Can art be judged from a technical viewpoint?

[Dr Jones]

No American Idol judge can tell you that a piece of art is objectively beautiful; such a thing (objective beauty) does not exist.

American idol judge? Why them exactly?

Well it doesn't have to be them. My point is, they're supposed to command some kind of "artistic authority" which somehow the average person doesn't have.

Now, they can be experts on technical performance, but they cannot be experts on what is "objectively beautiful". No one can. Objective beauty doesn't exist.

Really? The american idol judges? Why not an art critic or expert?

 

[Mikeyfell]

So i was having this discussion on wether art can be judged from a technical viewpoint, and it's still unresolved.
Basically i thought "No, art cannot be judged objectively, nor from a technical viewpoint".
And by technically i mean that for example paintings, Mona Lisa is "Technically" better than Picasso's paintings because it's closer to life and "Harder" to paint.


And what's the definition of "Technical" in art. Basically what is better "Technically" is also based on subjective views, basically making the "right" "Technical" subjecive itself...

Whaddayaguys think?

I think art can be judged objectively.
I also think there's a difference between "Best" and "Favorite"
For EG The Hurt Locker is one of the best movies I've seen but I didn't like it that much.

As long as you settle on what exactly you're judging something on.

Personal preference will always cut into it but if you get enough people who understand the subject matter and how you're judging it, they can reach a pretty solid conclusion.

Another qualifier I'd like to tack on to this is that picking an objective "Best" gets easier the more complex the creation process is.
Paintings would be next to impossible: almost completely based on taste.
Books aren't as hard: separating the good from the bad is easy but picking a best is going to come down to taste eventually.
Music: it's easy to pick a best for a genera but picking the best song over all is taste.
Movies are easy: they have lots of individual aspects to judge independently and how well they mesh together.
Games are simple enough once you determine what the important aspects are: there are two categories for games "atmosphere" and "playability". The objective best would be the game that mesh the two seamlessly [sub]cough* Portal[/sub] but the problem with most gamers is that they don't think one of those two doesn't matter.

In short Best can be objective to an extent
Favorite is always subjective.

I says ok, cant change your mind there, but what about film? Is 5 cut in a scene to show the scenery better than a static 5 minute scene where the actors have to remember all their lines? making it more impressive?

Fun fact: Hamlet won Best Picture in 1949 and that movie had an 18 minute single cut in it. and at least 3 other cuts that were longer than 10 minutes. that's the most impressive movie I've ever seen.

 

[franconbean]

Mathematical perspective, invented by Bruneleschi and first used by Masacio in the early 1400's. I'd call that "technical" and the art world then loved it. So yes, i think you can judge art from a technical viewpoint.

 

[Dr Jones]

Fun fact: Hamlet won Best Picture in 1949 and that movie had an 18 minute single cut in it. and at least 3 other cuts that were longer than 10 minutes. that's the most impressive movie I've ever seen.

That says nothing, did Hamlet win purely because it had longer scenes than the other?

 

[GeneWard]

Pablo Picasso once said:
"Art is a lie that makes one realise truth."
For me at least, Picasso's own Guernica hammers home the horrors of war and death more than a photograph ever could. But at the same time art need not be cryptic and subtle; rather the achievement of it's purpose is more important. Whether it is made to be an accurate emulation of the beauty of nature or a metaphorical statement on the human condition, art need not be realistic nor detailed to be art in itself.

 

[zehydra]

No American Idol judge can tell you that a piece of art is objectively beautiful; such a thing (objective beauty) does not exist.

American idol judge? Why them exactly?

Well it doesn't have to be them. My point is, they're supposed to command some kind of "artistic authority" which somehow the average person doesn't have.

Now, they can be experts on technical performance, but they cannot be experts on what is "objectively beautiful". No one can. Objective beauty doesn't exist.

Really? The american idol judges? Why not an art critic or expert?

it was the first thing that came to mind. The same applies to art critics and experts.

I was using American Idol judges for my example because they are SUPPOSED to be art critics and experts.

 

[Heart of Darkness]

You misunderstood my examples. The two scenes are the same. But would you prefer one long shot or several cuts from different angles? The angles show more enviroment, but the long shot may make you appreciate the actors more.

You need to be clearer about that up front.

