Can art be judged from a technical viewpoint?

[Bobbity]

Well, from a technical viewpoint, all modern art is a load of shit. From my subjective viewpoint, most modern art is shit, but there are some genuine gems hidden away within it.'

OT: No. Art is an emotional and creative, more so than many others. To judge it from a purely technical standpoint is both wrong and misleading.

 

[lolelemental]

...not really connecting with the energy expressed in it...

I understand your point very well, I'm a terrible player and I rely very heavily on creating energy when I perform my music, but there comes a point where technical abilities are needed, you cant expect to play a song or draw a dog if you don't have the technical skills to make it mostly but not perfectly resemble the thing you are trying to imitate.

On a personal matter, I'm not a huge fan of technician musos, I think they are wankers who leave nothing up to chance and take every opportunity to wank their massive skill egos in every ones faces. I guess the same could be said about visual medium artists who have hyper-realistic drawings and artwork that is detailed beyond necessary. Or maybe I'm jelly I cant play a decent guitar solo, I dunno.

 

[badgersprite]

To an extent, sure, but the thing is, someone is going to think that thing you're doing "technically wrong" is better than "the right way of doing it". Even the technical aspects of art are subjective. For example, styles of writing. We currently think that overly flowery ways of writing look like shit, but in a different era, that kind of embellished language was considered good in writing. Just like medieval English art looks completely ridiculous to us now, that was considered the correct way to paint at the time.

But, yeah, you can analyse art from a technical standpoint, which may bring you to a certain judgement about it. But doing that and showing that a work of music isn't sophisticated doesn't mean the hundred million people who bought that song are wrong, because that technical analysis doesn't mean anything to anybody except a bunch of elite art critics who decide what's good, and it has been shown that art critics can be fooled into praising the technical merit of a fingerpainting done by a toddler when someone claimed the painting was by a famous artist.

So, yeah, technical analysis of something as subjective as art is just something I tend to view as a big old wank, just as influenced by personal preference as anything else.

 

[incal11]

It sounds like you're valuing art by aesthetics alone. There's nothing wrong with preferring beauty or one aesthetic/style over another, but to associate the purpose of art with creating beauty is naive.

My fault for trying to be simple, my understanding of aesthetics is not so narrow. Beauty can be found in action, in the moment, in the emotions, or in harmony too. But it all come down to aesthetics, especially if this is to be valued throughout history.
The original purpose of art is to please the senses (with a wide understanding of what you can find pleasing), otherwise all that you're left with to justify what you're doing is a bunch of grandiose excuses...

(...) Picasso was heavily influenced by Einstein's theory of general relativity, and his paintings reflect an exploration of spacial dimensions and ways represent dimensionality on a flat plane.

...like these.
Truth is you can tack on pseudophilosophical bs to a blank canva and make it very entertaining. There is beauty in meaning also, but made up meaning will never be more than that. Nothing wrong with being entertaining, but when everyone is forced to believe it's high art it all becomes a vile lie.

I don't think Picasso's work or cubism has any less value as an art movement than any of his contemporaries. It's picked on for its apparent simplicity, but he explored artistic concepts no differently than Brâncuşi's abstractions, Boccioni with Futurism, or Tatlin's Russian Constructivism. :\

The simplicity is more than apparent there, I mimicked picasso when I was 8 and I could have made plenty of grandiose explanations to go with it. I have absolutely no faith in -isms, I value the artists who can convey emotions without having to be explained.
There are the movements, but we are living in a curious period, for painting and sculpture at least. Technique progressed constantly through history untill "modern art" came along, and it is used to stunt real progress through real development of skill and technique in a self maintained illusion centered on the doodles and shit (the 'shit in a can', not making it up) of a bunch of asshats with overgrown egos.

If it must come to this I can accept that you find a Picasso painting more or equally pleasing than a technically superior painting on the same subject, but have the honesty to drop the dimentional einstein crap.
All that being said we still agree on the technique being necessary it seems

 

[endnuen]

Well.. you do have some technical stuff in art.. The golden ratio is one such example.

Yeah, that's a technique, just like Vertigo Zoom. But that was not the question..

Well, if there are techniques it can be judged based on the use/mastery of these.
A piece with shit techniques is worse than a piece with superb technique. If he motif/style is more or less equal.

But does that make a movie better than another movie? Purely factual, no opinions here?

It does, from a technical point of view.
If you analyse a film based purely on the technical aspects, you can make those better/worse.
Else it comes down to taste.
I, for instance, thought that "Inception" was a so-so film, but is was excellent shot and presented.

