Quality of art is objective, but we can only argue about it subjectively

Quality of art is objective, but we can only argue about it subjectively.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_that_π_is_irrational
youtube.com/watch?v=lNI07egoefc
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>Quality of art is objective
how can you measure it
in which unit is it written

>Quality of art is objective
Objectively false, and I can prove it with one question; what's your favorite album?

If you could measure it, you could argue it objectively.
It doesn't matter what my favorite album is. I do not think that I know which album is objectively best

>It doesn't matter what my favorite album is
Point proven.

>If you could measure it, you could argue it objectively.
If you can't measure it, it's not objective

how

Before people came up with a way of measuring heat, was heat subjective?

This discussion is over, thank you.

he said your favorite album, not the best, we want your opinion now

probably Faust s/t or Atlantis by Sun Ra

lol this makes no sense
a rock > 10% bigger rock
if you can't measure it, find something to compare it to then
how does that have anything to do with music quality?

You know what? This so much.

>If you can't measure it, it's not objective
I was responding to this, not every argument in this thread.

Just because we have not come up with a way of measuring something, it does not mean that it is subjective.

You're technically correct. It's impossible to 'measure' any kind of artistic merit of art objectively, and in a reliable manner, but only in the same sense as it's impossible to decide which action is the most utilitarian one. The subject is too complex, there are too many things to consider, etc., but as long as we assume that our universe is somewhat objective, we can think of the 'quality' of art as absurdly complex, but existing, objective quantities.
>there are people that don't understand that

>Just because we have not come up with a way of measuring something, it does not mean that it is subjective.
measuring is comparing
this car is going 10x faster than a car going at 1 speed
therefore, this car is going 10 speed
you can't do that with art
if so, feel free to tell me, how many berninis make a wagner?

it is just like this user saidThere are things that exist that are way to complex to accurately judge at face value. You are assuming that quality of music must be as straightforward as the size of a rock for it to be objective.

then what argument do you have to say that quality is objective? if you say you can't compare, you can't measure, you don't have an unit?
"oh but it's abstract and mysteryous, we don't understand it ooh"
this is not an argument
so far I'm only lecturing you here and I shouldn't be doing that for free lol

>If you could measure it, you could argue it objectively.
no you could argue about it based on objective data, but those don't imply a value judgement like it's good or not, those are inherently subjective

it's plainly obvious that some art can be very easily identified as better than other art, when the difference is extreme, for example a child's scribble drawing compared to a masterwork painting, the problems really arise when you try to compare art that is already of similar quality because it's extremely hard to measure quality between them at that point
the idea that art is a subjective thing began with the crappy movement that started saying things like, 'anything can be art if you say it is', which is why we have actual piles of trash being displayed as art, even though they are complete shit and nobody in their right mind would call it good, or even art

Sup Forums needs to read some Kant and Nietzsche because you're all fucking plebs when it comes to this shit

lol you're very stupid
you're judging art by skill level
go back to the XIX century

>it's plainly obvious that some art can be very easily identified as better than other art, when the difference is extreme, for example a child's scribble drawing compared to a masterwork painting
this statement is false

another great thread from a great board

no im not, there is no artistic intent when a child throws lines onto paper
show me a beautiful work of art randomly produced by a child

most reddit opinion desu

>there is no artistic intent when a child throws lines onto paper
uh, there is
But I'm not going to argue with someone who is completely clueless about art history

Not quite. The whole "What's art?" bullshit was revolutionary at first. The first person that said "Look at this urinal, it's art." was clever and stretched the whole 'art' concept ad absurdum. It's like with 4'33'', a song that no sane person would even call music, in the traditional sense.

Music managed to recover, but a lot of modern art is still stuck in the post-ironic bullshit everything-goes phase, instead of acknowledging that a heap of trash doesn't have any artistic value nowadays. tl;dr It's time for New Sincerity.

explain yourself. so i can make fun of your middling intelligence that you think is deserving of some fucking pat on the back

you're the one who made the statement, so you're the one who has to prove it you fucking dumbass. unless you can prove that there is a ''extreme difference'' between a
>child's scribble drawing compared to a masterwork painting
then your statement has no grounds. you say it's plainly obvious, which it is clearly not. brainlet btfo

I am going to use to prove my point.

All of us would be able to tell that a Da Vinci painting is better than a toddler's scribble. but take for instance a person who has an iq of 35. they may not be able to tell which is better. so Therefore is one no better than the other? someone who is not very smart might not even be able to decide whether a high schooler's painting is better or worse than a true masterpiece. The closer in quality two pieces of art are, the harder it is to tell which is better. But someone who is more knowledgeable might be able to observe the difference in quality of two comparatively great pieces of art quite easily.

>quality of art is objective
By what standards? Complexity? Complexity doesn't improve quality. Viscerality? Viscerality doesn't improve quality. The amount effort put forth? Sometimes the effort put forth isn't good enough or isn't needed to improve the quality in some music. Loudness? Loudness doesn't improve the quality. The amount of people composing or amount of time? The amount of people and time doesn't improve quality because that depends on the musicians. You know what does effect the quality? The ear of the listener and the interpretation of the art. Art is subjective. In other words you're a retard OP.