Anyway. Part of me wants to say that "it depends what's going on in the scene," but then I wouldn't be arguing from a technical viewpoint. If dialogue is going on in the scene, then focusing on the actors is the better technique, as only a small part of communication is words and inflection alone; not filming the actor's body language is going to make you lose a lot of the meanings behind the words. If it's shot in one take, though, or if the camera is more or less stationary, it's still bad technique (see the theater comment in my previous post).

 

[lord.jeff]

I think you can judge them separately, technical and artistic.

But does technical tell which movies are factually better?

No, not completely, it could be argued that one is more important, and I myself will say technical is, but both are needed.

Really? Technical? Well for me it's Edward Scissorhands over Avatar any day.

First note I'm a movie major, with focus on lighting and effects, technical issues really stick out for me.
Edward Scissorhands was technically well done and Avatar was well done in the effects department but it's writing had little technical skill to it, I consider art to be the idea and anything used to present that idea would be skill.

Touche about that. But i'll take it further. I'd take Eraserhead over Avatar any day. (and Eraserhead is not a very technically good film).

Didn't mean to come off as touche, and I've never seen Eraserhead.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Everything can be judged from a technical viewpoint, but the data you collect might just be useless garbage.
So the real question is, be there any point to such an undertaking? With art I can't see it

What do you mean by useless garbage?

Data of no value and/or use, you can analyze let's say a painting in all sorts of scientific ways (colors, color transitions, picture accuracy, saturation, complexity, lightness, sections, borders, ratios, ...)
But what will all that data tell you about the painting ... nothing that will come close to the purpose of conveying the artists emotion that's for sure.

 

[Dr Jones]

Pablo Picasso once said:
"Art is a lie that makes one realise truth."
For me at least, Picasso's own Guernica hammers home the horrors of war and death more than a photograph ever could. But at the same time art need not be cryptic and subtle; rather the achievement of it's purpose is more important. Whether it is made to be an accurate emulation of the beauty of nature or a metaphorical statement on the human condition, art need not be realistic nor detailed to be art in itself.

Well that's art, now we're talking about whether art can be judged based purely on it's technical merits.

 

[Dr Jones]

Everything can be judged from a technical viewpoint, but the data you collect might just be useless garbage.
So the real question is, be there any point to such an undertaking? With art I can't see it

What do you mean by useless garbage?

Data of no value and/or use, you can analyze let's say a painting in all sorts of scientific ways (colors, color transitions, picture accuracy, saturation, complexity, lightness, sections, borders, ratios, ...)
But what will all that data tell you about the painting ... nothing that will come close to the purpose of conveying the artists emotion that's for sure.

But it'll tell you alot about the technicalities of the painting, won't it?

 

[Dr Jones]

You misunderstood my examples. The two scenes are the same. But would you prefer one long shot or several cuts from different angles? The angles show more enviroment, but the long shot may make you appreciate the actors more.

You need to be clearer about that up front.

Anyway. Part of me wants to say that "it depends what's going on in the scene," but then I wouldn't be arguing from a technical viewpoint. If dialogue is going on in the scene, then focusing on the actors is the better technique, as only a small part of communication is words and inflection alone; not filming the actor's body language is going to make you lose a lot of the meanings behind the words. If it's shot in one take, though, or if the camera is more or less stationary, it's still bad technique (see the theater comment in my previous post).

But doesen't it make it more impressive? The actors have to do the extra work for that one long scene.

 

[Dr Jones]

I think you can judge them separately, technical and artistic.

But does technical tell which movies are factually better?

No, not completely, it could be argued that one is more important, and I myself will say technical is, but both are needed.

Really? Technical? Well for me it's Edward Scissorhands over Avatar any day.

First note I'm a movie major, with focus on lighting and effects, technical issues really stick out for me.
Edward Scissorhands was technically well done and Avatar was well done in the effects department but it's writing had little technical skill to it, I consider art to be the idea and anything used to present that idea would be skill.

Touche about that. But i'll take it further. I'd take Eraserhead over Avatar any day. (and Eraserhead is not a very technically good film).

Didn't mean to come off as touche, and I've never seen Eraserhead.

What do you mean "Didn't mean to come off as touche"?

 

[ImperialSunlight]

I like to eliminate all arguments about art by suggesting that art simply cannot be judged. Although, your examples are based on peices of art that are in different genres to each other and therefore cannot be compared to each other (no one wants a piccaso to be realistic as it is modern).

