|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!

Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Art can be objectively compared
#7632747 - 11/13/07 09:24 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
atleast once a week someone tells me that I am a music snob. On some level, I admit that I am. I often vehemently state that "this band sucks" or "this band is on of the greatest" too much.
and then, I go on to passionately describe why Band X is better than band Y. I am always replied to with "well art is subjective" or some variance. Granted, anyone can consider anything "Art", so art in itself is subjective..... but there is a definitive line between good art and bad art.
there is no difference between two people arguing over who was the best WR in the NFL last year... they use stats, and back up their pick with objective reasons.
There are two main divisions of art, much like fiction and non-fiction with books: Entertainment and substance. It is evident in every form of art. There are movies you watch to go to sleep to, or use for background noise, or watch because "it looks cool"... and then there are movies that really make you think, and effect you on so many levels and carry you through a myriad of emotions.... that is substance. entertainment is mindless.... Im not saying that it doesnt have worth... but people.... you are going to have to face the fact that you most likely have a very primitive and juvenile appreciation of art. Which is neither good nor bad really. Maybe the ignorance is bliss. If linkin park and nickelback did it for me.... well I dont know what would happen, but maybe it would make life easier or more "enjoyable".
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Art can be objectively compared [Re: SneezingPenis]
#7632801 - 11/13/07 09:37 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I can objectively say that Eddie Van Halen is a more skilled guitarist than Johnny Ramone. That doesn't mean Van Halen is a better band than the Ramones. Often, what is considered "high art" is as pretentious as your post, with not much to enjoy. I'll take a repetitive techno song over pretentious avant-garde and free jazz any day, no matter how skilled the musicians are at playing their instrument. Even if we can separate music into "intelligent" and "simple," that's not the same as good or bad. Go take some mushrooms, read Robert Anton Wilson, and get back to me when you've learned a thing or two about Maybe Logic.
--------------------
|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!

Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: Art can be objectively compared [Re: Silversoul]
#7632991 - 11/13/07 10:09 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
that is because you are unable to appreciate beyond your level of appreciation. probably all of the jazz or highly complex music you have listened to you havent been able to understand.
that is why me discussing this with you in this manner is rather futile. It is kind of like you telling me that I am wrong in asserting that this one movie is great, but it was in another language without subtitles, so you basically just watched pictures with little to no comprehension of what was going on.
I would be happy to discuss this matter without you as long as you are able to let yourself think beyond yourself. Maybe you need to take some mushrooms and do that.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Art can be objectively compared [Re: SneezingPenis]
#7633011 - 11/13/07 10:13 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I took a course in Jazz history, and understand fully well the theory and purpose behind it. That doesn't make it any more enjoyable, even if I can appreciate what it's supposed to be doing. The height of arrogance is to think that if only everyone were more intelligent or educated, they would all agree with your opinion.
--------------------
|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!

Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: Art can be objectively compared [Re: Silversoul]
#7633108 - 11/13/07 10:33 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I dont think it takes intelligence to agree with me, but it does take progression.
I took a history class in college once, but I couldnt tell you which Chinese dynasty had the greatest impact upon the world.
you are still stuck in the idea that "If I cant see the beauty in it, then it is crap". See, where I am coming from is a complete understanding of what certain art is trying to accomplish, or get across, and it can either be ground breaking, or very sophomoric/redundant/low brow. A great example is the movie Millers Crossing. Great lighting and camera shots, but the meat of the movie is complete shit. It wildly swings between moments of being seriously dramatic, to Airplane/charlie chaplin type shit. yet the movie was trying to be taken as a serious peice of art. Im not saying that slapstick doesnt have its place, nor is it incredulous to swing between epic drama and slapstick, but it has to be done in a certain way. For example, Adaptation does an excellent job of doing this. It is proper execution of delivering the point, the cognition, at the right time and in the right light.
young people dont generally like Monty Python, but anyone who has experienced enough of society can eventually appreciate the humor of MP. It takes experience and progression to gain a deeper or finer appreciation.
Like I said before, there isnt anything wrong with mindless entertainment, it is an art in itself... but there is such a thing as an objective distinction between low brow art and things that take a finer appreciation.
|
daytripper23
?


Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
Re: Art can be objectively compared [Re: Silversoul]
#7633166 - 11/13/07 10:43 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Art is necessarily either appreciated or not in all of our minds, whether we are cultured or not. I would say that aesthetic goodness is a universal quality that we all seek. I think that this might hint towards its objective existance on some level...
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Art can be objectively compared [Re: SneezingPenis]
#7633222 - 11/13/07 10:55 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
you are still stuck in the idea that "If I cant see the beauty in it, then it is crap".
That's the exact opposite of where I'm coming from. You're trying to give art some objective status. I'm saying that while art can be studied and analyzed, there is no objective measure of "good" or "bad" art. I'll concede that there is some standard of "high brow" versus "low brow" art, but even there things aren't always as they seem. Beavis and Butthead, for example, appears on its surface to be an extremely low-brow show, but underneath the surface can be seen as subversive social satire.
--------------------
|
NiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'



Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
|
Re: Art can be objectively compared [Re: Silversoul]
#7633345 - 11/13/07 11:31 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Personally, I have found the most substantial satisfaction in listening to music that turned me off at first. I find that the less accessible something is upon first listen, the more enduring it's value. I as well fully admit to being a total music snob, and I won't apologize for it. By any criteria, it is undeniable that Ornette Coleman is a better musician than Paris Hilton.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,532
|
Re: Art can be objectively compared [Re: NiamhNyx]
#7633794 - 11/14/07 03:55 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
some of the most significant points of argument are not nearly as solid as we might wish (history, fact, and hearsay have been crossbreeding like dogs).
but just wrapping the words about both sides of any issue brings on a satisfying intimacy with the actual matter.
then if the wrappings stand on their own afterwards, that too is like an art form, like a cast, or shaping for future bronzes.
--------------------
_ 🧠_
|
Boots
Disenchanted


Registered: 07/25/07
Posts: 1,137
Loc: Northwood, Ohio, U.S.A.
Last seen: 15 years, 2 months
|
Re: Art can be objectively compared [Re: redgreenvines]
#7633983 - 11/14/07 07:35 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Art is subjective, taste is not. People often confuse the talent used to make the art and the outcome of said talent. The members of DragonForce are very talented musicians but they can't write an interesting song to save their life (or at least they haven't yet).
|
Noviseer
Percussion isFree



Registered: 03/18/03
Posts: 3,994
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: Art can be objectively compared [Re: SneezingPenis]
#7634182 - 11/14/07 09:23 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I still think art is merely something pretty that humans do to amuse themselves. You take the fact that we have this emotional conditioning to stimulus, and you manipulate stimulating media to achieve the desired emotional result.
As a kid, the show Ducktales really turned me on. So did the music of the little mermaid. I'd never heard that kind of carribean style before, and it sent shivers up and down my spine. Those horns!
Now, in order to be turned on like that by music, I require more dissonance, and more complexity, because I have seen some hardship, my conditioning has become more complex, and because I have habituated myself to the simpler chord progressions and instrumentation of the little mermaid soundtrack.
But ultimately, when I'm grooving to a tune, the present moment of experience is comperable NOW as it was THEN. I'm just groovin. That's what art is for.
As we grow, we habituate to old forms, so we require greater complexity. But we're still just making pretty things to amuse ourselves in the void! Its all equivalent.
-------------------- _______________________________________________________________ namaste said: no flamz in da ODD, if you got nothing to contribute then keep yo lips zipped _________________________________________________________________
|
badchad
Mad Scientist

