hi guys
how does one prove that certain artworks are objectively better than others?
Hi guys
Joshua Watson
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
Zachary Martinez
You can't
Evan Wright
beat the shit out of and facefuck anyone who disagrees with you
Brandon Reyes
Experience as much arr as possible, and only then start trusting your intuitions.
Blake James
this is a good answer
Nolan Bailey
Make objective properties your criteria (and have encyclopedic knowledge with respect to them, and the ability to use them with facility, in argument) like color, line, perspective, arrangement....
Ian Johnson
see whichever one is thought to be better by more people
Carter Mitchell
delete this
Carson Hughes
It depends on why
Parker Morales
>see whichever one is thought to be better by more artists and, but only when the art is at least 60 (arbitrary numer) years old, critics
ftfy
Hunter Sanders
Easton Perry
They're both shit. Next?
Nathan Taylor
You're next.
Grayson Fisher
You cant even define what an artwork is.
Angel Torres
yeah
Oliver Collins
>art is objective
Shouldn't you be making a /pol/ thread complaining about modern art and like every other retard on that board blathering on about something you have not one iota of a clue on?
Dylan Reed
Does it glorify the splendor of God? If yes then it is superior to works that do not.
Brayden Long
>art is 100% subjective
Take your shitty naive aesthetic relativism and GTFO
Luke Edwards
In order to claim aesthetic expertise you yourself must be more aesthetic than your opposition.
If you're an ugly fat faggot no one cares what art you like. If you're 10/10 then your opinion is objectively verified by the gods as their created medium through which they communicate their aesthetic preferences.
Logan Gomez
What if you're literally Beethoven or Leopardi (both 3/10 at best)?
Does their opinion still don't matter?
Landon Nguyen
it is a 100 % subjective.
art, in the definition and appreciation, only exists in the realm of metaphysics.
it only has value because PEOPLE attribute value to it.
Jordan Smith
...
Thomas Turner
artist =/= critic
Xavier Phillips
you have never read a single book about aesthetics
pic related
Gavin Diaz
aesthetics =/= art
Jason Reed
By reading Greenberg. Take the Greenpill:
> It was to be the task of the avant-garde to perform in opposition to bourgeois society the function of finding new and adequate cultural forms for the expression of that same society, without at the same time succumbing to its ideological divisions and its refusal to permit the arts to be their own justification. The avant-garde, both child and negation of Romanticism, becomes the embodiment of art’s instinct of self-preservation. It is interested in, and feels itself responsible to, only the values of art; and, given society as it is, has an organic sense of what is good and what is bad for art. As the first and most important item upon its agenda, the avant-garde saw the necessity of an escape from ideas, which were infecting the arts with the ideological struggles of society. Ideas came to mean subject matter in general. (Subject matter as distinguished from content: in the sense that every work of art must have content, but that subject matter is something the artist does or does not have in mind when he is actually at work.) This meant a new and greater emphasis upon form, and it also involved the assertion of the arts as independent vocations, disciplines and crafts, absolutely autonomous, and entitled to respect for their own sakes, and not merely as vessels of communication. It was the signal for a revolt against the dominance of literature, which was subject matter at its most oppressive.
Abstract Expressionism is objectively the best form of art.