Yfw you realize artists' or societies' arbritraryassigned defintions for symbols, culture, art...

>yfw you realize artists' or societies' arbritraryassigned defintions for symbols, culture, art, or intention/muse doesn't make them intellectual, special, superior, inferior, or dull when compared to another and that failure to interprit the aforementioned by their arbritrary defintions can be blamed on the fact that art and culture have no objective meaning and no objective metric for which to measure meaning.

Art and, by proxy, culture can be succinctly defined as self-expression and subjective opinions, ideas, and ideals; and since it's subjective, you can't really objectively compare two forms of art or culture to one another and find one or the other degenrate, inferior, or superior. If you happen to find one culture to be better or worse you've certainly come to this conclusion due to biases or subjective opinions.

Even using talent, effort, influence, age, history, or original authorship as some kind of metric in which to measure objectivite worth will fail since these traits have also been arbritraliy assigned worth and have also fallen prey to subjective biases.

We could use MRI scans in an attempt to objectively track how grandly and efficiently an artist's work or an individual art piece evokes emotions/meanings to the brains of their audiences, but we'd still have to factor in multiple variables for individual audience members -- age, genes, biases, etc. -- that would renderthe same conclusion: art is objectively meaningless and unrankable.

Other urls found in this thread:

borgenproject.org/us-foreign-aid-to-africa-what-we-give-and-why/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese_people)
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Really made my neurons fire.

really got the blood flowing

*arbitrarily assigned

Original

;_; so Sup Forums agrees, Kanye West is of equal objective cultural value as Beethoven?

[spoiler] cucks

t. Jaden Smith

Kanye West is a stupid nigger and his music will never be able to move you like Beethoven's music can. Next.

...

Relativist fallacy, you're wrong and claiming your subjective opinion are objective fact -- they aren't.

Nice

Isn't it past your bedtime?

I thought Sup Forums was 'le intellectual' board? Or do you guys only pretend to be inbetween making up Jewish conspriacy theories and shouting cuck at one another?

Deep inside you already know Kanye's nigger music has the depth of a pond. Kill yourself you relativist nihilist trash. You're what is killing the West.

OP is the kind of fedora tipper that thinks no cultures are better than others.

Yeah sure, 'deep inside' I know I have personal biases that might influence my subjective opinion in that direction, but I'm also smart enough to realize that subjective opinions are not a metric for which to measure objective beauty, cultural worth, etc.
>depth
You've arbitrarily assigned worth to the concept 'depth', not an argument against objective cultural worth.

you tell me, cuck

Objectively, all cultures are of equal worth. Stop letting biases interfere with logical truth.

>Greece's history is as interesting as sub-Saharan Africa's history
Probably why I spent so much time learning about it in high school.

Here is your sah gey you fag

>interesting
Not an objective argument against cultural worth. You, sir user, have let your subjective biases decide that interesting = cultural worth -- it does not.

>trying to be all smart on a stupid topic like this
Also I didn't read you're shit lmao faggot. You probably don't even like Beethoven. Go back to your anthropology class, you low t numale weasel.

The value in art comes from its ability to expand our minds. It is a medium to communicate ideas. A strictly human activity/experience.

Art that does this better is objectively better art. I agree that there is subjective bias that might make it difficult for us to know what is superior art though.

>hurr hurr excessive gothic symbolism = cultural value anywhere outside of my subjective, biased metrics

"No."

You've arbitrarily assigned worth to "the ability to expand our minds" which is a purely subjective, relative metric. Logical verdict? Not an argument?

>does this better
It may do that for you but not for others, so that's a subjective opinion you've got yourself there.

Yeah, a culture where niggers genocide each other is the same than the western civilization that invented most technology, right?

According to OP's logic, My Immortal and brony fanfiction is on par with the works of Dostoevsky. This is why I don't care how much of an "intellectual" you are, if you are making this argument, you need a lead enema.

What makes building you building with special symbols to ward of the ghosts/some other, superstitious gothic myth any better than any other building?
If that buildings Victorian or Gothic revivalist, what makes traditional buildings buildings adorned status symbols, objectively assigned defintions by an architect, better than a normal building? What makes it better than even a mudhut?

>technology = good

Subjective opinion and many would disagree with you. Not saying it's right, but still.

>and since it's subjective, you can't really objectively compare two forms of art or culture to one another and find one or the other degenrate, inferior, or superior.


Uhhh, yes you can.
Paints the Mona Lisa vs. Smears human shit on a copy of the Mona Lisa.

Both of these people were considered "artists"... you get what I'm saying. We, as people, have a visceral idea of right and wrong beautiful and ugly. Only when you intellectualize any subjective aspect do lines become muddled and one can take titles that are completely undeserved. In conclusion, the dumbass that called himself an artist WILL NOT be remembered in history like, Leonardo da Vinci. Just like Kanye will not be regarded in the same manner as Chopin as the future.

