IS art subjective?
- Thread starter Bugerion
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Art can be judged in two ways: by the technical skill which was required to create the art, and by the emotion that one feels when viewing/experiencing the art. The former is much less subjective than the former, and the former is the most popular way to judge visual art, whereas the latter is most preferred way to judge Music, IMO.
Yes and no. There?s always room for people having different tastes but while learning to draw you cover the general rules and guides that are there to help you along. Hell, I don?t tell people who want to get good at it to go, draw from life, learn anatomy, colour theory, perspective and all that other palaver for some strange sadistic kick. Rules are there to be broken and twisted but you damn well need to know them first.
It?s by no means an exact science but it isn?t like there isn?t anything to learn and we are all just winging it.
It?s by no means an exact science but it isn?t like there isn?t anything to learn and we are all just winging it.
Art is pretty objective. Not entirely, but it is usually easy to tell what is art and what isn't. Now, GOOD art is QUITE subjective. Opinions vary wildly. However, there are extremely strong, statistically significant trends that people who talk about art being subjective tend to conveniently ignore. The only logical conclusion is that there are rational rules that generally lead to good or bad examples of art that can be generalized to the population at large.
The borderline nihilist in me told me, to tell You, dear OP that everything is subjective. Humans name things, humans give things meaning, humans define. Everything is just based on our perception, there is no universal truth or set principles.
In case of art, consider the fact that the meaning of art itself changes every few centuries. It's strictly arbitrary norm that defines it, if at given point in time enough people say that some object is art then it is widely considered as such.
In case of art, consider the fact that the meaning of art itself changes every few centuries. It's strictly arbitrary norm that defines it, if at given point in time enough people say that some object is art then it is widely considered as such.
Just to echo 'no space', everyone's focusing on what they like. How about something bad? Does everyone universally believe that Dinoshark has absolutely zero artistic or cultural merits? If everyone universally believes that, then why is it that art is subjective? If someone made it, then supposedly someone liked it. No one likes it, so therefore there is an objective quality to it.
Re: Mona Lisa: I feel like it was the only work by DaVinci that the French Academy had available to them when they were studying the Renaissance Masters right when they first were established and so because they were THE only artistic interpretation for a good 200 formative years, the Mona Lisa got dragged up with it all. It's not DaVinci's best work. But it is worth looking at.
Re: Mona Lisa: I feel like it was the only work by DaVinci that the French Academy had available to them when they were studying the Renaissance Masters right when they first were established and so because they were THE only artistic interpretation for a good 200 formative years, the Mona Lisa got dragged up with it all. It's not DaVinci's best work. But it is worth looking at.
Art being subjective is a bit tricky, but maybe this might fuel more conversation. As a shitty-self-proclaimed-not-deserving-the-title artist, I judge the value of my work by how well I succeeded in doing what I intended to do. In other words, even if personal tastes vary, an objectively good work for me is measured by how close the work comes to portraying what I want it to portray; communicating what I want it to communicate.
Which is why none of my work is objectively good.
Which is why none of my work is objectively good.
No ask yourself a question whenever you are artist or an artisan. Do you create works 'inspired' or just focus on technical perfection. If a work is just done good, as the 'artist' wanted it to be, doesn't it mean it's just predictable and obvious? Doesn't it change given work into just piece of craftsmanship that comes with practice, rather than something that actually brings out emotions? Is it really art and not artwork?SenorNemo said:
*plants the seed of confusion and self-doubt*
That's why i do not consider majority of games art - They are just as they were supposed to be, they are manufactured product with laid out, pre defined goals. The fact that something looks good doesn't make it art.
Yes. All art is subjective.
However, some art can in fairness described as original (to varying degrees), whereas some cannot. Dancing lip sync'ers whose music is composed by producers and then marketed to tween girls who've yet to develop taste should be recognized as artists - very very bad ones. Talent is discernible, even if it's displayed in a style you don't like. Just about anyone can learn to play the drums to any AC/DC song in a matter of weeks if not days, while it takes years for just about anyone to play like Neil Pert of Rush or Tim Alexander of Primus.
However, some art can in fairness described as original (to varying degrees), whereas some cannot. Dancing lip sync'ers whose music is composed by producers and then marketed to tween girls who've yet to develop taste should be recognized as artists - very very bad ones. Talent is discernible, even if it's displayed in a style you don't like. Just about anyone can learn to play the drums to any AC/DC song in a matter of weeks if not days, while it takes years for just about anyone to play like Neil Pert of Rush or Tim Alexander of Primus.
Yes. If it wasn't, people would all like the same things and would all have the same favourite paintings, books or movies. It would be impossible to dislike something that is considered good.
Sure, you can say things like "All people like the Mona Lisa" but, really, how many people just accept that as being a great work of art because they're told it's a great work of art and therefore society accepts that it is? Ask any random person on the street and they probably have an image they prefer to any of the great painters.
