of Picasso superior to that of Rembrandt because they're product is highly subjective in determining it's worth (we are leaving out market forces here).
Picasso was an artist who was a Cubist [and in fact the founder of the Cubist movement] whereas Rembrandt was a part of the Renaissance, a time period that is separated by the period of modern art by decades...

So if you cannot deem one artist over another you also cannot say that one is more talented than another. Talent would also need to be a subjective determination in such a realm. A talented artist could really mean anything, right? Therefore the art produced by Freedo's little sister really has as much a place among the art produced by DaVinci.
If art is basically the expression of one's self, the individual, then yes--there's no reason to consider a drawing made by a little girl or a sister to be not art. It's only when criteria such as color, tone, perspective, balance, come in where we tend to judge such works.

Or does talent mean something? Can one artist be more talented than another, therefore their product is better than another's.
People can be talented than others in certain aspects. For example, a man could be better than his friend in representing shadows and tones, but not as good in selecting colors for his paintings. So therefore, the line between "better" and "worse" becomes blurred.

Are we afraid to say when something is crap because in the world of subjectivity you cannot deem something crap except by your own opinion?
We are, but there are several who love to voice their own personal opinion.

Or perhaps if someone has a degree in fine art, are they then elevated to a greater product of art because they have a diploma saying so?
Nope. I view art as a spontaneous, natural ability. Therefore, I would not simply assume that a man with "a degree in fine art" can be considered better than, say, another in a poorer neighborhood. Since art is subjective, their product should be judged by the same criteria. Opinions do color our view of certain arts, but are merely irrelevant in this judgement.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau