Can art be judged from a technical viewpoint?

[incal11]

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.

I use the word "beauty" and "emotion" rather loosely, it is you who picture unicorns and rainbows whenever I use them, it seems. I'm not so romantic, but I do have tighter limit on what I consider art. I think only of the 7 arts (plus maybe video games ) whose purpose is to look pretty (derr) in their own ways. If you think that art is anything done with enough skill then that would solve our misunderstanding, I can agree with that. Just saying the latter isn't the first definition of art.

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.

So you fell victim of autosuggestion and community pressure. I can appreciate a caveman painting in it's context and out of it. Most modern art is bullshit powered by the names of a few eccentrics, it cannot be appreciated outside of it's restricted sociological context, whatever quality was found in it is only an illusion. Even if some of it was relevant at one time it is not now, and it's actually used in museum with public money to stiffle real change and feed the bubble of overpriced hip-crap.
That last part isn't directed against you, I would like your opinion on that issue I've been trying to bring on before, if that's possible.

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

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

You said you make plain looking stuff, and that you'd stop being an "artist" if art had to be beautiful (I must precise, with a large understanding of what you can consider beautiful). To me that made it look like you were just trying to overglorify whatever it is you're doing.

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.

That's design done good enough to be considered art, according to the non-classical meaning of the word. Our misunderstanding has been solved.

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.

I honestly find you more insulting (and arrogant) than I am. I'm really trying to have a discussion, it's not my fault if valid arguments make opinionated person who don't like to question themselves offended. If that's insulting, sorry, can't help being honest.

 

[Aurgelmir]

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?

Your definition of technical is a bit off I would say. As far as I know in painting technical refers to how an image is composed, and what sort of techniques used. For a lot of art majors this is what makes paintings extra special for them, and they can spot an amateur and professional painter quite fast.

The same can be said for film, as camera angles and lighting is a huge part of the mood of a movie. Use anything wrong in your movie and it'll end up looking odd.

So yeah you can judge art from a technical standpoint, a lot of people do.

PS: Mona Lisa vs Picasso in terms of what is "harder" to do is not a technical discussion.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Yes it can be. While judging something on its merit as a piece of art based upon technical qualities is a fools errand, one can certainly judge the techniques used in its creating separately. One could admire the technical skill of an artist even if they do not find themselves moved by their work and one can recognize technical failings in a piece of art they love. This is possible simply because something's merit as a piece of art is judged by emotional response while technical qualities can be judged formally and logically without invoking emotion.

 

[WolfEdge]

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?

I would say a large part of determining objectivity in an artistic medium is knowing the artist's intent. An artist who has shown a deep understanding in the mechanics of perspective, for example, makes for a more compelling case study if/when he or she decides to BREAK those rules, as now that decision is a conscious one, instead of one arbitrarily made simply because the artist doesn't know any better. It makes for a more effective and meaningful piece.

 

[GiantRaven]

call me old fashioned, but if you call yourself an artist and you have no hand skills you ain't shiiii'

So a composer who doesn't use an instrument is not an artist?

 

[HardkorSB]

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?

Yes, art can be judged technically. It may not cover all aspects of it but it can.
After all, a creative art piece is good but a creative art piece done with great attention to details, precision, effort etc. is better.

 

[Baneat]

It's a massive philosophical question, one of the biggest.

As a gaming forum, the best advice I can give is to go look at The Polynomial: The Game.

Bear in mind that it is a fractal generation derived mathematically from a very basic (Compared to its output) source.

Is it not beautiful? Artistic?

 

[tzimize]

Yes.

Imo it always should be as well. If a product is not among the best in its field, it does not deserve the tag "art", but should simply be reffered to as a product.

When products start to be very...advanced (its not the correct word, but I cant think of any better) its harder to judge.

A painting is pretty simple. Not simple to create necessarily, but relative simple to make. It has canvas, and paint. A movie is more "advanced". It has pictures, movement, a story, music, changes in mood, actors ETC...it is a MUCH more advanced product than a painting. As such, a movie can be entertaining without being technically awesome.

Wether it can be art without being fantastically entertaning...well that depends how you define entertainment. How many laughs you have? How many gorgeous shots? How many boobs showed? The use of color? The cleverness of the script...etc.

Movies are difficult because some movies does not aim to BE art, simply entertainment.

 

[Heart of Darkness]

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.

Actually, there is one piece of art that is quite famous that literally has no emotion in it. We call it the Mona Lisa. It's just a portrait--there's no deeper meaning, there's no controversy. It's just a woman with a dreamy, hazy background behind her. The only real things to discuss about the painting are the sfumato technique da Vinci used to paint it, his attention to detail in the painting, and how it's different from other portraits of wealthy women at the time.

 

[Griffolion]

The source of creativity is ultimately knowledge. With no knowledge, you have no well to draw from in your creative work. If training in technique can be considered a form of knowledge gain, then yes i'd say it's totally possible to judge art from a technical standpoint.

However, is it 100% viable to judge it COMPLETELY from a technical standpoint? Never, there should always be the subjective evaluation in everyone's mind as that's what art ultimately is.