Uno *building

Fuck this shitty suggestion type.

If you can't even disagree with a basic post highlighting, frankfurt school created, post-modernist critical theory what makes you think you can even call yourself red-pilled?

If you're arguing that worth in general is subjective, I guess you're right to a certain extent. But using that line of thinking, one could say that $100 isn't worth more than $1. I suppose you could make that argument, but I know you wouldn't believe it.

>remembered in history
>regarded in the same manner

Not an argument and not objective worth, Sup Forums. These things have been assigned subjective cultural value by our society, randomly and without much thought put into why, but they can not be assigned objective cultural value.

Barring mass-hysteria/cultural memes/memes/subjective value, $1 is objectively the same as $100. Since this is the popular mind-set amongst intellectuals, and since you're all too brain-dead to argue against it, kiss your dreams of everyone adopting the same reactionary memes you have.

>Subjective opinion and many would disagree with you. Not saying it's right, but still.
I know many would disagree. That doesn't make it wrong though. Many people say technology is not equal to something good, but then they never leave to live in a shitty huts like a tribesmen of african cultures, when asked to stop using their phone they refuse, to stop taking their medicines of course they wont, etc. Its objectively a better world with technology.

>you're all too brain-dead to argue against it,
Funny, you missed my argument.

Sure, there is a certain sense in which nothing has objective value, primarily reflected in an intellectual discussion. However, it's pretty clear that there is such a thing as objective value in a practical, real world sense because given the choice of $1 or $100, everybody's taken the $100, including you.

Except when you can. And do. And people always will. So stfu kanye

>That doesn't make it wrong though

Yeah, but that doesn't make it wrong either and that's why it's a subjective opinion.

>it's objectively a better world
No, it's subjectively a better world because you've been brainwashed into thinking that.

I'm playing devil's advocate here and you're all making me feel hopeless. Believe it or not, there have been valid cases against the Frankfurt school's notion of critical theory and post-modernism -- but none of you are smart enough to think of these things. That's why your culture is on borrowed time, m8.

*right

>subjective cultural value by our society

>assigned objective cultural value

When you realize they are one in the same you might understand my argument. Subjective art is what defines an objective culture. When I refer Gladiators, do I have to tell you the time and place they were from? We see that as a large part of ancient Rome, because it was a large part of ancient Roman culture...

Subjective biases are not infinite.

You're conflating subjective, societal wide values with objective values. This isn't an argument.

Couldn't one use work and intricacy as a metric? Those are an objective amount.

Yes, but how does Roman culture having existed make it better than Sub-saharan culture which also existed? You can not objectively rank cultures against one another and find one or the other superior or inferior.

Entertainment is more or less a meaningless stimulant.

Culture as a whole is much more. You can tell which languages are more advanced than others, you can tell which societies are more advanced than others technologically and genetically.

The significance of art doesn't come from art itself, it's always tied to something more meaningful.

For example, you have paintings depicting human achievement, but without that achievement, what would the painting be? It would have no meaning or significance.

>none of you are smart enough
Isn't that assuming a lot on your part? You don't know every single American. For all you know someone just invented a revolutionary tech.

Because of what they have contributed... plain and simple.

But they actually are. Because your speaking with logic and reason. Derived from the critical thinking skills you have. So your basically in the 1% with critical thinking skills. Whatever the masses are led to believe becomes true even if it's not.

There are an objective amount that can be measured, sure, but you've assigned value to this objective amount subjectively. There is no objective value in how intricate something is.

Also, why do you Sup Forumstards have such a fascination with Gothic architecture? If you knew of it's backwards history, you'd probably subjectively think it was retarded.

You've subjectively assigned worth to authorship, A, and contributions/influence, B.

In our post-modernist reality, authorship can not exist and, even if it did, it can't used as a metric to measure objective value.

Huh?
Dude, even contemporary planet-wide subjectivly assigned cultural worth can not be considered OBJECTIVE worth, lowest common denominator aside.

You can measure how intricate images on a computer are. The smaller the resolution, the less detail.

The more blocks you use to build something, the more individual parts and details it objectively has. For this reason the Mona Lisa is more intricate than a stickman.

There are other factors as well, because humans respond to a recognizable human face on a painting. A machine can not do that.

>Kanye West is of equal objective cultural value as Beethoven?
Underage b8 do not reply

Well if you put it that way everything we do is subjective and no worth discussing. Theres no point in arguing with someone who will say everything is subjective.


