Yes, if you release a piece of music that is you just banging a bunch of random shit and calling it a song, no one would find subjective enjoyment from it therefore it’s objectively shit. There has to be some sort of standard you play by. However there are artists like the shaggs who had no idea what they were doing but still had some semblance of quality meaning people found some enjoyment from it. With film you can make the shittiest thing possible on your phone and since it follows a certain standard someone is bound to like it
Yeah, because a piece's quality depends on the technical skill and mastery used to make them.
Whether someone enjoys or like a piece is independent of its quality.
As in, everyone decides for themselves and themselves only. Critique of art is inherently flawed and ultimately pointless activity since there isn't any truly objective measure to judge it. Sure, things as "quality", "test of time", "mastery" et cetera are all trying to do it, but it's still not ideal or even sufficiently adequate to judge art. As there isn't any objective reality to us, subjective individuals, there can never be "objective" criteria to deem what is "good" and what is "bad" art. Only what you did or didn't like. that quality is objective
I know a bunch of artists (painters, writers, film directors) and literally none of them would agree with this. They might agree that classical technical quality is objective, as defined by this or that canon (classical poetics, Hollywood style), but if you're working outside of that framework it's just not a relevant measure of anything.
>As in, everyone decides for themselves and themselves only.
Lol no. Did you even read my post?
A person can like or dislike a piece (a drawing, a sculpture, a movie, etc.) even if they know or don't know anything about the technique behind it, but that isn't going to to erase or elevate the skill that required to make it.
[...]
Art and entertainment cannot ever be objective, because it is not a quantifiable science. Your "objective" analysis is a contrived series of ultimately subjective rules created by people expressing their opinions on a subject and pseud-ing their way into your head because you crave validation for something that ultimately nobody cares about. I'm sure you like plenty of things that other pseuds like you have called "objectively bad" in the past.
>>Art and entertainment cannot ever be objective >no one ever knew perspective >no one ever knew lighting >no one ever knew prose >no one ever required skills of any kind to make a painting or write a poem or make art to begin with
This is what happens when you grow up believing media lies that art can be "anything".
>You do that technical skill isn't inherently tied to quality?
It is. >If something sucks it sucks regardless.
If it sucks it's because the person who made it did a shit job at it, not because a zoomer grew up thinking that marvel movies were fine arts.
gee I guess Picasso is an objectively bad painter because he didn't apply perspective and lighting to Guernica and every poet in history and every storyteller before the 18th century is objectively bad because they don't conform to your notions of what objective measurements for good art are huh
better grab my time machine and go tell Homer that the Iliad is fricking garbage too
those are some examples of techincal skill
besides cubism is a mastery of perspective but keep adding those reddit spaces my friend I'm sure I'm gonna take you seriously
2 years ago
Anonymous
But like art can be anything, its entirely subjective. Some people like certain types of art but think other types are pure shit. Its nothing but snooty people liking what they like and shitting on what they dont?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>But like art can be anything
Kek no, this is what millennials and zoomers grew up thinking because that's what scams sites like Sothebys sell and media perpetuates that. This is why you have brainlets like
[...]
IMDb-brained take. Material (in)consistencies are simply a matter of how much polishing a work has gone through. Some of the greatest books ever such as Don Quijote, Iliad and Moby-Dick are replete with inconsistencies, contradictions and narrative dead ends, that are simply a consequence of their size (easy to miss an issue in a long text) and the situation the authors were working in.
simping for disney and other conglomerates.
Art was always thought as a imitation of life, something that requires intelligence and a rational process in order to be made. It wasn't until Marcel Duchamp started this "art can be defined by the artists" and galleries ran with it because it was highly profitable for them and scammers like Cattelan.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Are you moronic? Art was never ONLY or even mostly thought of as "imitation of life" when looking at all of art history. For example, the Ancient Greeks were quite unique in striving for this sort of naturalism in their sculptures and paintings, but Egyptians of the time on the other hand were far from concerned with the human perspective. This is why the postures of their sculptures and figures are always so upright, static and eternal contrary to the plasticity of the Greeks. The Egyptians were not trying to imitate humanity or our life, but a far more esoteric and cosmic worldview. You are the brainlet for wanting to fit a phenomena so complicated as "art" into a box so tiny "life" or "reality".
2 years ago
Anonymous
That's some tasty projection for someone who enjoys throwing around terms like "non sequitur" around.
>If there's no objective quality for art, then why try to make art in the first place?
Oh you're an actual robot then, that explains why you don't understand something as fundamentally human as artistic expression. Here, let me try something in a way that you can actually understand:
01000110 01000001 01000111 01000111 01001111 01010100
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yes it does. But if you're a skilled writer you can still write something that sucks.
Absolute brainlet post, you're not capable of grappling with the topic at hand. Quit embarrassing yourself
IMDb-brained take. Material (in)consistencies are simply a matter of how much polishing a work has gone through. Some of the greatest books ever such as Don Quijote, Iliad and Moby-Dick are replete with inconsistencies, contradictions and narrative dead ends, that are simply a consequence of their size (easy to miss an issue in a long text) and the situation the authors were working in.
Yes, if you release a piece of music that is you just banging a bunch of random shit and calling it a song, no one would find subjective enjoyment from it therefore it’s objectively shit. There has to be some sort of standard you play by. However there are artists like the shaggs who had no idea what they were doing but still had some semblance of quality meaning people found some enjoyment from it. With film you can make the shittiest thing possible on your phone and since it follows a certain standard someone is bound to like it
Yeah, because a piece's quality depends on the technical skill and mastery used to make them.
