Is Art Subjective? And If So, Should We Return To Objective Standards

For something to be art requires demonstrable ability. A pianist that can't play scales can never be a concert pianist. But (((they))) changed what is 'accepted' as art.

We are limited by biology therefore subjectivity is limited.

>Should We Return To Objective Standards

When did art ever have objective standards? Please try and make sense.

Yes, everyone should watch this video

Also go buy Ayn Rand's Romantic Manifesto. Does a great job of critiquing modern art.

yes we should return to objective standards that anyone can look at and recognize as art. Art shouldn't make the audience think, that's not art that's literally just shilling cultural marxism to make people feel nihilistic thus deeper seep into darkness and treat other humans shitty

How is that depth in the eyes created? Are the irises just deep holes?

Art became bad when Art became easy to produce. Any 300 pound feminist can smear their period blood on a canvass and call it "Art" while living off government NEET buck.

Art became bad with the coming of capitalism and the destruction of the traditional aristocracy and the patronage system.

I wonder (((Who))) has destroyed art time and time again.. I wonder (((who))) on earth could have made art degenerate and disgusting and shitty... Couldn't be the same ethnic group every time throughout history... I mean no (((Coincidences))) here

Yes
No you can't

This guy gets it

Hope you're a first grade student because you understood nothing about art.

You're talking about a classical concept of beauty in art, but we've surpassed that long ago.

It's not that your work is not "artistic", but it dates from 2k years ago and it's not interesting anymore.

Try doing something "new" and attractive to the people.

>Try doing something "new" and attractive to the people.
>art is entirely about novelty and popular appeal

why do they destroy art

>Try doing something "new" and attractive to the people.
kill yourself as hard as you can

Envy

The problem with art in our era is that everything is either derivative or a rehash of previous works, like movies and music and literature, or else completely senseless with no real content at all, like modern "art".

It's just a sign of the era that we live in. Our golden age of explosive creative energy is gone. Everything meaningful our culture had to say has already been said, and now all we can do is mimic and make references to the past. After the collapse, when a new culture rises, they'll create new things we never even imagined were possible.

It isn't but if you want to be recognised and live from it what do you expect? Art is about appealing to the soul/mind of people, but you can't expect this by copying something that millions of art students did already.

You can still explore classical concepts but it's hard near impossible to do anything new or better because a lot of people did it before.

I'm not the kind of artist who likes some modern conceptual art so I get the feeling you have about this.

Go die by rapefugee

>surpassed that long ago
>barely even a single century
>long ago

Hello from /pol/

Mátate a ti mismo, Schlomanolo

What are you trying to argue, ignorant trash? You're just a peasant to me and my bloodline.

Kys

Poor shitposting in an attempt to make a point aside, I have never seen somebody advocating for objective standards actually outline any. Why could this be?

Define "Art".

I despise all forms of "I am an individual. Look at me!" art, yet I admit that "art" is by definition is the subjective expression of beauty. Twin brothers with the exact same DNA, social background, and education could have different standards of art. So go fuck yourself you fucking faggot for wanting the entire fucking universe to abide by your fucking art standards.

>missing the point this hard

How's life from that 20 point IQ brain like?

BEACAUSE THEY ARE EEEEEVIL RATS

post modernists on suicide squad

It's subjective has objective qualities

Does "beauty" only mean something that is pleasant to look at, and therefore more uplifting?

Can a work of art that is depressing therefore not be beautiful?

This is Veeky Forums, so i'm not sure what you're view on the holocaust is, but Son of Saul was an incredibly well directed and haunting envisioning of part of the life of one Sonderkommando, and I would regard this as a beautiful work of art. It's fucking depressing, but it's beautiful.

Here is the flaw in your logic: you said that "an art piece depicting this face would objectively be more beautiful than one that doesn't."

Look at the picture I have uploaded, and compare it to the one I have given you the link to: wonderslist.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Amber-Heard-Most-Beautiful-Woman-2016.jpg

Which is the more beautiful photograph?

You might say that both are beautiful but in different ways...

I agree there is too much disassociation with art from beauty.
>It isn't but if you want to be recognised and live from it what do you expect? Art is about appealing to the soul/mind of people, but you can't expect this by copying something that millions of art students did already.

Can you be more specific? Appealing is the soul/mind of the people is good. But are you referring to the depth of appeal or the range of appeal? I assume you mean both, but then you have to define the standards for that too.

For example, if we are talking about the range of appeal, that means Beyonce and John Green are good artists.

If we are talking about the depth of appeal, how do you articulate something like that not just for the individual, but for a group?

art:
>the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

This is a perfect definition.

In a fit of autism, you've failed to realise that it's possible to make general statements about what something [art] is.

>Does "beauty" only mean something that is pleasant to look at, and therefore more uplifting?

I don't think that's what he's saying.

>Can a work of art that is depressing therefore not be beautiful?

No.

>Here is the flaw in your logic: you said that "an art piece depicting this face would objectively be more beautiful than one that doesn't."

True.

>Which is the more beautiful photograph?

None. One is in context to a film and the other is glamour shot.

The criteria for beauty in a photograph has elements such as composition and technique.