 

[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."

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?

As I say, it depends what you're "in it for." If Avatar was made to be a deep narrative piece then it failed, but if it was designed to be a mindless enjoyable action movie then it was a success. Would you not call a painting specifically designed to emulate the real world as closely as possible art? I know I would.

 

[instantbenz]

3. Just because you don't find it interesting doesn't mean it's not significant. Now you're *judging it on whether or not you like it*, and not on any of it's other merits. And you say "in context" when you don't seem to know the context, as I lined up above. That makes you shallow and boring, wouldn't you say?

Don't assume my knowledge due to my stance. I know the context.

*What!? Art is subjective!? No ... surely you jest.*

The hipster douchebags who run the art realm are even against color field. Thus, if they are the ones on the cutting edge of creating the newest art, where does that put any of our ideas? In their shallow end or do we make our opinions up from what we've experienced?

My experience is that color field is insignificant and provokes little emotion. My experience is that random Joe down the street can purchase a DSLR and call themselves a photographer without any idea about concept or design. My experience is that fake photographers, color field painters and a few thousand other craftsmen call themselves artists and have no hand skills.

I suppose this comes down to that it's my *opinion* that if you don't have hand skills, you are not really an artist. If you need thousands of dollars of equipment to say something with images, you're failing. The technology of today shouldn't be the crutch of the art vanguard.

 

[warprincenataku]

Yes, if beauty can be broken down into a mathematical ratio, then art can be judged from a technical viewpoint.

 

[Sporky111]

3. Just because you don't find it interesting doesn't mean it's not significant. Now you're *judging it on whether or not you like it*, and not on any of it's other merits. And you say "in context" when you don't seem to know the context, as I lined up above. That makes you shallow and boring, wouldn't you say?

Don't assume my knowledge due to my stance. I know the context.

*What!? Art is subjective!? No ... surely you jest.*

The hipster douchebags who run the art realm are even against color field. Thus, if they are the ones on the cutting edge of creating the newest art, where does that put any of our ideas? In their shallow end or do we make our opinions up from what we've experienced?

My experience is that color field is insignificant and provokes little emotion. My experience is that random Joe down the street can purchase a DSLR and call themselves a photographer without any idea about concept or design. My experience is that fake photographers, color field painters and a few thousand other craftsmen call themselves artists and have no hand skills.

I suppose this comes down to that it's my *opinion* that if you don't have hand skills, you are not really an artist. If you need thousands of dollars of equipment to say something with images, you're failing. The technology of today shouldn't be the crutch of the art vanguard.

I did say that I think colour field is obsololete, which you were nice enough to cut out. I don't think current artists have any business passing off colour field as art these days. Though I do maintain that it takes at least some skill to create the flawless lines with a paintbrush.

And I wasn't saying that art can't be subjective. I'm just saying that it seemed rather immature of you to belittle an entire movement just because you don't see the significance, you don't think it too much skill, and you don't see the visual appeal of it.

 

[Kair]

As an answer to the thread title: Yes, unless you wish to be pretentious. For that you can just be an art student.

Art has always been the display of skill in craft.

 

[Plazmatic]

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...

Art is beauty.
Now what is beautiful can be subjective, but there are common denominators the most obvious being the human body and it's proportions. Something whose beauty can still be apreciated ages, and I do mean ages, after its making is art in it's purest sense. That is not easily achievable and that's where technical details comes in.
In effect beauty requires technique, so the technique can be used to judge, but technique does not necessarily give beauty.
Here's something, it's long but you should watch all 4 parts:

However, your point on the Mona Lisa is completely false and wrong, The Mona Lisa is not a work that would be considered better than Picasso's works, because Picasso is not going on realismo, and instead for cubism, and it was not harder for Leanardo Da'vinnci to paint the mona lisa than it was for picasso to paint his works, you based that on your personal opinion and ignorant logic that because it looks more real it must have taken much, much longer.

Picasso did have an easier time doing what he did, and the obvious irrefutable proof is the huge number of his "masterpieces".
Whatever his formation, Picasso was a fraud. Excuses like "his color effects couldn't be made by an amateur" is ridiculous bullshit. The how and why of his success, and the success of others like him, may require a separate discussion I think.
You should also watch the video I put above.

