Isn't art too subjective to discuss?

...

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/-FhhB9teHqU
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_spectrum
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic–synthetic_distinction#Logical_positivists
plato.stanford.edu/entries/beauty/#ObjSub
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

art isn't subjective, taste is. and no, it's possible and important to discuss and debate the merits of art

Everything is objective, there is no subjective. It's the objective that creates consciousness.

The objects in this room photographed are creating this man's consciousness. They also have a physical being that control the room and fights against the void, a void that the man will become once more. The room creates the man.

Does this album make anyone else feel hungry? I remember eating some spaghetti the first time I listened to it.

Rather makes me want to vomit

Lel

Art is one of those things where everything is everything and nothing and nothing is nothing and everything. That being said it absolutely can be discussed, and should be discussed ad nauseam.

>It's the objective that creates consciousness.
Sadly brainlets will never realise this fact so it's like you're talking to the wind.
Everything under the sun is objective by the merit of simply existing.

I started listening to it the first few times and became acquainted with it during a period where I snorted a lot of adderall and ate a lot of cheddar pringles. So yeah I always have some kind of longing for some kind of taste whenever I listen to this.

...

...

itt: people who have never actually studied art seriously or read a book on it and base their beliefs on it from wikipedia articles and youtube"philosophers"

It's essential that art should be discussed and critiqued.

taste is subjective literally BECAUSE art is subjective.

if art wasn't subjective then everyone would have the exact same taste.

>art isn't subjective, taste is
wat in da fuq

We are emotional and instinctual animals therefore literally everything we do or think about is subjective and no rationalist meme armchair philosopher will change my mind about that.

>The objects in this room photographed are creating this man's consciousness
which makes it subjective...

how would artists learn to make art if shit was too subjective to discuss, just use your brain you fucking amoeba

What did he mean by this?

If a painting is just the colour yellow, then, maybe except for blind, colorblind, or people with damaged eyesight would agree that, that painting is yellow.
Whether that's a good thing or not (TASTE) is subjective.

No.

youtu.be/-FhhB9teHqU

"yellow" is a man-made concept, technically yellow doesn't actually exist, it's just what we have decided to name our perception of something we can see. someone could call a yellow object blue and they wouldn't be wrong because there is no objective law of nature or reality that proves what we say is yellow is actually yellow.

the music is subjective meme is the cancer that is killing Sup Forums. sorry to break it to you but not all art is created equally

what drives an artist to get better if art is purely subjective?

>someone could call a yellow object blue and they wouldn't be wrong because there is no objective law of nature or reality that proves what we say is yellow is actually yellow.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_spectrum

fucking retards on this board i swear

i keep rereading this and getting angry at how obviously wrong and edgy it is

He might think he can do better?
He might want to try different things?
Most musicians say they do music firstly for themselves.

depends on what you mean by art and by discussing desu

but if everything is subjective then nothing is truly better

Isn't that just your subjective understanding of reality? What can you point to as proof of an objective universe, outside of your own subjective experience? Are you going to cite something you HAVEN'T experienced as proof? How can you know of something you haven't experienced?

This has turned into some Jaden Smith shit right here

exactly

>proposing opinions on the idea of objectiveness
Lol, everyone in this thread is worthless including me

this doesn't disprove anything I said

how is it edgy? what I'm saying is commonly understood in academia

>s proof of an objective universe, outside of your own subjective experience?
The chair will survive my gun shot to the head? For example

The only objective statement here

Nah that chair is dead

>this doesn't disprove anything I said
am i being trolled?

>how is it edgy? what I'm saying is commonly understood in academia
name one physicist who thinks the colour yellow is purely a subjective man made abstraction that doesn't really exist

>someone could call a yellow object blue and they wouldn't be wrong because there is no objective law of nature or reality that proves what we say is yellow is actually yellow.
hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

but we know this isn't the case, dylan's first album is objectively worse than blonde on blonde and it really isn't even up for debate.

yeah i also thought that wasn't exactly a perfect example however the thought still counts, just replace it with something actually objective

example of what, exactly?

example of something objective

yellow is objective

is what we call radiation with a wavelength of 570–590 nm

its a priori knowledge and objective

sgt peppers is objectively better than with the beatles. doesn't mean you can't still enjoy with the beatles

yeah but someone (theoretically) with a wider visible spectrum (you know, able to see ultravoilet n shiet) wouldn't see that wavelength of 570-590 nm the same as, say, i or you would, and therefore would elicit a different emotional reaction.

literally prove it faggot

>How can you know of something you haven't experienced?
lmao god fuck this thread is full of literal plebs

not to be that filosofee guy but jesus christ read a few books before you waffle about your half educated brainless idea of reality

this being an excellent example

historic significance. look i don't care if you subjectively prefer with the beatles but objectively sgt. peppers is a greater artistic achievement

historic significance is subjective, differing on from what perspective you look at it, which is also subjective.

