|
wilshire
free radical


Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 3 days
|
quality in art: subjective?
#5948574 - 08/09/06 08:01 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
today a guy i knew told me that the clash "sucked" and was "a one hit wonder". he enjoys listening to bands like sum 41. (he is 23 and has no excuse for this. ) i would say that his taste in music is plain awful. i would say that it is inferior. he doesn't get why the clash is good. he doesn't get why bands like sum 41 suck.
that's just an example from today, but it happens all the time in all media. some people think "top gun" was better than "the godfather". i say that's bullshit.
is it that i like the godfather better that makes it better? is it that most people like it better that it's better?
or:
is there some reason that it actually is better, that some people recognize and others do not?
or are you a "top gun" fan and i'm full of shit?
i'll come back to this thread in a bit.
what do you think?
|
capliberty
Stranger


Registered: 04/23/06
Posts: 1,949
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: quality in art: subjective? [Re: wilshire]
#5948613 - 08/09/06 08:13 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
everyone has their built in preferences, I think its genetic
such as I don't like olives, but other people do, I've never like olives, but other people love them,
There is no right/wrong in it, it is subjective preference, it doesn't make olives anymore better or worse because I do/don't prefer them,
There just better/worse to my preference, which bring about a good point, if we all viewed this world on the aspect of preferences and understanding perferences I think everyone would be alot more tolerant of individual differences, tastes, styles or whatever, there is alot of contrast in this black/white oriented society
|
vampirism
Stranger


Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 8,120
|
Re: quality in art: subjective? [Re: wilshire]
#5948636 - 08/09/06 08:20 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
what you like is irrelevant of any objectivity.
the quality however, is not very subjective. I could say I like a 12 year old's homemade movie about dinosaurs more than I like the godfather, and that just means I don't have very good taste. Why? because the godfather is a large scale masterpiece with a lot of endurance in it. A strong, historically relevant and insightful plot and etcetc. Honestly I don't like the godfather very much, but I can admit that's a bit of poor taste on my part. Can I change that? nope.
|
wilshire
free radical


Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 3 days
|
Re: quality in art: subjective? [Re: capliberty]
#5948669 - 08/09/06 08:31 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
i don't think that taste in food is an equivalent metaphor. flavors act on taste buds. simple. art acts on things much deeper.
a gene that controls your preference in music, film, etc? i don't think so. definitely cultural.
some people are more perceptive, intelligent, and/or learned than others. why do these people tend to agree on what is good and what is not when it comes to art?
|
PowerTrip
Polypharmaceutical Shaman



Registered: 03/07/05
Posts: 1,148
Loc: The void
Last seen: 11 years, 3 months
|
Re: quality in art: subjective? [Re: wilshire]
#5948823 - 08/09/06 09:20 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I believe our preferences in art are based mainly on the feelings which this art brings forth within us. It all boils down to the connections our minds make in reaction to our contact with the art form. This is why our mood also has an effect on what type of music we relate to best at that particular moment.
As far as comparing the classics and masterpieces to mainstream art.. You can argue that greater information and emotion is contained within the "masterpieces" but if a person is unable to connect with it on some level then the feeling will not be present to them, thus making the masterpiece mediocre from their perspective. By the same token, listening to a mindless pop song might instantly take us back to a time in high school bringing forth fond memories of old friends. It is all based on the connections your mind makes in response to the art.
-------------------- I spit reality, instead of what you usually learn and I refuse to be concerned with condescending advice cause I'm the only motherfucker that can change my life
|
capliberty
Stranger


Registered: 04/23/06
Posts: 1,949
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: quality in art: subjective? [Re: PowerTrip]
#5949049 - 08/09/06 10:33 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
well I guess I can be pretty dogmatic about even such things as fashion, art, and visual viewing,
Like if I see a bombshell of a babe wearing a grandma outfit, I'm pretty outright in saying thats bad taste, bad move, it didn't insinuate her features
but it was her preference, even though it wasn't probably the majorities preference, so in away we do get scrutinized for style and taste, and maybe rightfully so, I'd think like most young American males that nice hotties need to be wearing figure fitting and youthful gear, lol
|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!

Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: quality in art: subjective? [Re: wilshire]
#5949166 - 08/09/06 11:01 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
eat olives long enough, and you can find a taste for them. Listen to a band like sum 41 long enough, and you can find some beauty or appreciation for it.
|
Lily_Morgan
I'm #1 !!

