Is not all art objective? A Monet painting takes skill and he drew in a whimsical style. I draw stick figures. Monet is objectively better.
Like-wise in music, isn't it objective? It seems like humans are biologically wired to like patterns. Beat, tempo, lyrics, and so forth are all important in the final product. If someone just mashed keys on a piano everyone would think its garbage.
Why do so many people today say music is subjective and just personal taste then?
Other urls found in this thread:
Why is Monet objectively better than stick figures?
>A Monet painting takes skill and he drew in a whimsical style. I draw stick figures. Monet is objectively better.
Cool non-sequitur.
You don't even understand the terms "objective" and "subjective".
Monet's paintings take years of skill. They resemble actual real life objects. Correct proportions. Correct color tones. Emulate life-like shadows. They are quite simply pleasing to the eye and evoke an emotion. My stick figure might communicate a simple point but I doubt anyone would say its objectively better. I'm more interested in the music side and hearing people's opinions on that. Do you think music is subjective to each person? Can a child banging a drum haphazardly ever be pleasing?
>I draw stick figures. Monet is objectively better.
You draw stick figures because you can't draw exactly what you would like to draw, and if you could it wouldn't provide any intellectual or emotional stimulus
Something being pleasing or not is inherently subjective and totally unrelated to "objective" quality
If you can provide an empirical definition for what makes good art backed by empirical data, then you can talk about what is objective in art. Until then, shut the fuck up and let people who know what they're talking about talk about art.
Go ahead, i'm waiting.
??????????
Art is objective, your taste in it isn't
You saw what I wrote, go ahead, i'm waiting.
You'll hardly convince anyone of such a radical statement by simply asking questions. If you are serious with this, providing research would be the best course of action.
Love to hear your explanation of this one
;)
Im asking more so what Sup Forums thinks. Just wondering why most people today consider art in general, music specifically, to be subjective? Nobody has yet given me an answer besides picking apart my original post...
>I doubt anyone would say its objectively better.
well gee it sounds like you have reached objective truth then
What does that even mean? You really think 20 seconds of drawing a stick figure is better than a Monet painting? L I T E R A L L Y wut.
>Just wondering why most people today consider art in general, music specifically, to be subjective?
Well I guess because the very act of applying value judgements to a work of art is inherently subjective.
All that matters in everything is the final product
>Nobody has yet given me an answer besides picking apart my original post...
That's because you've made a radical statement. There is one answer though:
>Can a child banging a drum haphazardly ever be pleasing?
If you're the child's parent, I would say yes.
Some people enjoy so called naive or outsider art/music.
You have a bad understanding of art, by the way, especially considering you use Monet as your example of platonic form, and that you hold platonic forms to be the "true" or "objective" decider of value.
The complexity it ads depth in many ways alot more to perceive its like the diffrence between art and modern art where modern art lacks that depth
Leave the discussion to the adults sweetie
My point was literally that there wasn't an objective definition, what are you talking about?
>a child banging a drum
Certain genres certainly embrace a lack of technical proficiency. Artistic vision exists on a separate spectrum from technical ability.
Put another way, I could challenge you to draw a stick figure that had the cultural currency of say, the fuck yea meme. there's a whole spectrum of how compelling stick figures can be.
Also at least one film critic thought pic related was one of the most best films of 2015.
>pic related
/thread
This is more along the lines of what I was hoping for this thread. Thanks for your post.
>Is not all art objective? A Monet painting takes skill and he drew in a whimsical style
Well that settles it!
But actually yeah I think there are a few less obvious reasons why some art is 'better' than others - or even what makes something an actual art object at all - and that aren't just arbitrary social constructionist reasons. Not gunna share tho.
Don't be fags on your high horses. I explained what I meant in the post and you just pick one of my sentences apart.
You should be less coy and tell us what you want. Sup Forums would benefit from more direct sincerity
everyone tears your apart in this thread and you choose two posts to respond to
In fairness to OP most people just essentially said fuck off you're wrong.