 

[Reallink]

I'm going to say no. Doing so would require mathematical better/worse-ing, which isn't possible. You could argue the more life-like, but if its not aiming to be life like, that doesn't work.
Etc, etc.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

Yes of course. The quality of a sculpture or the details of a painting are technical things which are some of the things which make them pleasing to the eye.

 

[GGZeta]

OF COURSE IT CAN. Art is a discipline just like technical writing, carpentry, plumbing etc. Some people do art for the sake of recording an emotion and feeling. But the actual discipline of art has real rules. If you don't follow those rules, you make bad art. Even artwork done for the sake of symbolism has its own rules, and if those aren't followed you make something that has little to no meaning outside of your own head. From a technical standpoint, that is bad art.

Look up photorealism, the entire span of Greek artwork or just pick up any book in the drawing section of a bookstore to see that art has rules and can be judged based on them.

 

[Hive Mind]

The term art is subjective. As such, it can be judged in any form or fashion.

 

[spartan231490]

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?

sure you can judge it technically, even objectively, but that's basically irrelevant. If rap is "technically and objectively" better than rock, does that mean that every single person should like rap more? art is individual, even if one piece is ultimately better than another, it's irrelevant because art is all about what you, as an individual, enjoy.

 

[Accountfailed]

Here we go again.

YES art can be judged from a technical standpoint, and from an artistic standpoint or any standpoint you bloody well like, it doesn't matter, it's relative to what YOU, the viewer want.

If I'm on the hunt for a concept artist, and I see his folio full of impressionist works and cubism, I'm gonna throw his ass out, because I'm looking for visual clarity and good creative reasoning, not underlying messages etc..

And alternatively, If I'm looking for a curator for an exhibition or whatever, then I'm gonna get the guy who knows his fine art, and the man with the perfectly drawn lava-dragon in his folio will get tossed instead.

I don't know why I bother posting though, from 6 years of art classes I've learned that you can't change an artists opinion on art, regardless of how well you make a point, they will always ALWAYS see their opinion as the correct and superior one, why? Because they came up with it of course, and don't you know that they are secretly the genius' that will take the world to a new artistic level, as soon as the world recognizes how amazing they are?

Yeah, I mad.

 

[instantbenz]

call me old fashioned, but if you call yourself an artist and you have no hand skills you ain't shiiii'

So a composer who doesn't use an instrument is not an artist?

visual artist ... don't be so technical

 

[GiantRaven]

visual artist ... don't be so technical

Fair enough. =)

 

[Chemical Alia]

I use the word "beauty" and "emotion" rather loosely, it is you who picture unicorns and rainbows whenever I use them, it seems. I'm not so romantic, but I do have tighter limit on what I consider art. I think only of the 7 arts (plus maybe video games ) whose purpose is to look pretty (derr) in their own ways. If you think that art is anything done with enough skill then that would solve our misunderstanding, I can agree with that. Just saying the latter isn't the first definition of art.

Of the seven traditional art disciplines, I can't figure out which one you think that description applies to, they are all very similar. Commercial art/advertising, maybe in a loose sense. I hold firmly to the belief that art require skill, and that too much shit is being passed off as art and it dilutes the profession. But technical skill isn't the only skill, or even the most important one.

So you fell victim of autosuggestion and community pressure. I can appreciate a caveman painting in it's context and out of it. Most modern art is bullshit powered by the names of a few eccentrics, it cannot be appreciated outside of it's restricted sociological context, whatever quality was found in it is only an illusion. Even if some of it was relevant at one time it is not now, and it's actually used in museum with public money to stiffle real change and feed the bubble of overpriced hip-crap.
That last part isn't directed against you, I would like your opinion on that issue I've been trying to bring on before, if that's possible.

Or I just came to a conclusion on my own. Why am I automatically a "victim of groupthink mentality" just because my opinion differs from yours? Do you have some deep-seated issues with art education or something that you might be projecting onto me? Because frankly, I can understand that.

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

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

You said you make plain looking stuff, and that you'd stop being an "artist" if art had to be beautiful (I must precise, with a large understanding of what you can consider beautiful). To me that made it look like you were just trying to overglorify whatever it is you're doing.

I like simplicity and purpose. I work in games, where many artists produce overly-detailed models/designs, for the sake of showing off tech or trying to gain sales with flashy graphics. But I much prefer the impact of selective details over art styles that hit you over the head. I also prefer scenes with wear and destruction over shiny, perfect ones as a 3d artist, especially with a subtle narrative. Same with other art media.

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.

That's design done good enough to be considered art, according to the non-classical meaning of the word. Our misunderstanding has been solved.

Awesome.

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.

I honestly find you more insulting (and arrogant) than I am. I'm really trying to have a discussion, it's not my fault if valid arguments make opinionated person who don't like to question themselves offended. If that's insulting, sorry, can't help being honest.[/quote]

Pulling out assumptions about my artwork or what I do doesn't add anything to the discussion, and there's nothing honest about that. I doubt you even saw my work before claiming that. An argument quickly becomes frustrating when the basis of your claims is rooted in your personal opinions. And people who pick on Picasso are, from what I've seen (not singling you out), the ones who make uneducated and childish arguments about modern art, especially when there are so many more artists who push the boundary of what is art wayyyy farther than he did. He at least demonstrated he knew the rules before he broke them. I'm not even a Picasso fan, and I conceded this long ago.