>art can only depict beauty

This is why I hate subjective fags, they define art by what they like/dislike, i.e feelings.
Any art (skill) requires an artist to perform it, an artist who has an skill which is acquired and honed with practice.

No matter if you are a painter, singer, writer, sculptor, doctor, martial artists, you need to practice to acquire enough skill to the even be called one (artist), and art can only come from artists.

And sense skill can be objectively measured, art is thud is objective.

OP's sculpture is competent, and that fucking whore of a teacher doesn't know what the fuck is she talking about, fuck her and fuck you.

Technique can be mesured. But the value of art is not about technique; the technique, the artist uses it to work toward his goal, his vision, with aim to incite a certain feeling to the audience.
But this feeling will be different within every man, and will vary even more in different times and locations in which people have grown with a certain tradition.
So yeah, subjective.

That's not objective.

None of the faces are attractive. I'm not even attracted to women (nor men).

I'll post some art I saved

...

...

...

...

...

...

>objective
End this meme.

In any case, Pomo is shit and inherently reductionist and anti-life.

...

objectivity isn't the average of subjective judgments you dingo

...

...

Cringe thread.

People who attack Modern Art don't know anything about it seeing as Modern Art literally refers to art from 1860-1970.

Anyone discounting 110 years of art in its entirety clearly knows very little about it.

It's funny how any time I meet these brainlets who go on and on about renaissance art, they can't name 10, just 10 renaissance painters without going to Google for answers.

Embarrassing.

...

...

...

...

>the value of art is not in the technique
>posts Monet

Yeah...

There's a story about Picasso drawing in a napkin in a cafe in Italy, a woman saw the man drawing and astonished about the drawing asked if the man could sell it to her, Picasso said yes and charged her a very high price. The woman shocked replied "why is this so expensive?, It took you a few minutes to draw" which to Picasso replied "no, it took me 50 years to be able to draw this"

Art/skill/technique are one and the same, thus can be objectively measured.

...

Which is why technique is important.
Doesn't say anything about the value of art in itself.

>dude novelty > quality lmao
Being anti-beauty is blind and idiotic, I know you feel smart for reading the entire Wikipedia page on Dada but there really was qualities, subtleties, in art that have long been forgotten.

You can't get rid of Influence. All art is mimesis. The Mesoamericans and the Egyptians created similar pyrimads despite being geographically and temporally isolated from each other; so, too, pomo art becomes bland and samey by all trying to be "innovative" in the same exact way. As animals, our art is shaped by our primordial physiological needs and drives and are inseparable from them. Great art, like diamonds, are only made by the pressure of restrictions and convulsions of the heart, and not freedom from them.

...

...

...

>technique is important
>but that important thing doesn't affect the value of the art

Damn...

What do you define as "value", user?

...

As I said, the value of art is the emotional response it procures to (you)

The internationalist want those white faces will be brown as poo for some reason.

...

...

...

Why do Romanians like pink women?

Neoclassical sculpture is not Classical sculpture you fucking moron. Your reproduction isn't even of Classical sculpture either, you stinky Hellenophile.

That work would shock the Hellenistic/Roman world like a modern Aphrodite of Knidos.

Secondly, Renaissance art generally is very boring and your reproduction is shite. 40 hours? I've spent more than that on the sonnet I'm working on. Fucker, the bust in marble of my wife took several hundred hours. Abloobloo why doesn't she like my unpolished reproduction???

...

No, user, i asked you to define "value" not the value of art.

What is "value" to you?

I know what you asked.

Then why aren't you answering?

This is the foolish valuation behind every postmodernist: the lack of objective values leads him to a reactionary position of being anti-values, or merely adopting OPPOSITE artistic valuations and assuming it to be true. Why is the postmodernist so resistant to independent valuation and judgements?

Great art is formed like a diamond: after a long time and under intense pressure. Your "freedom" (the freedom of infinite Duchamp and Pollock imitators, right?) is illusory.

>blake for ants

Because it is too broad and vague.

Hum shit, must have fucked up somewhere.

Lol, I'm only asking you to define ONE WORD, and that's to broad and vague?

Shouldn't you be in places like /b/, or /mlp/?

Slow people like you shouldn't try to comment here.

>Secondly, Renaissance art generally is very boring
Good job outing yourself as a retard, hack. You will always be a poser.

Fine, school me.

omg how DARE YOU challenge this dull retinal art! muh grease!

>Great art is formed like diamonds...

I really like that phrase. I swear subjectivism is one of the biggest disseas that ever entered the Human mind.

A Postmodernist's History of Art

Stone Age - 1900: boring formalist realist garbage
1900 - now: the good shit

Nobody thinks this.

Ok, let's use the Meriam dictionary to have a common base.

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/value

For the sake of the argument I'll use the 3rd definition, since the first two are more related to money.

Value: relative worth, utility, or importance

Before proceeding do we agree on this definition?

It's a pleasant sounding but ultimately meaningless aphorism. Never in any of these threads has anybody ever actually put forward specific and quantifiable objective standards.

So you can't actually produce a definition of a single word by yourself?

>demonstrable ability

So they demonstrate the ability to make art?

Funny i just did

>Being anti-beauty is blind and idiotic

No it's not. There's no use for beauty in art. It's not necessary.

>All art is mimesis.

Abstraction isn't mimesis.