Is Art Subjective? And If So, Should We Return To Objective Standards

pic related i made this in art class, got a D, too bland and boring

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/lNI07egoefc
youtube.com/watch?v=-07e6L93pF4
youtube.com/watch?v=bHw4MMEnmpc
twitter.com/AnonBabble

There is no way you made what's in that picture

i did, i spent like 40 hours sculpting it in my garage, my lesbian art teacher ms shone is a cunt tho.

>i made this in art class

youtu.be/lNI07egoefc

here you go

My version you fuck heads.

youtube.com/watch?v=-07e6L93pF4

Try and watch this, this bitch thinks she is muh talented.

youtube.com/watch?v=bHw4MMEnmpc

watch this, great redpill on modern art

Depends. Do you see the main question as "art VS not art", or "good art VS bad art"?

Personally, I think the notion that something has to be intrinsically good to be art is silly. Not only does it imply that art cannot be bad, but it also requires argument over the quality of a work before even getting to whether or not it's art at all. Much easier to roll with the assumption that art is anything requiring creative intent to produce, and THEN argue over quality.

i think beauty is objective, that there exists some perfect configuration of shapes out there, whether or not anyone knows what it is, that would make something of pure beauty.

there is an archetypical face made out of all of the average faces we see in the course of our lifetime, we check other people's faces against it.

take a look at pic related, it's thousands of photos taken of people blended together, notice they're all attractive. (if you deny this, you're lying.)
if someone has seen and could remember every possible human facial configuration, they'd know the what the perfect face is and be able to objectively tell you how beautiful a person is by comparing them to it.

an art piece depicting this face would objectively be more beautiful than one that doesn't.

For something to be art requires demonstrable ability. A pianist that can't play scales can never be a concert pianist. But (((they))) changed what is 'accepted' as art.

We are limited by biology therefore subjectivity is limited.

>Should We Return To Objective Standards


When did art ever have objective standards? Please try and make sense.

Yes, everyone should watch this video

Also go buy Ayn Rand's Romantic Manifesto. Does a great job of critiquing modern art.

yes we should return to objective standards that anyone can look at and recognize as art. Art shouldn't make the audience think, that's not art that's literally just shilling cultural marxism to make people feel nihilistic thus deeper seep into darkness and treat other humans shitty

How is that depth in the eyes created? Are the irises just deep holes?

Art became bad when Art became easy to produce. Any 300 pound feminist can smear their period blood on a canvass and call it "Art" while living off government NEET buck.

Art became bad with the coming of capitalism and the destruction of the traditional aristocracy and the patronage system.

I wonder (((Who))) has destroyed art time and time again.. I wonder (((who))) on earth could have made art degenerate and disgusting and shitty... Couldn't be the same ethnic group every time throughout history... I mean no (((Coincidences))) here

Yes
No you can't

This guy gets it

Hope you're a first grade student because you understood nothing about art.

You're talking about a classical concept of beauty in art, but we've surpassed that long ago.

It's not that your work is not "artistic", but it dates from 2k years ago and it's not interesting anymore.

Try doing something "new" and attractive to the people.

>Try doing something "new" and attractive to the people.
>art is entirely about novelty and popular appeal

why do they destroy art

>Try doing something "new" and attractive to the people.
kill yourself as hard as you can