I wasn't talking to you. Also, again you use personal opinion bolstering my point. And finally I never said Picasso WASN'T worse than Leonardo da'vinci, and I never said works of art can't be judged technically, I said the exact opposite

 

[Plazmatic]

I wasn't talking to you. Also, again you use personal opinion bolstering my point. And finally I never said Picasso WASN'T worse than Leonardo da'vinci, and I never said works of art can't be judged technically, I said the exact opposite

This is a forum, want a personal conversation? Do a private mail, jackass.
I don't see what point I "bolstered", I was saying Picasso and cubism are worthless, and I wasn't about whether art can be judged technically when I quoted you.
You did say "it was not harder for Leanardo Da'vinnci to paint the mona lisa than it was for picasso to paint his works", anyone who is even a bit into art and wasn't brainwashed by the modern art hipsters can only laugh at that.

And I wasn't saying that art can't be subjective. I'm just saying that it seemed rather immature of you to belittle an entire movement just because you don't see the significance, you don't think it too much skill, and you don't see the visual appeal of it.

Sorry for butting in but this is a debate that I'm interested in.
The problem I have with modern art is that it's entirely about significance. Sure it takes a bit of know how to do certain things, and strangeness is always entertaining.
If you consider that art is about how to convey emotions I can see how modern art work: put a toilet seat on a pedestal (like the human shit in a can, I've seen it) next to it put some preposterous yarn explaining it's significance, and the viewers will be all "ooh! I see!". Now take away the explanation and it is just a toilet seat, it doesn't matter if it's a designer model.
If it's ugly, it's ugly. No amount of explanation can change that.

dude, no need to call names here, jesus, your getting over heated about nothing man, just because you can't make a valid argument and can't stay out of other peoples conversations.

 

[Chemical Alia]

It sounds like you're valuing art by aesthetics alone. There's nothing wrong with preferring beauty or one aesthetic/style over another, but to associate the purpose of art with creating beauty is naive.

My fault for trying to be simple, my understanding of aesthetics is not so narrow. Beauty can be found in action, in the moment, in the emotions, or in harmony too. But it all come down to aesthetics, especially if this is to be valued throughout history.
The original purpose of art is to please the senses (with a wide understanding of what you can find pleasing), otherwise all that you're left with to justify what you're doing is a bunch of grandiose excuses...

(...) Picasso was heavily influenced by Einstein's theory of general relativity, and his paintings reflect an exploration of spacial dimensions and ways represent dimensionality on a flat plane.

...like these.
Truth is you can tack on pseudophilosophical bs to a blank canva and make it very entertaining. There is beauty in meaning also, but made up meaning will never be more than that. Nothing wrong with being entertaining, but when everyone is forced to believe it's high art it all becomes a vile lie.

I don't think Picasso's work or cubism has any less value as an art movement than any of his contemporaries. It's picked on for its apparent simplicity, but he explored artistic concepts no differently than Brâncuşi's abstractions, Boccioni with Futurism, or Tatlin's Russian Constructivism. :\

The simplicity is more than apparent there, I mimicked picasso when I was 8 and I could have made plenty of grandiose explanations to go with it. I have absolutely no faith in -isms, I value the artists who can convey emotions without having to be explained.
There are the movements, but we are living in a curious period, for painting and sculpture at least. Technique progressed constantly through history untill "modern art" came along, and it is used to stunt real progress through real development of skill and technique in a self maintained illusion centered on the doodles and shit (the 'shit in a can', not making it up) of a bunch of asshats with overgrown egos.

If it must come to this I can accept that you find a Picasso painting more or equally pleasing than a technically superior painting on the same subject, but have the honesty to drop the dimentional einstein crap.
All that being said we still agree on the technique being necessary it seems

Art is not necessarily about "creating emotions" any more than it is about "creating beauty." Though it hardly takes the eye of a PhD in art history to sense the emotions communicated in Guernica.

Your claim that art progressed at some steady rate until modernism began is ludicrous; even with the most basic background of the history of western art you would know that the art world was stagnating in the political and cliched world of the Paris salons, and if new ideas were never brought out, for better or for worse, we'd all still be painting rococo bullshit. At the time of the Salon de Refuses, just painting things we take for granted like everyday people and normal life was considered banal, unsophisticated, and unacceptable.

Whether we personally like the art or not is totally irrelevant to my point, but the explorations of Picasso and his contemporaries had an immense and critical impact on the freedom of expression and intellectual mindset of artists today. I don't give a shit if Picasso's art is "visually pleasing" as that clearly has nothing to do with the subject matter. And to pre-empt any accusations of me of being some "modern art hipster", allow me to clarify that my academic interest in art history is primarily Dutch/Flemish Renaissance and Baroque master painters, which is about as far from Pollock as you can get.