It is well documented why OP is wrong, but basically the thread is "let's discuss why art is/isn't objective" so if you think it's not an interesting topic you shouldn't post
I would like to hear! Thats kind of what I was getting at. Isn't rhythm important in a song? Isn't color pairings important for a painting?
Im responding to everyone.
> Speaking from a sense of ignorance
How come you don't wish to elaborate? I'm intrigued, is it just an emotional response that, or is there more too it?
Thank you. Can you explain your reasoning why you think im wrong tho? I'm not saying styles of music are good or bad. I think every style works within a framework of objective music theory. They have to be pleasing to the ear but they might have vastly different structure to accomplish this in their tempo, beat, so forth. Pop and classic music are very different but still work under a framework of "what sounds good to the ear"? At least thats what I've found in my experience but i'm not well versed in the arts.
Can you explain how music theory could determine the quality of music? Music theory has objective properties in terms of a note is objectively a C or a C#, and the distance between two notes is a major third or whatever.
But there's nothing to say that following vs ignoring music theory leads to an objectively pleasing or displeasing experience for the listener.
Furthermore different cultures have different theory, based upon different scales that imply different relationships between tones. If you grow up in one culture, the scale sounds normal to you, but other cultures find something like this
youtube.com
to sound dissonant. It's about as clear an illustration of subjectivity as you can get.
I think art is, most of all, the transfer of energy. And I think part of the energy is demonstrating that you care about what you are doing by investing a lot of time into what you are making. People can then pick up on that. Some people require that kind of energy from a work of art more than others, I suspect. I can't handle any kind of cruel energy when listening to music, but much of popular music feels cruel and takes more than it gives. So my suspicion is that other people don't need as much from music as I do. Perhaps they get better energy from other places. Then again, judging from how society is doing, I might also be able to make the argument that society is doing poorly and people don't realize it's because they are being manipulated.
What I'm getting at is that, yes there are clearly more talented musicians than other musicians, who have invested more time in practicing their craft, or are just naturally gifted at what they do, but the majority of people might not be able to appreciate that, either because it's not important or--more likely--because people don't realize all the good things they are missing in life. And so it's kind of futile to argue that something is objectively better when most people want very to do with music to begin with.
>It is well documented why OP is wrong
That sounds like pretty good grounds to make fun of OP desu. This discussion is not worth having because there is no conclusion anyone can get to that isn't already the documented answer. I don't trust anyone who legitimately believe the art is objective meme to have a brain so I'll just tell them fuck off rather than wasting an hour of my life on someone who isn't gonna listen to me.
OP doesn't takes years of skill. The technical level of the painting is rather elementary. The hard part is putting feeling into it, which is the hard part in most art forms. A lot of people will say that emotion doesn't exist in art, but it's what really separates the great from the sea of mediocrity.
Then why discuss anything? There's a majority verdict on ever topic possible.
Let me guess, all of your posts are either "this" or "you're a fucking idiot and objectively wrong"
There are plenty of aspects of music and art that can be judged empirically. The problem arises when you attempt to compile those judgements into an all-encompassing value judgement of the artwork as a whole. The process is so nebulous and arbitrary that it becomes an exercise in futility. Should complexity be held in higher importance than originality, for example? Is cultural impact more important than the artist's intent? Different people will have different answers to these questions. Who's to say which is correct?
Even if you could somehow devise a universal system or formula for assessing each individual component of a work of art and deriving an overall value judgement for it, you still wouldn't be able to comment on the "objective" quality of the work, because all of those components are only ascribed importance by human observers. Monet isn't objectively any better than your shitty stick figures not because your stick figures could be judged empirically to be superior (although theoretically I guess they could), but because according to the universe – taking human perception entirely out of the matter – they're both completely worthless applications of pigment to canvas, that wouldn't mean anything to, say, a rock or an insect.
The closest you can get to anything resembling "objective" value would be via consensus, but that still invokes arguments of populism vs elitism.
