IS art subjective?

[Marik Bentusi]

Everybody has developed a unique set of memories over the course of their existence. These memories shape our perception of everything we encounter on a daily basis. Thus everything we can perceive with our five senses is subjective.

Mathematics and physical laws that - according to their respective theories - are universal concepts and nothing we directly perceive. We can only perceive to what they lead, their results, and those observations are subjective again.

Well, to be more accurate our perception is pretty much objective until it actually enters our mind. Up until then all colors and pictures are merely reflected photons and different wavelength. Our brain interprets what we see is a pipe and not just reflected light. That's why you might hear the phrase "We see with our brains" from time to time (at least in German, but I'm sure a similar phrase exists in the English language).

TL;DR
Art is subjective, just as anything else that enters our senses and is interpreted by our brains. Theoretical concepts in their purest form are unaffected (tho it doesn't stop a lot of brains from actually imagining a landscape of numbers for example).

 

[The Wykydtron]

I'll just say that i think the Mona Lisa is shit

Does that answer your question?

I wouldn't call it shit, just sorta unimpressive up close. What you never see in all those pictures of it is the gorgeous wall sized painting directly across from it. Comparing the two to each other, yeah; the Mona Lisa looks like a second year college student's project.

I have a policy to use as few words as possible, i could say it is unimpressive, overrated,mediocre and all those other big mean words but just calling it shit makes a bigger impression...

Besides when i get rolling i tend to start over explaining myself ending up with increasingly roundabout statements... 'S not good so cutting things short is better for me XD

 

[Thespian]

I think art's value can really only be measured by how much of an emotional response, good or bad, is garnered by the audient or participant end of the product. And I personally get nothing from some contemporary art, as I'm sure other people do. So yes, it's really a cop-out argument but unfortunately there's no getting around that art is subjective.

 

[nothinghere]

Yes. It's quite obvious, especially on these forums. "Everybody likes X music, but I hate it."

You're not an official Escapist member until you've expressed one of those pointless opinions.

I've never done that... You telling me i've been living a lie!! What should I do? I don't see a question thread!?

A bit off topic, but whats your avatar? Its awesome

 

[gyroscopeboy]

Just remember most "art critics" are just failed artists with an arts degree. Art is subjective, unless you are talking about Da Vinci and the mathematical purity of some artworks (Golden Ratios, etc).

For example, a friend of mine submitted FOR HIS FINAL UNIVERSITY PIECE, a blank photoshop document (with the grey and white squares) and called it "Transparent Seagull". The teacher raved about it and used it as a benchmark example for the class.

 

[guntotingtomcat]

By definition, yes. Is two plus two four?

 

[BlueGlowstick]

And as is the case with subjectivity, some people have flat-out better opinions than others. If you don't believe me:

Spoiler: This should convince you.

lmao. Art is stupid unless it's music. I used to play the piano, the clarinet, and some guitar & fiddle. I knew my boundaries & stopped before it took my life over. But when I took art (paints, pencils, & clay) in my sophomore year of high school, I nearly died. I was excited when I found out I failed the class. But I didn't need the class- I already had my creative arts credit for graduation.

 

[The Wykydtron]

I'll just say that i think the Mona Lisa is shit

Does that answer your question?

and PICASSO IS A HACK!!!
You suck picasso, i hate you so god damn much, you and your squiggles.

Ah i love the fact that people like Picasso, MC Escher etc are so bad at drawing it somehow goes full circle and becomes good. The fuck does that work? Double negatives only work in maths!

[sub]And English if you're being pedantic[/sub]

 

[loc978]

The definition of art [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art?show=1&t=1302997911], no. What does and does not constitute art is pretty concrete. The value of a particular piece of art is completely subjective, though.

 

[SadakoMoose]

Well yes, it is
Much like color and sound.
These are perceptions of the world afforded to us by our human senses.
The way light, color, sound, even form exist are entirely subjective to the sensory tools of the creature in question. They may not even be constant beyond that.
So yes, art is is subjective...

 

[coolkirb]

yes

 

[MindBullets]

There's probably nothing more subjective than art.

Seriously, can anyone think of something?

 

[SenorNemo]

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.

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?

*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.

Not quite. I do not refer to technical skill, and I thought I made that clear. By portray, I do not mean in a hollow, replicative way, or anything that comes with practice. I refer to portray as in portraying the intent of the artist, or as I said in the above, in communicating what the artist wants to communicate. Furthermore, your point about games is interesting, but I can see some potential fallacies. Would you elaborate?

Captcha: siondiv Besh. Sounds like a Star Wars EU character.

 

[thrillingsuspense]

Yes.

 

[Heart of Darkness]

For example, a friend of mine submitted FOR HIS FINAL UNIVERSITY PIECE, a blank photoshop document (with the grey and white squares) and called it "Transparent Seagull". The teacher raved about it and used it as a benchmark example for the class.

I knew my opinion of modern art and art degrees was already pretty low, but this is beyond hilarious. What university does your friend go to?

 

[Flamingpenguin]

I went to an art gallery all about the civil rights movement and slavery/prejudice before it. As a 17 year old white male I found it pretty hard to connect with, but let me tell ya, some people OOOOHHHH NOOOOOOO. Favorite day of the year.

Yes, art is subjective. Think about that game you want to claim as art. Now think of Roger Ebert.

It's peoples' different backgrounds that cause this subjectivity.