Can art be judged from a technical viewpoint?

[Dr Jones]

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.
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?

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?

 

[endnuen]

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

 

[Heart of Darkness]

"Technical art" is stuff that's produced according to a technique. A technique is something that can be objectively analyzed. Therefore, it is possible to analyze art objectively from a technical standpoint (e.g., use of line, line quality, use of positive and negative space, etc.). And it is still possible to analyze pieces not considered "technical art" from a technical standpoint.

This question is silly.

 

[Dr Jones]

And it is still possible to analyze pieces not considered "technical art" from a technical standpoint.

How?

 

[fix-the-spade]

To paraphrase.

FUCK

YEAH

Technical understanding and ability affect an artwork's lifespan and relevance as much as the message and soul the artist is trying to convey.

Picasso could paint like Da Vinci by the time he was thirty, he spent the rest of his life trying to find the wonder in small things and innocence of form in his work. He would never have got to that point if he hadn't have had the technical knowledge and experience to know what statement he wanted to make.

In films, it's far more important. Knowing your framing, lighting, sound etc makes the difference between a film looking a like bland TV movie (Like say... LA Take Down) and it sucking the audience in whilst looking a million bucks (like HEAT).
Technical skill allows you to set the mood of your shots and enhance the film, without it you end up bland.

As for what is 'better' I think that's a bad phrase. It implies that the skills are somehow more relevant that what you have to say, or that what you have to say can be quantified as valid or invalid. I would compare t more to trying to speak without knowing the language, even if you know what to say, you can't communicate it until you know how.

Or (soundbyte time):

Technical skill is necessary because it allows you to produce work that is good.

 

[Dr Jones]

To paraphrase.

FUCK

YEAH

Technical understanding and ability an artwork's lifespan and relevance as much as the message and soul the artist is trying to convey.

Picasso could paint like Da Vinci by the time he was thirty, he spent the rest of his life trying to find the wonder in small things and innocence of form in his work. He would never have got to that point if he hadn't have had the technical knowledge and experience to know what statement he wanted to make.

In films, it's far more important. Knowing your framing, lighting, sound etc makes the difference between a film looking a like bland TV movie (Like say... LA Take Down) and it sucking the audience it whilst looking amillion bucks (like HEAT).
Technical skill allows you to set the mood of your shots and enhance the film, without it you end up bland.

As for what is 'better' I think that's a bad phrase. It implies that the skills are somehow more relevant that what you have to say, or that what you have to say can be quantified as valid or invalid. I would compare t more to trying to speak without knowing the language, even if you know what to say, you can't communicate it until you know how.

Or (soundbyte time):

Technical skill is necessary because it allows you to produce work that is good.

Well that is the technical skill of the artist you're talking aboot there, the artwork itself is a different thing.

Ps. for what is "better" that is simply how it is purely in technical terms. Eraserhead, purely "technical" might be crap, it makes for a good analysis, but the actors aren't so swell.

 

[Dr Jones]

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..

 

[Dr Jones]

Mona Lisa is "Technically" better than Picasso's paintings because it's closer to life and "Harder" to paint.

Eheueheheheheheh someone clearly dont know that Picasso had classical ability, and some of the effects he paints are not possible by amateurs. He also obviously studied life drawing, as wether cartoon or real, human bodies and faces are hard to get right, and he got their moods, their faces, their emotions.

All good artists have technique anyway, they develop technique no matter the style.

But yes art can be examined from a technical viewpoint, the techniques, the shapes, the proportions, the colours can all be examined. The more subjective bit is the meaning.
Often people make the mistake of Good Art=Looks nice, when its much more than that.

Dude, i was arguing aginst that Mona Lisa is better than anything of Picasso, but because that it's more like real life, it's "technically" better (i disagree with that). Also you're saying that they can be judged based purely on shapes and stuff, but what determines which is better?

 

[Blueruler182]

Art is subject to personal opinion, so yes it can. If that's what you like, thats what you like. Everybody has to choose what they think about any given peice based on their preferences.

 

[Dr Jones]

Art is subject to personal opinion, so yes it can. If that's what you like, thats what you like. Everybody has to choose what they think about any given peice based on their preferences.

By "Technical" i mean that purely factual a movie for example is better than another one. Based on lighting, effects actors and so forth.
So by "Technical" it means that purely factual a movie is better than another (to which i strongly disagree, and you should too since you just stated it's subjective).

 

[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.

 

[lord.jeff]

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

 

[Heart of Darkness]

And it is still possible to analyze pieces not considered "technical art" from a technical standpoint.