No I've just had this discussion a near infinite times before, the people who believe this shit are either kids who're gonna grow up, or adults who are too stupid to bother with. If you wanna btfo a 16 year old or manchild for 2 hours go ahead senpai, i ain't on that train.
Forgot to say that judging art via consensus obviously still wouldn't be objective but the most useful approximation humans will ever achieve and the fact that there are certain qualities we can generally agree on would seem to possibly hint at some kind of objective aesthetic value in the same way that shared experiences hint at the existence of an external world like Locke or Kant or whoever it was that said that when they argued against idealism. I guess it's possible there is objective value in art but humans will never achieve the means to measure it
I'm fucking tired I'm not sure if this even makes sense
That makes sense to me. Thanks for writing that out! Do you think that in time past people appreciated more technically skilled musicians than they do today?
By saying music is subjective aren't you making an objective statement?
And yet you've posted like, how many times in this thread? Do you not see the fucking irony?
thread is kinda annoying. art is a transference of creative energy. you could find a genius stick figure drawing and a shitty taught by books perfect traditional painter. this is super true in music like so much total crap is churned out by people who like studied music or whatever. ever heard a music graduate make some shitty pop tryna hop on a trend? it's like more "quality" than stuff in a lot of ways like a lotta years in the playing or the production is hifi but its total fucking garbage. then you know like the dead kennedys are fucking amazing to listen to so you know also i mean at a certain point in musics development it feels like it became like sound painting or something and as long as you creatively transferred your vibe its good and traditional concepts of what music is have been bended and broken over and over again. like every couple decades someone goes "ok but like this isn't music" you know you've probably heard some normie say it about trout mask replica or something
This post gave me cancer.
this entire thread gave me cancer
I understand what you said, you being tired isn't affecting your train of thought :) but you do think there are objective ways to measure and structure music. You just don't believe whatever those structures are they cant be said with proof to be good or bad. Did I get that right?
Pretty much, yeah
>Why do so many people today say music is subjective and just personal taste then
the objectivity came from treating music as a 'high' art like painting. The bulk of modern music is pop drivel with different masks, this type of music always existed in a sense, but it never was the Haydn or Beethoven pieces that survived and are praised. Those composers that we know now, that are studied by music students have survived for a reason. Modern music will likely not hold up to the test of time, whether or not that is important is another question, but that is why it is no longer viewed in black and white terms of good vs bad.
Also most people now have literally shit tastes in art. Postmodernism is a hell of a drug
Importantly, the critics and popular audience at the time couldn't tell which artists were pop drivel and which would stand the test of time. Chris Marlowe vs Shakespeare. Salieri vs Mozart.
Nonetheless, Mozart did have his adherents and the nerd crowd does tend to recognize longevity, so maybe show some fucking respect to your fellow Sup Forumstants
>audience at the time couldn't tell which artists were pop drivel and which would stand the test of time
That is why the ones that survived were genius and genre defining visionaries like Beethoven, and others were friends with kings and dukes who liked their material enough to keep it around and 'important' after their death like Shakespeare and Mozart.
The bigger impact on art as a whole was the postmodernist approach, things became less about objective truths or accuracy and more about getting a personal experience or emotion across in the piece.
another thing i should have added to Music through the end of the Romantic era was largely focused on and attributed to the love and worship of the composer's God and religion. This is a kind of culture that is rare in modern times to say the least, but we still get occurrences with gospel musicians, such as organ players like Cory Henry, who are both extremely talented and devoted to their religion. Their faith drives and guides them into using music to serve a different purpose, one that is not self centered in ideology as much if not all pop/modern music is, perhaps it helps the music in some way but without study it is hard to say without speculation and coincidence.
Because most people have shit taste and don't want to get their feelies hurt.
Good stuff! It seems a lot of people in this thread think anything with a sound - wether Mozart or literally a fart can both be on the equal playing field.
that's an objective statement about aesthetic judgements, not an aesthetic judgement
Monet is modern art you cretin.