Registered: 07/05/06
Posts: 437
Loc: Eastern Shore
Last seen: 16 years, 3 months
|
Re: quality in art: subjective? [Re: SneezingPenis]
#5949171 - 08/09/06 11:02 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I'm pretty sure that "one hit wonder" is usually applied to a group or singer that only had one hit song. And um, I think The Clash had a couple good ones that made the charts.
Tell that kid to get his lingo right.
|
Fractalated
There's no onehome up there...

Registered: 07/22/06
Posts: 640
Last seen: 17 years, 4 months
|
Re: quality in art: subjective? [Re: vampirism]
#5949193 - 08/09/06 11:10 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I could say I like a 12 year old's homemade movie about dinosaurs more than I like the godfather, and that just means I don't have very good taste.
But by who's standards? Who is this ultimate authority that can proclaim certain styles to be better than others?
Who can proclaim that "A strong, historically relevant and insightful plot and etcetc" are what makes up a good movie? It's certainly true that many people might be of this opinion. And it's also true that being historically relevent and some other characteristics can be considered objective. But it's entirely subjective whether or not the individual considers these characteristics good and desirable or not.
There is no moral authority on what's good and bad.
-------------------- "Now that the principalities and the powers stockpile weapons of mass destruction, contaminate the earth with their feverish industry, release floods of images to trigger insatiable desires, treat animals and humans as commodities and functions of a market, the devil must be grinning from ear to ear."
|
it stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
|
Re: quality in art: subjective? [Re: wilshire]
#5949367 - 08/10/06 12:01 AM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
While one can appreciate that an artist like Van Gogh (just one of numerous examples) really poured his heart and soul into his work and was able to convey strong emotions, and at the same time recognize that a modern artist who obviously tries to mimic his style is not expressing his own original creative ideas, the belief that originality and creativity makes a piece of art greater than one that lacks these qualities is of course, like any value judgement, a subjective opinion, though it is one that I hold.
|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!

Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
|
I dont think taste in art can just be generally labelled "subjective". Art, most often is a transcendence of explanation, it is an expression/attempt at conveying an understanding, and when an appreciation or affinity exists for a peice of art, it usually comes from complete understanding/communication from the art medium to the perceiver. If you don't understand the message being conveyed (which is why poeople either love Dada or hate it), you will not have any appreciation/affinity for that peice of work, nor the artist.
I think we were all once at that phase as children where we really loved some band, which in hindsight, was cheesy as hell.... yet we can now speak from a matured sense of understanding in relation to our taste of art. So when someone says how much they love that cheesy band that you once loved, you can identify on some level with where they are at, and then claim that you have a better and more matured taste than that person.
Just as the maker of this thread loves The Clash, I can laugh at them and stereotype them into a level of matured taste, as well as how far they have progressed in life (but then again, this is all subjective to my own experience and could be completely flawed..... but that is basically how everyone functions in regards to this subject). But lets say, I claim The Clash suck, just as they claimed Sum 41 sucks, and then I rattle off names like Jaco Pastorius, Chick Corea, Frank Zappa etc.... some really big jazz buff, who's taste is far more matured than me can laugh and ridicule my immature taste by rattling off people I have never heard of.
|
Fractalated
There's no onehome up there...

Registered: 07/22/06
Posts: 640
Last seen: 17 years, 4 months
|
Re: quality in art: subjective? [Re: SneezingPenis]
#5949596 - 08/10/06 01:44 AM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
So when someone says how much they love that cheesy band that you once loved, you can identify on some level with where they are at, and then claim that you have a better and more matured taste than that person.
Better and more matured by who's standards? I would say that you can only claim that your taste has changed from what it was. You couldn't rightly say that your taste is better.
-------------------- "Now that the principalities and the powers stockpile weapons of mass destruction, contaminate the earth with their feverish industry, release floods of images to trigger insatiable desires, treat animals and humans as commodities and functions of a market, the devil must be grinning from ear to ear."
|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!

Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: quality in art: subjective? [Re: Fractalated]
#5949650 - 08/10/06 02:19 AM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Its much like a philosophy professor talking to a freshman with a philosophy major. "Like, Sartre was the shit d00d", and then the philosophy professor rattles off 10 other existential models and sound arguments showing you why Sartre was a dipshit. (this is just a theoretical scenario, lets not start arguing existentialism, or Sartre).
The professor was once that philosophy major, and completely understands what mindframe that he is in, because he too used to think Sartre was the shit, until someone set him straight and openned his eyes/ears to something much more profound, with respect to that point in the timeline of philosophical maturing. no difference between pretentiously knowing your music taste is better than someone elses, and you telling a high schooler how much harder life is going to get.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,532
|
Re: quality in art: subjective? [Re: wilshire]
#5949895 - 08/10/06 08:19 AM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
this relates to attitude, much more than to art. the kid is just replaying something that he heard which seems to sound authoratative. maybe if he cloaks himself is sharp sounding attitude, he wont feel like calling out "mommy"
Usually I just want to be comforted, but with the lack of any "mommy" I try to act authoratative. (this proves I am an adolescent at heart)
--------------------
_ 🧠_
|
Fractalated
There's no onehome up there...