>I'm playing devil's advocate here and you're all making me feel hopeless. Believe it or not, there have been valid cases against the Frankfurt school's notion of critical theory and post-modernism -- but none of you are smart enough to think of these things. That's why your culture is on borrowed time, m8.
Also for what you say, you are expecting some kind of answer/argument that you read somewhere. Sorry mate but that probably won't happen here unless you come across someone immersed in philosophy, you can provide it and we can learn from it but don't expect every human being will know some bizarre philosophical theory.

The system of progression is a system of trial and error, this has been proven to be true in ever facet of science. If you look at history and the contemporary you'll see my point is proven, objectively.

My post doesn't just argue against finding objective artistic worth in anything. My post also argues the same thing about where culture and art get their inspiration from, hence the use of the word muse. Historical advancement has been assigned subjective cultural worth by this boards userbase.

F

Dunno why the rest of Sup Forums does, but I like it because of its dark yet kind of... Regal appearance?
Anyway, I guess that makes sense. However, doesn't that make all art objectively meaningless if meaning can't really be quantified

Wait, couldn't you assign objective worth by technological advancement? Not as to whether or not technology is better, only that it has changed.

Intricity is not a case for objective cultural worth.
Again, even going the route of machine based imaging technologies will yield the same thing. People have biases that stem from societal wide, subconcious cultural biases. They're effect by genes, mood at time of testing, etc. Besides, majority rule != objective value.

It's true though.

Hol-up..h-hold up! S-so you be saying... Dat, the Jews can't trick the goyim in to believing anything or buy into any perspective? Wow. Imagine if they could. We would prolly have a Muslim as president and trannys in children's restrooms. Oh..wait a sec?

Okay, whatever, but that point still stands: you can not rank cultures above each other.

Barring biased metrics, Kanye's compositions =to Beethoven's

Also,
Stone arichtecture vs. mudhut

What do you live in? Why does every society able to CHOOSE to build their homes/buildings like this? The human condition assigning objective value (repetitively though out history) to a certain aspect of a past culture.

I just posted a random image, you numale cuck. I saved it because it was cool. Here is something more abstract and intellectual. It was inspired by Jackson Pollock.

Yes, but you can't rank new technology above the technology of the neolithic. They are both of equal worth.

It objectively has subjective meaning. It does have meaning to it's audience.

Kanye has special sneakers with speakers in them and ever step he takes they say "here comes a special boy!"

You're wrong.

The end. Argument over.

If you post below this line you are a faggot
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FOR YOU.

Edit: *No, you can't give the amount of new technology worth and you can't rank new technology above the technology of the neolithic. You can acknowledge that new techonology has been introduced, but you can not objectively assign authorship or assign worth to authorship.

The amish? Nigger, there are still stone-age African and Amazonian tribes that kill people for trying to introduce modernity to them, ex: the
sentinelese.

There is nothing objective about a popular, contemporary way of doing things -- also, stop making sweeping generalizations and using subjective metrics. That's not an argument.

>the sentinelese/the amish

Why don't you go live with them then, you have no business on the internet or communication devices. You use fringes and one offs to validate a factual observation just because it doesn't fit your egalitarian narrative. I'm not arguing with you anymore.

>my subjective, biased reasons for not living like the Sentinelese and the Amish is indicative of objective truth

I'm just a lowly 4chins browser, m9.

>"all humans build prefer technology over everything else"
>>*presents evidence that this is not the case*
>"T-those are just fringes."

No True Scotsman fallacy, not an argument.

You're argument is self representative, culture v. value etc. and stands to represent a theory for discussion rather than an argument because there is no direction if autonomous evidence (which is the most reflective and general go by for representing a foundation of argument) is dismissed by fringes.

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit, intelligence is knowing that it doesn't go in a fruit punch.

I'll save you the trouble....

>But some people put tomatoes in fruit punch.
YOUR POINTS EXACTLY

No, my argument is logically sound. You, user, are the one who is mistaking ancedotals, which my 'fringes' are not, and qualitative research.
Besides, even if these fringes didn't exist, you still couldn't assign objective value to species wide subjective value.

My point is that you can't rank one above the other without using biased metrics, see , no need to be upset.

Lay off the LSD pal

You're right, Kanye is Beethoven, and niggers are kangs. Sup Forums BTFO.
Happy?

*qualitative research [...] for ancedotals

;_; So without taking biases into account, degeneracy doesn't exist? If you argue something is degenerate you're being bigoted?

>biased metrics

Look, then what are we even talking about? What's the purpose of even talking about it, take your nihilist bullshit back to college and good luck getting a job in philosophy.

I'll believe I have "biased metrics" when you're living with the Amish, until then stop speaking for them you're appropriating their culture.

By the way, to avoid self-reference, consider this experiment 1: the conclusion of the test is that no one can prove that another culture is objectively better than another.

