Can art be judged 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?

I haven't seen all the 49 nominations but I don't think so.
The acting was stellar,
The scene setting and art direction were beautiful,

Having long cuts didn't automatically push it over the top. I was amazed that the actors have that kind of stamina. Old Boy is another example there's an epic fight scene that's done in one cut.
If you watch movies with at technical eye (Looking passed what you see on screen) you notice that sort of thing.
Long cuts are more of a testament to either the actor's skill or the director's patience.

Like I said movie quality is based on how well elements mesh. I've seen long cuts that didn't add anything to a movie. they're still impressive.

I agree somewhat, not always are long cuts good, especially in one long static shot. But for example whenever Tarantino does a long cut it's awesome. Like in Kill Bill 1 where she enters the dressing room, does something (cant remember) leaves and proceedes. Doesen't sound thrilling but when you noticed that it was one shot, it's kinda cool.

Sort of like the scene from The West Wing where they're walking down the hallway and talking.
It wouldn't have the same effect if it was multiple cuts.

So cuts are just an artistic choice like music or lighting they can be one well or poorly.

Unfortunately artistic choice is out of the picture for technicality.

 

[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.

That's nice; although I personally can't stand (and some people seem to believe this to be the purpose) how the only response to a Picasso is "How do I make sense of this?" These idiots don't realize the obvious: the whole point is that you CAN'T make sense of such weird faces!

In other words, Picasso's legacy is a less extreme variant of abstract art, which is a borderline insult coming from me because a lot of abstract art is devoid of any organization, putting it within the skill-range of any animal. And even now that I hear he had plenty of skill, I strongly believe that whatever talent he did have is strongly misunderstood by many people.

In response to the opening post, Data from Star Trek: The Next Generation seems to think so if the opening to that episode with Ryker on trial is any indication. And I at least partially agree, as you can see in my above paragraph. I believe that the overall quality depends on factors both subjective and factual. And since art is an umbrella term referring to any form of expression, I'd like to point to Michael Bay, Adam Sandler, Call of Duty, Dead Space, and Allen Wake as what not to do when crafting art.

I must disagree with you on Alan Wake, the story there was amazing.

 

[Dr Jones]

Except for shitting a good poop doesen't net you fame nor money (unless you start exhibiting it), and is the intent of the artpiece really accounted for in Technicalities? By Technique i'm talking more about the composition (like you said) the meaning is out of the picture (heh, get it?)

Haha, yes, if only good poop would make you money... but you get the point do you? Spending more time on something does not mean you have more technical ability.
The intent itself is not a technical thing, it's an artistic thing. But being able to convey it is. A very simple example: you want to draw an apple. It ends up looking like a pear. That's not good, and somewhere your technical abilities have failed you.

That depends on your definition of apple, and can a pear really be judged on a technical level? Or even on a subjective level? Is a pear actually an apple? Or is an apple a pear?

All this on tonight's episode of Cops.

As we talk, the pear is judging us in silence...

Are you finding some answers and arguments you like in this thread?

Answers: no, this (i believe) is a subjective matter. I have yet to find conclusive proof from either side. Arguments: Hell yes

 

[dogenzakaminion]

I think you can judge art on it's technical merits (technique, materials, etc.) but you can't compare two saying this one is better because it was harder to paint, draw, sculpt etc.

 

[EGtodd09]

almost all ratings of art you'll find are actually subjectively rated anyway i.e. "I'd give it a 8/10" it's all just opinion. Sites like IMDB are collective opinion and are probably closer to what an objective rating would be. People may give movies and games values to judge it's quality upon, but it's still just the writer's opinion and therefore a subjective value. Like in english (the school topic), there may be a marking schedule, there may be different degrees of achievement that require different aspects, but when it comes down to it, one teacher could legitimately mark your essay as "not achieved" or "F" or whatever failure is in your country and another teacher could legitimately mark it as "excellence" or "A+" or "bi-winning". That being said, most of the time the teacher's subjective value is right anyway, aka these ratings you see all over the internet are about correct most of the time, even you "you can't judge art objectively".

 

[rgrekejin]

What you're essentially asking is, "Can we use empirical evidence to answer a non-empirical question?"

So... no.

 

[Dr Jones]

almost all ratings of art you'll find are actually subjectively rated anyway i.e. "I'd give it a 8/10" it's all just opinion. Sites like IMDB are collective opinion and are probably closer to what an objective rating would be. People may give movies and games values to judge it's quality upon, but it's still just the writer's opinion and therefore a subjective value. Like in english (the school topic), there may be a marking schedule, there may be different degrees of achievement that require different aspects, but when it comes down to it, one teacher could legitimately mark your essay as "not achieved" or "F" or whatever failure is in your country and another teacher could legitimately mark it as "excellence" or "A+" or "bi-winning". That being said, most of the time the teacher's subjective value is right anyway, aka these ratings you see all over the internet are about correct most of the time, even you "you can't judge art objectively".

Well we aren't looking at the whole artpiece, just for example the lighting, writing and acting in a movie. Do you think that those technicalities can be passed off as facts like "This movie is technically better than that", because it has better actors? Or is it 100% in the eye

 

[Dr Jones]

What you're essentially asking is, "Can we use empirical evidence to answer a non-empirical question?"

So... no.

Please sir, define Empirical, my vocab is not that big

 

[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.

Doesen't touche mean "good point"?

Sorry it does, I'm more familiar with it being used as a term for being overly defensive.