Registered: 07/22/06
Posts: 640
Last seen: 17 years, 4 months
|
Re: quality in art: subjective? [Re: SneezingPenis]
#5950127 - 08/10/06 10:49 AM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I think those are two different things though. With philosophy and knowledge, things are more cut and dry. It's either A or B, 0 or 1, yes or no, this way or that way. It's possible to hear one argument and then accept it until you hear a better argument. With art though, something can be both A AND B. It's just a matter of subjective opinion whether something is A (beautiful) or B (ugly). They can both be correct, just from different perspectives.
-------------------- "Now that the principalities and the powers stockpile weapons of mass destruction, contaminate the earth with their feverish industry, release floods of images to trigger insatiable desires, treat animals and humans as commodities and functions of a market, the devil must be grinning from ear to ear."
|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!

Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: quality in art: subjective? [Re: Fractalated]
#5950710 - 08/10/06 02:03 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
your appreciation of art is based upon a certain philosophy and knowledge. When someone rattles off to me a list of their favorite bands, as well as the way they say it (d00d, blink 182 is the greatest band ever), allows me to accurately pinpoint their personal advancement of knowledge and philosophy, which is about on par with that of an 8th grader.
|
Fractalated
There's no onehome up there...

Registered: 07/22/06
Posts: 640
Last seen: 17 years, 4 months
|
Re: quality in art: subjective? [Re: SneezingPenis]
#5950824 - 08/10/06 02:47 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I certainly agree that blink 182 is an awful band. But to the person in your example, Blink 182 really is the greatest band ever, precisely BECAUSE this value judgment is subjective. To you and me, Blink 182 really sucks donkey testicles. Both opinions are correct, because they are opinions, and as such they are subjective. Each person is going to interpret it differently.
This is similar to language. When I say a word, such as "love", your ears hear it, then it races through your brain, through your memories of love and the lack of love, through your cognitive center, and then you form your understanding of the message the speaker was trying to convey. But this message might not be the same as when it was originally spoken, because you're seeing it through your individual perspective. (This is why Right View essentially involves not having any one particular view of anything, that way you're open to reality as it presents itself).
This is similar to art and music. Everyone experiences art through their own personal, individual lenses. One person might really enjoy Blink 182 (though you and I know they're crazy ), but another might not. I don't think one can honestly say that one opinion, one feeling is more correct than the other.
I'd say appreciation of art is based more on life and experience than philosophy and knowledge. You could have two brilliant men with very similar understandings of reality, yet with two drastically different tastes in music or art. Even though their knowledge and philosophy are on par, their opinions and tastes are different, because they are subjective and individual.
Am I making sense?
-------------------- "Now that the principalities and the powers stockpile weapons of mass destruction, contaminate the earth with their feverish industry, release floods of images to trigger insatiable desires, treat animals and humans as commodities and functions of a market, the devil must be grinning from ear to ear."
|
vampirism
Stranger


Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 8,120
|
Re: quality in art: subjective? [Re: Fractalated]
#5950890 - 08/10/06 03:23 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
ok we're talking about preference and not quality. Some people like grade A meat because it is better. It is not crappy, barely-good-for a dog quality. Other people like Grade D better ( see: Taco Bell ).
Their preferences change the value by exactly 0 units. Preference has nothing to do with quality, some people are worthless when it comes to differing between good and bad quality, but the quality exists.
Like I myself mentioned, the Godfather doesn't do it for me. I don't actually like that kind of movie. But I recognize quality when I see it.
The fact is that yes, passion and work pay off. If I look at a painting with some swirly brush strokes in the middle and the edges simply seem neglected, it becomes apparent the person didn't care about those edges. If they didn't care about it, why should I? If the entirety of a piece shows a lot of love/attention, it is undeniably of good quality.
|
vampirism
Stranger


Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 8,120
|
Re: quality in art: subjective? [Re: Fractalated]
#5950895 - 08/10/06 03:25 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
just read your next reply ( which wasn't to me ).
Please separate quality and interestingness in your analysis, it makes it much harder to argue when you're not even arguing the same thing.
|
|