If art had to be beautiful, I'd quit being an artist.

 

[incal11]

dude, no need to call names here, jesus, your getting over heated about nothing man, just because you can't make a valid argument and can't stay out of other peoples conversations.

You're right that I shouldn't have got so worked up, but I did make valid arguments. This is still a forum, that makes "your" conversation public, like it or not.
You take one mild swear word as an excuse for your hypocrisy. You're not worth my time anyway.

Art is not necessarily about "creating emotions" any more than it is about "creating beauty." Though it hardly takes the eye of a PhD in art history to sense the emotions communicated in Guernica.

I simply cannot understand why you think that. If there is neither beauty nor emotion how can it be art ? Maybe There is something that pleases you in ugliness, that'd make it actually a kind of beauty for you. In which case I'd forgive the sentence I quoted at the end of this post.
Gernica does communicate emotions, but as a drawing it's still crappy and fugly, the main reason behind it's impact would be because Picasso had become a trademark.

Your claim that art progressed at some steady rate until modernism began is ludicrous;

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Art-History-1490/2009/6/History-art-progress-change.htm

even with the most basic background of the history of western art you would know that the art world was stagnating in the political and cliched world of the Paris salons, and if new ideas were never brought out, for better or for worse, we'd all still be painting rococo bullshit. At the time of the Salon de Refuses, just painting things we take for granted like everyday people and normal life was considered banal, unsophisticated, and unacceptable.

Art always evolved slowly, but I am not entirely against everything "modern art" represents. What gets to me is that most of it is overpriced garbage on whose taxpayer money is wasted by the museums, even though people have clearly expressed they enjoyed realistic and beautiful paintings more. Whenever they were exposed alongside "modern art".

Whether we personally like the art or not is totally irrelevant to my point, but the explorations of Picasso and his contemporaries had an immense and critical impact on the freedom of expression and intellectual mindset of artists today.

True, criticism is not about whether you personally like or dislike something. It's a fair point that Picasso helped bring change, which is always good. Still, things got too far somewhere...

I don't give a shit if Picasso's art is "visually pleasing" as that clearly has nothing to do with the subject matter. And to pre-empt any accusations of me of being some "modern art hipster", allow me to clarify that my academic interest in art history is primarily Dutch/Flemish Renaissance and Baroque master painters, which is about as far from Pollock as you can get.

I argued that doing something pleasing (not just visually) requires skills, the more skill you have the more powerful the emotions (with no need for convoluted explanations). That is in relation with the subject of the thread.
Can you believe there are living artists who can paint as well, if not better, than those renaissance painters ? Most people I say this to have trouble believing it, and it's telling of the terrible period we're living in.

If art had to be beautiful, I'd quit being an artist.

To say that it seems you already quit long ago.

 

[Chemical Alia]

Art is not necessarily about "creating emotions" any more than it is about "creating beauty." Though it hardly takes the eye of a PhD in art history to sense the emotions communicated in Guernica.

I simply cannot understand why you think that. If there is neither beauty nor emotion how can it be art ? Maybe There is something that pleases you in ugliness, that'd make it actually a kind of beauty for you. In which case I'd forgive the sentence I quoted at the end of this post.
Gernica does communicate emotions, but as a drawing it's still crappy and fugly, the main reason behind it's impact would be because Picasso had become a trademark.

As tempting as it is to argue what is and isn't art based on your arbitrary and sickeningly romanticized opinions (since that's about all my degree is good for, lol), but I'm going to pass on that and get back to my vacation.

Whether we personally like the art or not is totally irrelevant to my point, but the explorations of Picasso and his contemporaries had an immense and critical impact on the freedom of expression and intellectual mindset of artists today.

True, criticism is not about whether you personally like or dislike something. It's a fair point that Picasso helped bring change, which is always good. Still, things got too far somewhere...[/quote]

Agreed.

I argued that doing something pleasing (not just visually) requires skills, the more skill you have the more powerful the emotions (with no need for convoluted explanations). That is in relation with the subject of the thread.
Can you believe there are living artists who can paint as well, if not better, than those renaissance painters ? Most people I say this to have trouble believing it, and it's telling of the terrible period we're living in.

Of course I can. I work with some of them. The whole "having already invented perspective" thing certainly helps give us a slight advantage, for one thing. Though I wouldn't say the symbolism in video game concept art in any way rivals van der Weyden's Annunciation, lmao.