Registered: 03/02/05
Posts: 13,372
|
Re: Art can be objectively compared [Re: Boots]
#7634189 - 11/14/07 09:24 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
So then, what are the objective criteria used to compare art?
Objective criteria leave no room for interpretation.
"The camera was held at 45 degrees" is an objective statement, it can be measured and reproduced.
"Thats a great camera angle" is a subjective statment.
Art is subjective. It can be interpreted many different ways, by many different people.
-------------------- ...the whole experience is (and is as) a profound piece of knowledge. It is an indellible experience; it is forever known. I have known myself in a way I doubt I would have ever occurred except as it did. Smith, P. Bull. Menninger Clinic (1959) 23:20-27; p. 27. ...most subjects find the experience valuable, some find it frightening, and many say that is it uniquely lovely. Osmond, H. Annals, NY Acad Science (1957) 66:418-434; p.436
|
Noviseer
Percussion isFree



Registered: 03/18/03
Posts: 3,994
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: Art can be objectively compared [Re: Boots]
#7634208 - 11/14/07 09:27 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Boots said: The members of DragonForce are very talented musicians but they can't write an interesting song to save their life (or at least they haven't yet).
Interesting to whom? If you've never heard that sort of symphonic metal before, you can bet their music will be interesting. If you're a metal afficionado and you've habituated and conditioned yourself to certain complex aspects of that genre, DragonForce will strike you as cliched and mediocre.
If its one thing to one, and another to another, its subjective. Just because the group that is more hip to something gets together and says "this is good, we all agree, and this is bad" doesn't make the criteria objective. That just means that certain people with common traits all share the same subjective appreciation for something that matches their taste.
If you were to go into a room of 12 year old girls with your favorite metal band, they'd deem your taste in music as TERRIBLE. They'd think just as strongly that you were objectively bad at differentiating good music from bad.
-------------------- _______________________________________________________________ namaste said: no flamz in da ODD, if you got nothing to contribute then keep yo lips zipped _________________________________________________________________
|
NiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'



Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
|
Re: Art can be objectively compared [Re: Noviseer]
#7635528 - 11/14/07 02:52 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Noviseer said: I still think art is merely something pretty that humans do to amuse themselves. You take the fact that we have this emotional conditioning to stimulus, and you manipulate stimulating media to achieve the desired emotional result.
As a kid, the show Ducktales really turned me on. So did the music of the little mermaid. I'd never heard that kind of carribean style before, and it sent shivers up and down my spine. Those horns!
Now, in order to be turned on like that by music, I require more dissonance, and more complexity, because I have seen some hardship, my conditioning has become more complex, and because I have habituated myself to the simpler chord progressions and instrumentation of the little mermaid soundtrack.
But ultimately, when I'm grooving to a tune, the present moment of experience is comperable NOW as it was THEN. I'm just groovin. That's what art is for.
As we grow, we habituate to old forms, so we require greater complexity. But we're still just making pretty things to amuse ourselves in the void! Its all equivalent.
This is a great post.
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Art can be objectively compared [Re: NiamhNyx]
#7635646 - 11/14/07 03:14 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I agree.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!

Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: Art can be objectively compared [Re: Noviseer]
#7635876 - 11/14/07 04:10 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Noviseer said: I still think art is merely something pretty that humans do to amuse themselves. You take the fact that we have this emotional conditioning to stimulus, and you manipulate stimulating media to achieve the desired emotional result.
As a kid, the show Ducktales really turned me on. So did the music of the little mermaid. I'd never heard that kind of carribean style before, and it sent shivers up and down my spine. Those horns!
Now, in order to be turned on like that by music, I require more dissonance, and more complexity, because I have seen some hardship, my conditioning has become more complex, and because I have habituated myself to the simpler chord progressions and instrumentation of the little mermaid soundtrack.
But ultimately, when I'm grooving to a tune, the present moment of experience is comperable NOW as it was THEN. I'm just groovin. That's what art is for.
As we grow, we habituate to old forms, so we require greater complexity. But we're still just making pretty things to amuse ourselves in the void! Its all equivalent.
see, this is what I am talking about.... the difference between entertainment and fine art. I dont have anything against grooving... there are times when it can transcend mere entertainment... but there is a huge difference of quality between desperate housewives and Drawing Restraint 9. Why do you think that most famous artists dont become so until they are dead? because it takes a little bit more than a lifetime or a culmination of all your art over the course of your life for people to finally get your perspective, especially in such a limited medium as 2D paintings. See, fine art is transcending mere expression and communication, when you truly identify with a producer of fine art, you completely understand their entire life and perspective. Movies like Drawing Restraint have almost no entertainment value. In fact, it is rather boring to watch... Nobody reads philosophy books to be entertained, but rather to enrich their understanding/perspective/life. Nothing is gained when you finally find out who knocked up Mrs so-and-so on desperate housewives... it is the opposite of enriching your life. One is vicariously living through someone elses real or fictional life to escape your own, while the other is vicariously (I know redundant) living through someone elses perspective to add on to your own.
As one progresses through life, they gain more understanding, even if it is understanding how much they dont understand... your scope and grasp of the universe constantly grows in comparison to when you were 14 years old. As you grow, so does your capacity to recognize and appreciate fine art, which in turn expands your own perception and experience, which in turn etc.... see how it works? Now, when you are in the upper echelon of fine art, there really is no way to objectively say one is better than the other.... Dali vs Borsch, Pollack vs Basquiat, tony levin vs jaco pastorius.
but there are definitely divisions between the teletubbies and the big lebowski, a pinata and a Rodin sculpture, a romance novella and a tom robbins book, booty dancing and a ballet, nickelback and King Crimson.... and if you cannot agree with these comparisons, well.... whatever, then my point isnt getting across to you.... but if you can agree with these comparisons, then why can we not do it with such extremes? Why cant we discuss, and lay out all the reasons why Quincy Jones is better than Isaac Hayes? why mr bungle is better than RHCP?
I hope in 20 years that I look back at my artistic taste of today and laugh... I want to continue to progress and gain new perspectives, but there are some peices of art that I know for a fact will stick with me for the rest of my life, because they so eloquently and precisely captured and conveyed a certain facet of life/experience/perspective.... that is something that you cannot find in a lil mama song.
|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!

Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: Art can be objectively compared [Re: Silversoul]
#7636031 - 11/14/07 04:48 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said:
Quote:
you are still stuck in the idea that "If I cant see the beauty in it, then it is crap".
That's the exact opposite of where I'm coming from. You're trying to give art some objective status. I'm saying that while art can be studied and analyzed, there is no objective measure of "good" or "bad" art. I'll concede that there is some standard of "high brow" versus "low brow" art, but even there things aren't always as they seem. Beavis and Butthead, for example, appears on its surface to be an extremely low-brow show, but underneath the surface can be seen as subversive social satire.
no, because as your appreciation grows, you are able to find the appreciation in lower art. Art that is above your capacity to appreciate or understand is written off as esoteric or pseudo-intellectual. I can watch the 5th element and enjoy it... in fact, I love that movie, but I would in no way say that it is a better movie than anything Focus Films has produced. It has great value as entertainment, but when you want to measure it as art, then it is just as much mindless fluff as americas funniest home videos.
granted, personal appreciation for low brow art can be diminished once your eyes have been opened to the world of fine art... just like there is less enjoyment in rice cakes when a sirloin is sitting next to it. along with finer appreciation comes a finer taste and the things that are lower than the finer things can become lackluster in comparison. Every now and then I will bump 40 oz to freedom, mainly for nostalgic purposes, but I can never go back to the level of appreciation I had for it before i found John Zorn, Mr bungle, King Crimson, or when I didnt realize that sublime was basically a yellowman cover band. but I would never say that something sucks because I dont like it. I dont neccessarily like black metal and grindcore, but I will listen to it at times and appreciate it extremely.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Art can be objectively compared [Re: SneezingPenis]
#7636047 - 11/14/07 04:50 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Perhaps there is some confusion here with the word "appreciation." I can appreciate the talent and complexity of certain forms of music without actually liking the sound of it.
--------------------
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Art can be objectively compared [Re: SneezingPenis]
#7636050 - 11/14/07 04:51 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
fine art.
Oh I agree.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
|