 

[Heart of Darkness]

You misunderstood my examples. The two scenes are the same. But would you prefer one long shot or several cuts from different angles? The angles show more enviroment, but the long shot may make you appreciate the actors more.

You need to be clearer about that up front.

Anyway. Part of me wants to say that "it depends what's going on in the scene," but then I wouldn't be arguing from a technical viewpoint. If dialogue is going on in the scene, then focusing on the actors is the better technique, as only a small part of communication is words and inflection alone; not filming the actor's body language is going to make you lose a lot of the meanings behind the words. If it's shot in one take, though, or if the camera is more or less stationary, it's still bad technique (see the theater comment in my previous post).

But doesen't it make it more impressive? The actors have to do the extra work for that one long scene.

No, it makes it theater. If I wanted to watch a play, I would go watch a play, not watch a film that wants to be a play.

 

[Dr Jones]

You misunderstood my examples. The two scenes are the same. But would you prefer one long shot or several cuts from different angles? The angles show more enviroment, but the long shot may make you appreciate the actors more.

You need to be clearer about that up front.

Anyway. Part of me wants to say that "it depends what's going on in the scene," but then I wouldn't be arguing from a technical viewpoint. If dialogue is going on in the scene, then focusing on the actors is the better technique, as only a small part of communication is words and inflection alone; not filming the actor's body language is going to make you lose a lot of the meanings behind the words. If it's shot in one take, though, or if the camera is more or less stationary, it's still bad technique (see the theater comment in my previous post).

But doesen't it make it more impressive? The actors have to do the extra work for that one long scene.

No, it makes it theater. If I wanted to watch a play, I would go watch a play, not watch a film that wants to be a play.

Well my friend, isn't that an opinion of yours? Isn't that why at many points technical merit cannot be judged?

 

[GeneWard]

Pablo Picasso once said:
"Art is a lie that makes one realise truth."
For me at least, Picasso's own Guernica hammers home the horrors of war and death more than a photograph ever could. But at the same time art need not be cryptic and subtle; rather the achievement of it's purpose is more important. Whether it is made to be an accurate emulation of the beauty of nature or a metaphorical statement on the human condition, art need not be realistic nor detailed to be art in itself.

Well that's art, now we're talking about whether art can be judged based purely on it's technical merits.

Lol, then the short answer in my opinion is "no, so long as it gets the job done."

 

[lord.jeff]

I think you can judge them separately, technical and artistic.

But does technical tell which movies are factually better?

No, not completely, it could be argued that one is more important, and I myself will say technical is, but both are needed.

Really? Technical? Well for me it's Edward Scissorhands over Avatar any day.

First note I'm a movie major, with focus on lighting and effects, technical issues really stick out for me.
Edward Scissorhands was technically well done and Avatar was well done in the effects department but it's writing had little technical skill to it, I consider art to be the idea and anything used to present that idea would be skill.

Touche about that. But i'll take it further. I'd take Eraserhead over Avatar any day. (and Eraserhead is not a very technically good film).

Didn't mean to come off as touche, and I've never seen Eraserhead.

What do you mean "Didn't mean to come off as touche"?

You said "Touche about that" you accused me of being touche and I was saying I didn't mean come off that way, I was more stating that my opinion may differ from most.

 

[plugav]

Skill is an important aspect of making art, but if you could judge art objectively, all the artist would be replaced by craftsmen making meaningless, generic displays of skill.

 

[Dr Jones]

Pablo Picasso once said:
"Art is a lie that makes one realise truth."
For me at least, Picasso's own Guernica hammers home the horrors of war and death more than a photograph ever could. But at the same time art need not be cryptic and subtle; rather the achievement of it's purpose is more important. Whether it is made to be an accurate emulation of the beauty of nature or a metaphorical statement on the human condition, art need not be realistic nor detailed to be art in itself.

Well that's art, now we're talking about whether art can be judged based purely on it's technical merits.

Lol, then the short answer in my opinion is "no, so long as it gets the job done."

What if it's a movie about a guy sitting in a chair talking about 1986, but has a lot of underlying themes and cryptic shit, or Avatar which has little to no meaning but to satisfy your need of shit blowin up and 3d, which is technically better?