If art had to be beautiful, I'd quit being an artist.

To say that it seems you already quit long ago.

When I want something to be pretty, I make it pretty. When I want something to be unflattering, simple, or plain, that's how I make it. It's a choice I make based on what's best for the piece and my intentions with it. Not a big deal.

 

[incal11]

As tempting as it is to argue what is and isn't art based on your arbitrary and sickeningly romanticized opinions (since that's about all my degree is good for, lol), but I'm going to pass on that and get back to my vacation.

I would say your degree isn't good for anything then.
How is your concept of art less arbitrary ? in fact it's arbitrarily enlarged to excuse lack of talent. I can't stop you from turning your nose high up in the air to avoid facing your error. You're definitely part of the problem with modern art, you've been taught lies, nothing more to say.

Of course I can. I work with some of them. The whole "having already invented perspective" thing certainly helps give us a slight advantage, for one thing. Though I wouldn't say the symbolism in video game concept art in any way rivals van der Weyden's Annunciation, lmao.

Outside of this tiny world of yours things are different, I was trying to make you understand what it means. Though you agree modern art got too far at least, so I guess that's that.

When I want something to be pretty, I make it pretty. When I want something to be unflattering, simple, or plain, that's how I make it. It's a choice I make based on what's best for the piece and my intentions with it. Not a big deal.

Seems like you're into designing common lamps and tables, not much in the way of art.

 

[guru7892]

The problem is that people judge art on different metrics.

If its difficulty, than mixed-media and non traditional media in a realistic style is your best bet.

If it's realism, then old masters and new ones (see Antonio Lopez Garcia, he is NOT a photographer).

It can also be composition or how unique the image is or the function of the art itself or be how it moves someone or the type of feeling it give the viewer (abstract-post-impressionism is about how you feel when you look at the piece, not the piece itself).

also to judge a film based on a scene is to judge a puzzle on a single piece; utterly absurd.

 

[incal11]

The problem is that people judge art on different metrics.

You speak the truth.
ChemicalAlia, who probably won't answer now, has been arguing that there can be art with no emotion whatsoever (and he'd even quit being an artist if that wasn't the case). What do you think ?
I'm new to this topic so if there's any truth in what he said I'm curious about it.

 

[Chemical Alia]

As tempting as it is to argue what is and isn't art based on your arbitrary and sickeningly romanticized opinions (since that's about all my degree is good for, lol), but I'm going to pass on that and get back to my vacation.

I would say your degree isn't good for anything then.
How is your concept of art less arbitrary ? in fact it's arbitrarily enlarged to excuse lack of talent. I can't stop you from turning your nose high up in the air to avoid facing your error. You're definitely part of the problem with modern art, you've been taught lies, nothing more to say.

I'm pretty satisfied with where my degrees have gotten me in my career, thanks. My concept of art is broader than meeting the sole criteria of "looking pretty derr" to include well-established art movements throughout the past several hundred years, whether or not I would personally hang them on my wall. Beyond that, I'm fairly selective in what I consider good art and what I enjoy. There was a time when I would have agreed with you that art like Picasso's was nothing more than bullshit, after having seen so much of it in museums and galleries, presumably only by the grace of good connections. It took research, study and an open mind to understand that this art was created at a different time, in response to different events, and for a different audience with very different ways of thinking than what we take for granted today, and not me personally.

When I want something to be pretty, I make it pretty. When I want something to be unflattering, simple, or plain, that's how I make it. It's a choice I make based on what's best for the piece and my intentions with it. Not a big deal.

Seems like you're into designing common lamps and tables, not much in the way of art.[/quote]

I honestly have no idea whatsoever where you pulled this assumption, lmao.

ChemicalAlia, who probably won't answer now, has been arguing that there can be art with no emotion whatsoever (and he'd even quit being an artist if that wasn't the case). What do you think ?
I'm new to this topic so if there's any truth in what he said I'm curious about it.

Yes I can. Helvetica, beautiful typeface, and one of the most widely used. Completely utilitarian and stripped of emotion. In the case of fine art in particular, if a lack of emotion is intentionally (very important) expressed in a piece, I see no reason why the art is invalid. Intent and communication is integral to the success of a work of art.

And if I for some reason don't get back to you, it's not because I've grown tired of your flame baiting and borderline personal insults poorly disguised as an actual discussion of some sort. It's really just my 28k internet connection in Mexico, and the fact that I honestly have much more interesting things to do at the moment.