How?

Through the analysis of the artist's technique. Let's observe:

This is a piece of art drawn in MS Paint. Right off the bat, I can tell that this piece's line quality is poor, since all lines are of a uniform thickness. The shading here doesn't make a whole lot of sense, either - the light source doesn't feel consistent at all, and the shadows also don't follow the contours of the subject's body. While the anatomy is stylized, I can still see a big area where the artists needs to pay more attention, and this area is the hand: the index and pinky fingers are too short, and the thumb is awkwardly placed.

Next piece:

Right off the bat, the differences in line quality is immediately noticeable. The thickest lines are used for outlining, the thinnest lines are used for small details, and the lines with middling thickness are used to show defining features in the face itself, like the nostrils and eye ridges. Shading is also a little more consistent: the underside of both horns and the bottom of the chin and face are shaded, meaning that the light source is a little more consistent. Recessed areas, like the eyes and nostrils, are also shaded in, and the underside of the ridge on the dragon's cheek is also shaded. All of these shadows also follow along the contour of the subject's body in a much more natural fashion, as opposed to the straight-lined shadows in the example above. Since this is a headshot of a fictitious animal, it's harder to analyze the anatony, but nothing looks extremely out of place or disproportional.

That's how you objectively analyze pieces of art that aren't considered "technical art." Notice how I never said which piece was better, only which had the better technique (it's the dragon, if I wasn't clear).

 

[Dr Jones]

And it is still possible to analyze pieces not considered "technical art" from a technical standpoint.

How?

Through the analysis of the artist's technique. Let's observe:



This is a piece of art drawn in MS Paint. Right off the bat, I can tell that this piece's line quality is poor, since all lines are of a uniform thickness. The shading here doesn't make a whole lot of sense, either - the light source doesn't feel consistent at all, and the shadows also don't follow the contours of the subject's body. While the anatomy is stylized, I can still see a big area where the artists needs to pay more attention, and this area is the hand: the index and pinky fingers are too short, and the thumb is awkwardly placed.

Next piece:


Right off the bat, the differences in line quality is immediately noticeable. The thickest lines are used for outlining, the thinnest lines are used for small details, and the lines with middling thickness are used to show defining features in the face itself, like the nostrils and eye ridges. Shading is also a little more consistent: the underside of both horns and the bottom of the chin and face are shaded, meaning that the light source is a little more consistent. Recessed areas, like the eyes and nostrils, are also shaded in, and the underside of the ridge on the dragon's cheek is also shaded. All of these shadows also follow along the contour of the subject's body in a much more natural fashion, as opposed to the straight-lined shadows in the example above. Since this is a headshot of a fictitious animal, it's harder to analyze the anatony, but nothing looks extremely out of place or disproportional.

That's how you objectively analyze pieces of art that aren't considered "technical art." Notice how I never said which piece was better, only which had the better technique (it's the dragon, if I wasn't clear).

Now please, tell me, what exactly defines the rules for the technicalities? In a movie for instance, is a 5 min. scene technically better with 4 cuts showing more of the enviroment, or 1 long scene where the actors all have to remember their dialogue?

 

[Dr Jones]

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

But does technical tell which movies are factually better?

 

[Blueruler182]

I'm pretty sure that's not what technical means, but i get what you're going for. Once again, though, it comes down to the individuals opinion. They can say that a movie is better if they choose and for them it will be. Will everyone agree? Of course not. You asked if it can be judged in such a way. Yes it can. But like everything else in life, that judgement needs to be taken into consideration while you make your own. You may not judge it better yourself, but it can be judged as such.

 

[fix-the-spade]

Well that is the technical skill of the artist you're talking aboot there, the artwork itself is a different thing.

Not really, the artist and the work they produce are inextricably linked.

Technical theory applies to any piece of work however simple it is.
Composition, colour theory, depth, technique, use of reference (or avoidance there of) can all still be applied objectively to any piece of art. One line drawn across a sheet of blank paper still adheres to all of those criteria even if only on a very simple level. It can still be evaluated on a technical level.

Evlaluating art purely on technique is just that, judging the quality of the techniques applied. It's a very dry way of judging art but you absolutely can do it. The more advanced the application of technique, the better it is. Picasso and DaVinci are very good, a five year old is not.

In the film examples you give technical skill would have to be applied and applied well for either scene to work. Whether you like it or not is subjective but any scene that is badly filmed will still be badly filmed and opinions be damned.

 

[Dr Jones]

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?