21 Aug 2013
US Foreign Aid to Africa: What We Give and Why

us_foreign_aid

In 2012, the United States provided nearly $12 billion in official development assistance (“ODA”) to African nations.
borgenproject.org/us-foreign-aid-to-africa-what-we-give-and-why/
WE ALL DUH SAME

>If you argue something is degenerate you're being bigoted?

No you're being bigoted for suggesting degeneracy exists... in reference to your and his posts specifically, you're saying BLACK CULTURE is degenerate.

See how that works, a lot of circle with nowhere to go. It's fucking stupid and worthless.

Look, the races don't have to be the same for my point to stand. No culture is inherently superior or inferior to another. The Sentinelese are humans who reject your subjective ideals (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese_people) and me pointing that out does not make any part of my argument self-representing
(referencing is the word you're looking for.) Qualitative research does not need experiments to prove, it's objective fact. The Sentinelse do kill people for attempting to introduce them to modern tool, the majority of the Amish prefer the life to modern life, even after experiencing the modern world.

Why is this important? Think of the can of worms post-modernist theory has opened in our current cultures? It's extremely important, guy.

Yall made a good argument, shame that Kanye-fag is from Reddit.

>it's objective fact

>Qualitative Research is primarily exploratory research. It is used to gain an understanding of underlying reasons, opinions, and motivations. It provides insights into the problem or helps to develop ideas or hypotheses for potential quantitative research.

>confusing legitimate academics movements that have effected every faucet of his life as "hurr just semantics. hurr."

Baka, this is why Classical European culture is dead. How'd you even interpret my post in such a way? I asked him if degenracy exist but I never said that it does.

>suggesting degeneracy exists
is what I said. Explain to me how I'm wrong?

Is your neckbeard itchy?

>language is subjective but i spent 30 minutes writing this essay

Retard

Whatever goyim, I'll concede that point.
Back to the OP, how does me being biased, which I've admitted many times I am, disprove my point?

You can't prove one culture is inherently better than another. You will never be able to make an academic case for reactionary politics.

Hey guys, lets sit around and discuss theories and ideas that have absolutely nothing to do with our barista jobs and starbucks. I know I should get a second job to pay down those student loans... but, hey what would i use that degree for if I didn't sit around and talk about stupid inapplicable shit.

>God dude it's painful thinking I helped pay for you to get a degree.

>Whatever goyim, I'll concede that point.
HOW IN THE FUCK HAVE YOU TRICKED YOURSELF INTO THINKING LIKE THIS

The fact that you benefit from certain culture's past achievements is proof, you fucking numbskull.

Wow are you ever an engineer. Look up the Art Scam Lecture at the Art Renewal Center if you want to sound more informed on this topic. What makes art is intense commonality across even millenia and continents and one day galaxies. Your gibberish doesn't apply to art, because you are clearly not talking about art. You are clearly talking about the Hebraic poison that was made up specifically to destroy art by exactly the mechanism you describe. They are trying to end rights the same way, by calling everything a right.
Gentlemen, OP here is part of why a real humanities education -- not cultmarx claptrap -- must be a part of the Dark Enlightenment.

Characteristics of "degeneracy" can include:
-engaging in pornography, sexting and/or prostitution
-underage alcohol consumption
-advertising/promoting the use of Schedule 1 Drugs

Engaging in this particular description of "degeneracy" can have the following consequences:
-unplanned pregnancy
-transmission of STDs
-drug or alcohol addiction
-higher probability of divorce
-incarceration
-job loss

Having a bias against this description of "degeneracy" is subjective because it's one's opinion.
However, one's opinion can be rooted in objective fact, as one can argue these consequences are well researched and objectively probable.

simple, if a "work of art" cannot be told apart from a stained apron, then it is shitty art.

really makes you think

>Art is subjective because peoples perceptions of said art are subjective

Why do you even post?

Perception =! Object perceived

Where the fuck do these kanye west trolls even come from? The genius shit is a 5 year old Sup Forums meme, why the fuck are they posting this guy here in 2016? He's terrible

The fact that one culture is doing everything possible to live where another culture established itself.

and good night

Other cultures can be biased against their own culture.

Nah that's just something the jews say so they can push nigger culture and race mixing and pretend it's art.

These things are objectively bad but they denying it by saying it's subjective, which is the intellectual equivalent of "that's just your opinion".

The reality is these things aren't good, they are popular because people are told they are popular. Most the time that's as simple as it needs to be, especially with women because women are naturally attracted to popularity.

But anyone on earth can see that classical and classically inspired european art is objectively better than nigger bullshit. However this isn't popular because it isn't promoted by the money man aka 'berg', 'stein', 'baum' etc. They justify this by claiming art can be anything and what's good is subjective.

>bullshit: the post

suprise, suprise, it's an ausposter.

Art is ranked by the social status one can attain by creating it. Art is a tool of sexual selection in humanity, you fucking idiot.