We're taught from what are considered the greatest works of literature in school, and yet so many people hate them. Literary experts consider, I don't know, James Joyce to be a great writer, yet on these very forums I've heard people say that what they read of him was the single worst thing they had ever read.
See? Subjective.
Sure, you can say things like "All people like the Mona Lisa" but, really, how many people just accept that as being a great work of art because they're told it's a great work of art and therefore society accepts that it is? Ask any random person on the street and they probably have an image they prefer to any of the great painters.
We're taught from what are considered the greatest works of literature in school, and yet so many people hate them. Literary experts consider, I don't know, James Joyce to be a great writer, yet on these very forums I've heard people say that what they read of him was the single worst thing they had ever read.
See? Subjective.
Art is a form of meaningful communication (I would argue that any meaningful communication is art, but I digress).
Understanding any kind of communication requires at least SOME objectivity. Without objectivity, you lose your point of reference, there is only "I", "my thoughts", and "my feelings". The outside world becomes whatever you subjectively think it is. (Not to say that the world could not be this way, but I was merely trying to answer your question, not debate the nature of reality.)
We live in an objective world and each hold subjective views upon it, through our objectivity, we can become aware that there are different subjective views; the views of others. Art is a way we reach outside our subjective shell to touch others (perhaps in the hopes that perhaps they too see as we do?)
TLDR;
So to answer your question in its simplest terms; Art is the connection BETWEEN the subjective world and the objective world. So it will always be a part of both, regardless of specific circumstance.
Understanding any kind of communication requires at least SOME objectivity. Without objectivity, you lose your point of reference, there is only "I", "my thoughts", and "my feelings". The outside world becomes whatever you subjectively think it is. (Not to say that the world could not be this way, but I was merely trying to answer your question, not debate the nature of reality.)
We live in an objective world and each hold subjective views upon it, through our objectivity, we can become aware that there are different subjective views; the views of others. Art is a way we reach outside our subjective shell to touch others (perhaps in the hopes that perhaps they too see as we do?)
TLDR;
So to answer your question in its simplest terms; Art is the connection BETWEEN the subjective world and the objective world. So it will always be a part of both, regardless of specific circumstance.
Initially art was by definition... something that was aesthetically appealing to everyone. So it was subjective to the mass mindset.
But then somebody had to say that art is about self-expression (which it is) and it doesn't have to be liked by everybody (it doesn't)
And oh boy, what a shitstorm started.
So now I define to myself, "Fine art" - something carrying universal (majority's opinion) aesthetic value and expressionist art, which translates to
"This looks like shit!"
"The artist wanted to give that very same thought to you through his work. It expresses his thoughts on X"
"Couldn't he have done it in an aesthetically pleasing way? So I would like it?"
"He doesn't have to? He's an artist."
"Cause now I'll express my thoughts on this artwork by again saying, it looks like shit and also not buying it."
But then somebody had to say that art is about self-expression (which it is) and it doesn't have to be liked by everybody (it doesn't)
And oh boy, what a shitstorm started.
So now I define to myself, "Fine art" - something carrying universal (majority's opinion) aesthetic value and expressionist art, which translates to
"This looks like shit!"
"The artist wanted to give that very same thought to you through his work. It expresses his thoughts on X"
"Couldn't he have done it in an aesthetically pleasing way? So I would like it?"
"He doesn't have to? He's an artist."
"Cause now I'll express my thoughts on this artwork by again saying, it looks like shit and also not buying it."
Actually, even those things aren't objective when you take different cultural practices into account. Different cultures and periods in history have valued different techniques and considered them more valuable than others and thought others that we use here today are completely the opposite of what a good artist should do.Zemmy said:There are things you can do objectively right with art. Such as your shading, technique, styles and use of colours. But the end result will always be subjective. Popular doesnt equal good. eg. Van Gogh or Picasso. If you find a piece moving or love the sight of it, well then thats just fine. But if you despise a piece others love, well then that's fine too. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that lark
yes, of course
thats the beauty of it, while nobody likes everything there is always something that you like. Just because it's not high art does not make it bad, if you happen to like twilight or Jersey shore thats perfectly OK.
Of course the number of people flocking to certain kinds of art implies scary things about society as a whole but thats another topic
thats the beauty of it, while nobody likes everything there is always something that you like. Just because it's not high art does not make it bad, if you happen to like twilight or Jersey shore thats perfectly OK.
Of course the number of people flocking to certain kinds of art implies scary things about society as a whole but thats another topic
Whether something is good art or not is somewhat subject to personal opinion, depending on what one finds aesthetically or ideologically appealing. As for what the actual definition of "art" is, that's something that can not, for practical reasons, be considered subjective. Not having an objective definition of art pretty much makes any kind of intelligent discussion on the topic impossible, because some moronic jackass who can't stand the thought of being wrong will ALWAYS use the "well, art is whatever you want it to be" card to cover for their idiocy, and that's a level of insanity that you just can't argue with.