Objective art?

That's good, we're getting somewhere.
Time is quantifiable (though how do you find an objective measure to apply to historical works?)
Howe do you objectively quantify effort though, and "the authenticity of the piece's meaning compared to the illustration or composition of the piece itself"- how to objectively quantify this in a manner that doesn't rely on subjective judgement?

Got into this argument with my friend a week ago.

I will never relent on this point:

The value of a piece is what people are willing to give it.

>how do you find an objective measure to apply to historical works?
Use historical references to determine how long a famous artist spent on a single piece. For example, Da Vinci's "The Mona Lisa". He had reportedly spent four years on the piece, a remarkable amount of time to construct a mere portrait. If no historical records exist, perhaps an alternative measure could be to have an expert re-paint the piece on a new canvas, and measure the amount of time it takes for the replication to be completed (of course adjusting for quality of the paints, artistic contemplation of the original piece, etc).

Effort can be measured somewhat accurately by the quality and quantity of resources used to construct the piece. For example, how much and what type of paint was used to compose a portrait, or the amount of clay/marble/granite/etc used to construct a sculpture.

As for "the authenticity of the piece's meaning compared to the illustration or composition of the piece itself", it is more difficult, but I'd have to say that each art piece should be brought before a panel of sensible art critics, each of them having differing and/or diverse understandings of art from different time periods and in different genres, from the Baroque to the Post-Modern. If the majority of critics on the panel can readily identify the possible meaning of the piece, or discuss it in earnest without complication or confusion, then it should be considered art, because it does what art was meant to do: Provoke meaning and contemplation in the viewer.

The problem with that argument is that you assume the value paid is because of the enjoyment of the piece; Modern Art is bought for money laundering and tax breaks, not because the art itself is any good.

>Effort can be measured somewhat accurately by the quality and quantity of resources used to construct the piece. For example, how much and what type of paint was used to compose a portrait, or the amount of clay/marble/granite/etc used to construct a sculpture.

By this logic the most worthy scuptures are buildings.

Is architecture not considered a form of art? I've seen many buildings that were deserving of being considered art, spectacular art even.
Of course, obviously there would be a differentiation between the standard for architectural artisanship, and conventional artisanship. This would mainly be due to the fact that buildings require a great deal of manpower, and cannot usually be built by one person alone.

Time and effort are not a valid criteria. If I were to made a copy of Mona Lisa it will surely take me many more years and effort than Da Vinci needed and will probably be a shit. Because he was a genius and I am "smart" at best and my painting skills are like those from a 5 year-old kid.
Time and effort are not but you were close, it's excellence.

What if a piece of art is made by someone really skilled that takes little time and effort to make something but has a lot of creativity in it? Would that fail to be art simply because it took the artist little effort and time?
What if someone has poor art skills but is very concerned with meaning, so they make something quickly but with a lot of meaning (I mean real meaning, not something the person makes up when questioned about it)? Isn't that art? If it is, how do we actually know if the artist has actually put a lot of meaning to his piece?

>Modern Art is bought for money laundering and tax breaks, not because the art itself is any good.
Surprising that modern art would be more vulnerable then other eras such as the romantic, contemporary, etc; particularly with the vulnerabilities to money laundering basically being a function of howarts auctions in general are conducted and how auction houses are structured. Do you have a source for this?

So could we say anything created with the intention of being art has the potentiality to be art? Would the determiner be individual perspective?

Could we also say that the appropriate way then value art is by it's relevance to the whole as opposed to the individual?

That all appears to be fairly subjective rather than objective.

this is all subjective

time and effort do not determine level of personal expression

sometimes anger is a short yelp, not a sustained yell

art was art until the usual mobs discovered it was a good way to clean dirty money
now trash is being sold and bought and in the process rebranded has fine art just because it follows a very basic system based on trust: if you pay x $ for this then it's worth x $ now

it works just like debt among states

Art is the materialization of transcendent values.
>what are transcendent values?
Virtues.
>what are virtues?
Those values that uphold a culture and/or a civilization, ensure its survival, and its prosper.
>what are those values that can uphold a culture and/or civilization and ensure its survival?
Traditional manliness, in-group preferences, order, hierarchy, having principles, having role models etc.

Art is the materialization of transcendent values that uphold a culture, ensure its survival and help it to prosper. Thus, the "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" principle is completely false, as the purpose of art lies in society, and can never be selfish ("self-expression"). For example those who find a rotting carcass to be beautiful surely are failed human beings, as the "values" attached to such thing do not help to upkeep its own culture (e.g. if there was a tribe that found corpses beautiful, and fetishized them, that would be serious hazard to the health of the members, only lessening their chance of survival), but in fact quite the contrary.

So called modern art is not art as it is selfish and only promotes "values" that make the culture following it doomed.

t. autist
boobies is art

you don't see the problem with letting an in-crowd dictate what is and isn't art to steer their society, if that's what you actually believe the function of art is?

So essentially, art = spooks.

>this thread
>clearly nobody has read Kant, Heidegger, Hegel or Adorno talking about art

Never change, /piss/.

One can not "dictate" what is and what art is not, as it is a set thing.
Can anyone dictate what is and what a triangle is not?
Just because modern man has an infatuation with calling everything art that is good enough to catch his eyes, but being far away enough to do anything with transcendence (so that he "understand" it, and does not have to face its own weakness), does not make that thing art.

The above mentioned abnormality is simply the reflection of the modern man's inner self. He lacks quality and does not like to be reminded of anything that is above his pitiful self. The so called "Western culture" lost all sense of quality and this went so far as proudly calling the simple act of defecation art - another example is believeing that a man can be a woman and vice versa by simple claiming to be so.

>Can anyone dictate what is and what a triangle is not?
Aren't we doing that all the time? Are you confusing your personal experience of "true" art with what is communicated when the word art is uttered to an other person? The point being that you're not in control of what is being communicated to others. What is communicated is dynamic by necessity, so the concept of art is not, as you state, a set thing, even if you are personally convinced that it is somehow immutable based on your own experience.

the only metric for the creation (creation here can refer just to the framing of a found piece as 'art') of art is intention
any piece intentionally created for the purpose of aesthetic experience is art
say that something is important to you, and you want to show it to other people, put it on a pedestal, and it becomes art

i feel that style and medium really dont bear on the topic
just because something rustles your jimmies, or is very simply made, or is completely randomly generated, doesnt make it inartistic

this doesnt say anything about quality, importance, or value
but the base definition of 'art' i feel is a pretty simple thing to come out with, because there are traits that all art shares

>The value of a piece is what people are willing to give it.
do you have any arguments for this?

Only science is objective
/thread

What if a rotting carcass, was rotting in such a way as to serve as a representation of death and whatever significance that has, and thus serving as a reminder of other cultural values such as the transience of life, it's feeling nature, its beauty and importance of living it fully and as well as possible. What if a rotting carcass represented these things. Would it not be art? If it made people appreciate life and thier living bodies and experiences more.