Also, my "quality" and your "quality" are different. Now delete this stupid thread.

he dab

read the arguments already put forth and respond to those

let me disprove your point with an analogy.

when mathematicians first envisioned the concept of pi, they did not know whether it was irrational or not. the question over the irrationality of pi is analogous to the question of whether or not art is objective.

the math brains kept pondering this issue. they noticed that no matter how many digits they computed, pi seemed to go on without repeating. but until there was a mathematical proof for pi's irrationality, they could not conclude that it was indeed. that wouldn't happen until the 18th century. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_that_π_is_irrational

unless you can prove that art is objective via some quantifiable means, your opinion has no grounds. it looks like shit, it smells like shit, it feels like shit, but it might not be shit. it might be a object carefully constructed out of synthetic materials to mimic shit. with metaphysical questions, this is a key distinction we must make.

also you've made this thread before and got told by everyone how stupid you were last time. quit doing this, accept the fact you are wrong. we are tired of you spouting your pseud nonsense.

Art is objective on how well executed a concept is. Such as a painter wanting to paint a beautiful woman but has all the proportions of the human body screwed up where you can barely tell if it's a person. That will be a shit painting. Compared to a painting of a very pleasing and symmetrical woman which will always be considered better unless you're autistic.

>so far I'm only lecturing you here and I shouldn't be doing that for free lol
so far you have just been having a hard time getting over your faulty argument that nothing is objective unless you can easily observe it

Has Sup Forums reached this level of contrarianism where they seriously argue that child scribbles are as artistically valid as a painting?

garbage reasoning

Content is objective, but we can only argue about it subjectively (largely because Sup Forumstants don't have the musical knowledge or vocabulary to discuss in objective terms).

Okay. I can agree with that when there is a concrete objective in art. However, when it comes to music it gets more complicated. There is no real objective in music other than for it to sound "good". And that is subjective.

Yes, because what is hot for one person could be cold to another.

To add onto this. You can put objective goals on art and do them well. But there is no inherent objectiveness to art by itself. It's all up to interpretation. You may think some shitty scribbles on a paper are shit, but someone might actually, truly believe it's profound. Similar to different types of music and people's liking toward them.

i honestly can't tell if i'm being baited or you guys are just that stupid. do either of you have a college education. the greeks, the fucking foundation of western philosophy, used analogy all the time to prove their points. and contrarianism? what does that even fucking mean. Sup Forums has rotted your brain, go outside you fucking dolt.

you are assuming da vinci painting is objectively better because our experience tells us it's way harder to make. obviously this is not true

>we only think art is good if it looks really hard to make

So you have no actual argument. It's contrarianism because no normal person would say child's scribbles are as artistically valid as a painting in a museum. Just accept you're an autistic NEET.

well obviously you cannot give a single objective reason as to why da vinci is better. you could say it's better because practically all human beings would prefer his works to a random toddler's scribble, but that's not really objective

Or because people with minimal intelligence are more stimulated by what he has created than by stickman scribble scrabble.

>trying this hard to shitpost
>this insecure about brainletism
>ignoring the argument

It's objectively better because it's an actual work and not just some random bullshit in crayon. The autism reeks bud. I know you just learned about arguing in your 11th grade english class. Please save it for there.

>posting jap shit

>no normal person
Oh okay, so someone who would hypothetically, legitimately like the child's scribble would be abnormal correct? But wait a minute, in that person's mind SUBJECTIVELY, they prefer the child's scribble, therefore it's still subjective no matter how weird you think that person is for preferring that child's scribble over a hard worked piece of art. So if the possibility arises that there are some "weirdos" that do LIKE and prefer the child's scribble they're liking towards it negates your argument because they like it better subjectively over the people who like the hard worked art subjectively.

you're a blatant traditionalist
painting is a dead medium, and concepts of masterworks are history to modern art

if you want art to be measured, sure, judge it on how photorealistic it is, the beauty of nature e.t.c e.t.c e.t.c

these are old fashioned and boring ways of judging art. after all, pic related is hideous and shit and everything wrong with traditionalist ideals - yet its praised by the reddit crowd

move forward

That doesn't make the painting not objectively better

Can you leave your edgy contrarian baiting there yourself? You use the word "objective" wrong and you know it. Are you fresh off from Sup Forums?

Fuck off.

How's high school going?

Yes it quite simply does. Now fuck off.

I think you are technically right, but that doesn't change my view of it much. I can not prove that one piece of art is better than another, but I can still tell sometimes, as everybody can. If you can tell which is better between any two pieces of art, you can know that all can be compared by someone who knows enough. As I said in the OP, we can only argue about it subjectively. As you have proven, you can not argue objectively about it without coming to the conclusion that we do not know whether it is objective or not. I know that quality is objective as much as I know many other things which most would consider certain and that is enough for me. gg

Insecure?