> wouldn't see that wavelength of 570-590 nm the same as, say, i or you would
no, and neither do you and i see it the same way. however, that doesn't magically change the objective reality of what we call yellow i.e EM radiation of a certain wavelength; yellow is still yellow. its analytical a priori knowledge like "all bachelors are unmarried" or, (this one is more arguable) "1+1=2".

i know this may come as a shock to you but we can have objective knowledge of reality even though we experience it subjectively. its called reason. the greeks were good at it.

>and therefore would elicit a different emotional reaction.
did you read my post

with the beatles has covers, sgt peppers is all original material

Yes, try reading mine again, or, if that doesn't work: read Plato, Hume and then Kant.

I can't see how the fact it may elicit different emotional reactions attacks my point whatsoever. I already conceded that people experience reality subjectively.

i mean, yeah, i guess you win, but i hope you understand what i was trying to say

so lemme get this straight.

how exactly did the word "yellow" come about? did we discover the letters "Y-E-L-L-O-W" embedded in a loght ray?

did God himself come down and tell us about "yellow"?

the answer is no, the wors "YELLOW" is a word in the english language, and the english language is a verbal and textual system created by humans to communicate with each other.

just because we have decided to use our self-invented language to call these light rays "yellow" does not mean the word "yellow" holds any objective meaning.

I'm not sure what you don't understand here.

not to be pedantic, but you don't have any direct evidence for that. You can infer from past examples of chairs surviving people's deaths that the chair with survive your death; you have evidence that the universe survives other people's deaths, so it seems likely that it will survive your own. However, all that empirical evidence, and the validity of the inference itself, is based on your own subjective experience of it.

Yes, but what you are saying is not an argument against there existing objective truths in the universe.

As I said before: we can discover objective truths about reality whilst experiencing it subjectively.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms

>art isn't subjective, taste is
What does this even mean? Isn't this just rewording the question to "isn't taste too subjective to discuss"?

Wow go back to /r/eddit with your 115 iq superiority complex.

you don't get it. there's no objective way of measuring how good something is. if historic significance would be the only thing we need to measure, then whoops, there's also no objective way of measuring historic significance.

>how exactly did the word "yellow" come about?
language

>just because we have decided to use our self-invented language to call these light rays "yellow" does not mean the word "yellow" holds any objective meaning.
yes it does. it means EM radiation that has a wavelength of 570-590nm.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic–synthetic_distinction#Logical_positivists

>I'm not sure what you don't understand here.
No, Son, you're not sure what you yourself do not understand.

you can absolutely measure historic significance when you can hear artists talk about who or what influenced them the most. when the same artists or albums get named as an influence i think its safe to say that one holds a little more importance than the other.

>implying influence on other artists is the only thing that matters for historic significance

you're so fucking stupid, oh my god.

do you even understand the concept of subjectivity and objectivity?

whatever, nothing is good, nothing is bad! enjoy your music folks

Artistic people are not much different than ourselves other than the fact that they are passionate and make "art", influence does not mean importance or significance, in the historical sense, anyone is capable of create something new out of nothing but a single thought, a beautiful melody, whether this person becomes famous for it or no has no relevance of if what they did is good or not, only that is liked by the people that enjoyed it.