When has it ever been that?

I've always heard it used negatively, generally after someone gets angry and retorts with a simple swear or get lost comment, all those times the word may have been used ironically but I came to assume that it meant touching a nerve.

 

[Plazmatic]

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?

In terms of paintings and drawings, yes, there are things you learn in art school that you can use as tools of whether or not a certain obra de arte is good or not. for example, contrast, center of intrest, and composition. This is also true of abstract art.

In terms of books this is also true, if none of your characters change in the book, it is not a good book.

In terms of poetry no, depending on if it is fitting a style or not, if it is in a style then yes.

In terms of Music, it has to have rhythm, balance, and flow. (note lyrics are not included in the equation, they are judged separately)

In terms of Movies yes, they follow similar to those of a book, and in those of paintings as well. Music in movies is put on a seperate scale, unless it is integral to the movie itself (IE sound of music).

the performing arts also follow rules on whether the actor is good or not

Dancing also follows rules, and while there is abstract dancing, it can still be judged on whether or not it is good.


Video games have to follow all points on all other art forms except those of poetry depending on the game, and certain points in static visual arts, and cetain points on the performing arts and dancing.



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.

You basically took away the technical stand point and simply put your opinion first.

 

[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.

That's nice; although I personally can't stand (and some people seem to believe this to be the purpose) how the only response to a Picasso is "How do I make sense of this?" These idiots don't realize the obvious: the whole point is that you CAN'T make sense of such weird faces!

In other words, Picasso's legacy is a less extreme variant of abstract art, which is a borderline insult coming from me because a lot of abstract art is devoid of any organization, putting it within the skill-range of any animal. And even now that I hear he had plenty of skill, I strongly believe that whatever talent he did have is strongly misunderstood by many people.

In response to the opening post, Data from Star Trek: The Next Generation seems to think so if the opening to that episode with Ryker on trial is any indication. And I at least partially agree, as you can see in my above paragraph. I believe that the overall quality depends on factors both subjective and factual. And since art is an umbrella term referring to any form of expression, I'd like to point to Michael Bay, Adam Sandler, Call of Duty, Dead Space, and Allen Wake as what not to do when crafting art.

I must disagree with you on Alan Wake, the story there was amazing.

I'm not saying anything about the story because I haven't played it; I mean the presentation had several design flaws, many of which can be read in Extra Punctuation.

Isn't it alittle rash saying something isn't art when you have not tried it? The design may be lacking, but the story is superb.

 

[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?

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.

You basically took away the technical stand point and simply put your opinion first.

Funny because my argument was not the Mona Lisa thing. The other side claimed that it would be easier for DaVinci to look at Picasso's paintings and paint them, but not the other way around, because "technically" (in quotes) it is "better", i said it isn't better, you can't compare nor judge those two.

 

[Tonimata]

I think so. After all, if you tell me a Justin Bieber song requires more technique in music than a Beethoven piece, I might just have to murder you wrong.

 

[BrassButtons]

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...

Once you define what you mean by "technical", and what your criteria are, you can absolutely make objective judgements based on those criteria (the criteria are subjective, the application of them is not).

That done, you can begin to compare pieces based on those technical criteria, and determine which are better (but only with regard to the criteria).

 

[Ace of Spades]

It's generally possible to tell how much effort someone put into a piece, and that's about as technical as you can get when judging art. I personally don't understand Picasso since the art style is surreal to the point at which I can't tell what's going on, but clearly he put a lot of effort into his paintings. But really, attempting to objectively critique art is ultimately a dead end, since creativity is almost inherently hard to quantify, because otherwise it isn't very creative.

 

[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.

That's nice; although I personally can't stand (and some people seem to believe this to be the purpose) how the only response to a Picasso is "How do I make sense of this?" These idiots don't realize the obvious: the whole point is that you CAN'T make sense of such weird faces!

In other words, Picasso's legacy is a less extreme variant of abstract art, which is a borderline insult coming from me because a lot of abstract art is devoid of any organization, putting it within the skill-range of any animal. And even now that I hear he had plenty of skill, I strongly believe that whatever talent he did have is strongly misunderstood by many people.

In response to the opening post, Data from Star Trek: The Next Generation seems to think so if the opening to that episode with Ryker on trial is any indication. And I at least partially agree, as you can see in my above paragraph. I believe that the overall quality depends on factors both subjective and factual. And since art is an umbrella term referring to any form of expression, I'd like to point to Michael Bay, Adam Sandler, Call of Duty, Dead Space, and Allen Wake as what not to do when crafting art.

I must disagree with you on Alan Wake, the story there was amazing.

I'm not saying anything about the story because I haven't played it; I mean the presentation had several design flaws, many of which can be read in Extra Punctuation.

Isn't it alittle rash saying something isn't art when you have not tried it? The design may be lacking, but the story is superb.

When did I say it wasn't art? I said it was BAD art; learn the difference!

Oh, i'm sorry, then your judging of something you have not at all tried is totally justified.

 

[Plazmatic]

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?

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.

You basically took away the technical stand point and simply put your opinion first.

Funny because my argument was not the Mona Lisa thing. The other side claimed that it would be easier for DaVinci to look at Picasso's paintings and paint them, but not the other way around, because "technically" (in quotes) it is "better", i said it isn't better, you can't compare nor judge those two.

Oh sorry, got your point turned around, Yes it is possible to judge all form of art but not in the way that the other side claimed.