No it doesn't. I'm convinced you have no idea what you're arguing and also learned the words objectively and subjectively from this board who misuses them constantly. You're objectively retarded you mental midget.

...

today i was disappointed by the human race

But it does though. Because the people who subjectively like the scribble think that it's better, they also think that it's objectively better by whatever qualities they prefer. So there's no true objectivity there. It's all comes down to the eye of the beholder. You can say one's better by whatever ascribed objectivity you place it under, say for example complexity, but true objectivity does not exist in this situation, within the minds of the viewers with different preferences.

No, but you clearly are.

Kill la kill yourself.

Than that just means that art can be viewed as objective so long as you know what qualities that they are being judged on.

Weeabo faggot

I'm ready to get my little brother's scribbles into a high class art museum.

But before I do, lads, how do museums pick the pieces? In other words, how do they determine the quality of it?

We are very much serious about this, and since there are art experts in this thread, I figured this would be the best place to ask.

fair enough. i can see what you mean too. (you)

...

I went to RISD. It literally goes by trendiness and name recognition.

Correct. What I'm arguing though, is that there is no inherent objectivity in art. You can't say one is "better" than the other soley based on personal preference of what qualities are done better than other art. One can be more complex, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's better, that just means it does it better than the least complex one. But someone might prefer the child's scribble because of the different qualities that it exhibits. You might think it's weird, but that's because it's subjective. Art is subjective. It's just some art does ascribed objective things better than other art.

>the idea that art is a subjective thing began with the crappy movement that started saying things like, 'anything can be art if you say it is', which is why we have actual piles of trash being displayed as art, even though they are complete shit and nobody in their right mind would call it good, or even art
So you want to give art rules and narrow the expression of human imagination? Some of us aren't as obliviously comfortable with the feedback loop of degrading facsimiles as you are.

>le holier than thou moderate

It's not objective or subjective- it's cultural and progressive (not the political definition of progressive, you fucking Sup Forums idiot).

It's also heavily based on the capabilities of the tools at any given time.

Genres contradict each other in the local and global sense- which is why you can't compare classical music from different parts of the world, and why some people can't tolerate music from outside their tastes even for widely regarded "masterpieces" of the genre.

>why some people can't tolerate music from outside their tastes even for widely regarded "masterpieces" of the genre

Uh huh. So what you're sayin' is, music is subjective?

It's true.
Anybody who claims otherwise doesn't actually listen to music they just talk themselves into it and through it.

I think it is fairly easy to get into new types of music if you actually give it a chance and do not stick with your initial reaction in every situation. So often people dislike some type of art the first time they hear it and immediately take up a prejudice against it preventing them from ever enjoying it. Anyway, just because being inexperienced means that you will have different opinions, it does not mean that at is subjective

...

Isn't that the point? I can't convince you with words, but if you actually relied on your ears instead of relying on someone else's words you would realize it.
Unsurprisingly you like stefan molycuck.

Unsurprisingly you didn't read the thread and the many interesting opinions on the topic. Also if you're going to just say shit and not give reasoning, you're adding very little to the discussion.

and their opinions are worthless.
am i going to start listening differently as a result of what someone said? that's stupid and the entire problem with people who try to read their way into perception.

>I'm afraid of hearing out other people's perspectives because I only like my own
Stay ignorant bro

You're the one not relying on your own senses, the only ignorant one is you.

truly underrated

>you can't do that with art
unless you can prove that you can't, that's merely hearsay

two problematic assumptions plague this post:
>great art requires artistic intent
>music is unequivocally art and nothing else

You know what. You're totally right. I'm going to block everyone else's opinions out, and just pave my own way, just by myself. Thanks user.

Heat is something you can objectively measure you fucking retard

quality is an abstract idea and can therefore not have any objective value

You're the kind of guy that reads album reviews before he listens to the album.

And art could easily be too. All it takes is someone inventing a way of objectively measuring it.

>All it takes is someone inventing a way of objectively measuring it

user you are fucking retarded.

What you're doing is equivalent to saying that there is an objectively perfect temperature for all people. It doesn't exist, because quality and enjoyability is a subjective judgment.

thanks for summarizing the view of anyone who argued against OP.

Looks like I'm going to have to drop some knowledge on all you retards who believe that music quality is objective.

The following are objective ways to measure and describe music.

"This song is faster than that song"

"This song has more words than this song"

"This song has more chords than that song"

"This melody is more complicated than that melody:

"This rhythm is more complicated than that rhythm"

And those last two aren't even entirely objective.

>things that are always subjective judgments

"This song is better than that song"

Adding another layer of complexity, music needs context. Classical music isn't good for a kegger, heavy music isn't good for a mixed crowd, complex and obscure genres aren't good for a bar setting or a party etc. A lot of people want to listen to simpler music when they're trying to relax for example.

It's way too complex and it can't be measured by a number, that's why it's subjective. Anyone who disagrees is wrong.

I wouldn't say easily.

objectivity doesn't mean it has a certain measurement, there are just universal standards

youtube.com/watch?v=lNI07egoefc