>studying art seriously

go back to starbucks

Thank you, I will

>being educated on the things you are passionate about is a bad thing

wow, this fucking board

***nothing is OBJECTIVELY good, nothing is OBJECTIVELY bad

yes, that's very true

No, the objects create the being. The room is the mind not the man.

i just can't agree with this. as someone who has spent a considerable amount of his life trying to become a better artist i can tell you first hand my work as a 10 year old is objectively worse than where im at today and the only reason that is is because i had to work my ass off to get to where im at today. not all art is created equally and you'll never convince me otherwise. i think when discussion great pieces of art it turns into apples and oranges but i think there are many examples where you can comfortably say something is inferior to something else which goes beyond personal preferences

didn't you hear?

you can't just throw around the word objectively around when it doesn't align with the definition.
your work as a 10-year-old is SUBJECTIVELY worse than where you're at today.

ok im an illustrator and i can tell you my knowledge of anatomy and perspective is OBJECTIVELY not as good as it is today. its not an issues of subjective taste

Critique > Taste

Haha he thinks music and art is subjective what a pleb

The feeling it gives you is subjective. Not the quality of the music itself you brainlet

>"Taste is subjective, music isn't!"

this is literally a middle-school tier belief

alright if it's so objective then PROVE IT, with FACTS

not an argument

Everything is subjective because there isn't a way to prove something isn't subjective without resorting to our own perceived view of what is objective, which is completely subjective because we can't prove that it is objective without resorting to our own perceived view of what is objective, which is completely subjective because we can't prove that it is objective without resorting to our own perceived view of what is objective, which is completely subjective because we can't prove that it is objective without resorting to our own perceived view of what is objective,

yellow looks like pee

solipsism is the one of the most useless, lazy philosophical viewpoints, along with nihilism.

All it's good for is to have the last word in a discussion. Whenever someone tries to find meaning in life, you just drop the nihilism card and you 'win'. "hur dur life has no meaning, everything we do is eventually swallowed by the void of time, gone forever." While it's likely that that's the way things are, it doesn't help humanity in the slightest, it's just an excuse to sit on your ass all day

>"yellow" is a man-made concept, technically yellow doesn't actually exist, it's just what we have decided to name our perception of something we can see. someone could call a yellow object blue and they wouldn't be wrong because there is no objective law of nature or reality that proves what we say is yellow is actually yellow.

Being useless or lazy doesn't make it wrong senpai

>someone could call a yellow object blue and they wouldn't be wrong because there is no objective law of nature or reality that proves what we say is yellow is actually yellow.
imagine being this much of a retarded fucking brainlet. i desperately hope this post is bait of the highest caliber

relativism is literally cancer

beauty is more objective than we think: plato.stanford.edu/entries/beauty/#ObjSub

why else would there be almost universal agreement on the beauty of certain pieces of music or of certain people? it's not a coincidence that 99% of people might find a supermodel beautiful or a mozart symphony beautiful. the other 1% are probably lying or deaf

Even if you accept this, the human brain is so complex that it's impossible to use that belief in a meaningful way. Our experiences and genetics all obviously have an effect on our reactions to things, so what good is talking about things in terms of objectivity if it still results in different things for everybody? Considering certain things to be subjective is just a simplification.

>Our experiences and genetics all obviously have an effect on our reactions to things, so what good is talking about things in terms of objectivity if it still results in different things for everybody?
but it doesn't result in different things universally. we overwhelmingly agree on certain things, even across every culture: 1+1=2, murder of innocent people is wrong, that certain music or literature is beautiful.

what's your explanation for these things if everything is as subjective as you say it is? it seems like if that were the case then there would be no agreement on ANYTHING. i think that just the fact that we agree on the fundamentals means that there is an objective truth that we just need to know more to see

I don't really find models attractive.

i...genuinely don't believe you. i see what you're saying, i prefer a cuter or more homely girl myself but they're objectively beautiful. they're pleasing to look at, it's more of an empirical fact (based on brain scans of people looking at different pictures of symmetrical and asymmetrical faces)

>we overwhelmingly agree on certain things

but nothing is agreed on 100%. if it was, then you'd be right, but no piece of art throughout all of history has been loved by literally everyone who experiences it. maybe 70% or even 80% but there are still people who won't like it or will even hate it, and that's why it's subjective.

music isn't something that has been solved. if music was objective, everyone would listen to the exact same thing, because they would know it is objectively superior to anything else. but this doesn't happen. people listen to all kinds of things and nobody can truly agree on what makes art good.

Oh, nevermind, you're right.

nothing is real, you cant prove me wrong

if Sup Forums listened to youtube "philosophers" they wouldn't listen to TMR because it's le modern art reeeeeee >le PepeJosephWatson face