Whether someone enjoys or like a piece is independent of its quality.
Sure, there are some purely technical moments.
Like take a look at webm related: this is objectively a terrible scene. The lighting is technically wrong, the depth is wrong, the staircase is glitching, in addition to actors' noses disappearing.
But beyond that, no. No matter how many people dislike something, it doesn't make it *objectively* terrible. *Objective* criteria are bound to strict, quantifiable rules.
>As in, everyone decides for themselves and themselves only.
Lol no. Did you even read my post?
A person can like or dislike a piece (a drawing, a sculpture, a movie, etc.) even if they know or don't know anything about the technique behind it, but that isn't going to to erase or elevate the skill that required to make it.
[...] >>Art and entertainment cannot ever be objective >no one ever knew perspective >no one ever knew lighting >no one ever knew prose >no one ever required skills of any kind to make a painting or write a poem or make art to begin with
This is what happens when you grow up believing media lies that art can be "anything".
>You do that technical skill isn't inherently tied to quality?
It is. >If something sucks it sucks regardless.
If it sucks it's because the person who made it did a shit job at it, not because a zoomer grew up thinking that marvel movies were fine arts.
yes
on the most simple level, every piece of art (or work in general) requires one or more technical skills. those can be qualified
>writing doesn't requires skill
[...]
seething coomsumer
[...]
those are some examples of techincal skill
besides cubism is a mastery of perspective but keep adding those reddit spaces my friend I'm sure I'm gonna take you seriously
of course. people who fall back to 'that's just your opinion' are often trying to shut down discussion as a way to cope for their own lack of knowledge
Sure, there are some purely technical moments.
Like take a look at webm related: this is objectively a terrible scene. The lighting is technically wrong, the depth is wrong, the staircase is glitching, in addition to actors' noses disappearing.
But beyond that, no. No matter how many people dislike something, it doesn't make it *objectively* terrible. *Objective* criteria are bound to strict, quantifiable rules.
Yeah, because a piece's quality depends on the technical skill and mastery used to make them.
Whether someone enjoys or like a piece is independent of its quality.
Art and entertainment cannot ever be objective, because it is not a quantifiable science. Your "objective" analysis is a contrived series of ultimately subjective rules created by people expressing their opinions on a subject and pseud-ing their way into your head because you crave validation for something that ultimately nobody cares about. I'm sure you like plenty of things that other pseuds like you have called "objectively bad" in the past.
Of course, because "objective" by definition means perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations; independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind. Therefore, objectivity defeats the very purpose of art.
However, like I said, there *are* certain objective rules, which are perfectly quantifiable and provable, independent of any particular subject, free of opinion. The rules of lighting and perspective *will* be objective, regardless of what you think about them. Therefore, scenes like
Sure, there are some purely technical moments.
Like take a look at webm related: this is objectively a terrible scene. The lighting is technically wrong, the depth is wrong, the staircase is glitching, in addition to actors' noses disappearing.
But beyond that, no. No matter how many people dislike something, it doesn't make it *objectively* terrible. *Objective* criteria are bound to strict, quantifiable rules.
and pic related are objectively bad, because they break the rules.
Surely, some directors break the rules intentionally. However, in case of "Attack of the Clones", that is certainly not the case. It is just poorly applied digital effects.
Of course, because "objective" by definition means perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations; independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind. Therefore, objectivity defeats the very purpose of art.
However, like I said, there *are* certain objective rules, which are perfectly quantifiable and provable, independent of any particular subject, free of opinion. The rules of lighting and perspective *will* be objective, regardless of what you think about them. Therefore, scenes like [...] and pic related are objectively bad, because they break the rules.
Surely, some directors break the rules intentionally. However, in case of "Attack of the Clones", that is certainly not the case. It is just poorly applied digital effects.
>As in, everyone decides for themselves and themselves only.
Lol no. Did you even read my post?
A person can like or dislike a piece (a drawing, a sculpture, a movie, etc.) even if they know or don't know anything about the technique behind it, but that isn't going to to erase or elevate the skill that required to make it.
[...] >>Art and entertainment cannot ever be objective >no one ever knew perspective >no one ever knew lighting >no one ever knew prose >no one ever required skills of any kind to make a painting or write a poem or make art to begin with
This is what happens when you grow up believing media lies that art can be "anything".
>perspective >lighting >prose >"required skills"
gee I guess Picasso is an objectively bad painter because he didn't apply perspective and lighting to Guernica and every poet in history and every storyteller before the 18th century is objectively bad because they don't conform to your notions of what objective measurements for good art are huh
better grab my time machine and go tell Homer that the Iliad is fricking garbage too
Nothing can ever be objective, but for exactly that reason human beings must find the line we can consider objectivity for the sake of standards and society as a whole. If there weren't a baseline of objective perspective we'd devolve into chaos. Where that baseline is for art, I don't know.
The quality of an art isn’t judged by its technical skill, since the skill only exists to serve the art. The art is itself the end of the skill and technique. That’s why saying ‘his brushwork was good’ or ‘the cgi looked so real’ say nothing about the quality of the art, only the skill of the technician.
Not only do I believe the is no objectivity to art criticism, I believe art should be valued by our gut reaction to it. I find The Room is more enjoyable than most milquetoast movies, so it's better than them to me.
Yes.
As in, everyone decides for themselves and themselves only. Critique of art is inherently flawed and ultimately pointless activity since there isn't any truly objective measure to judge it. Sure, things as "quality", "test of time", "mastery" et cetera are all trying to do it, but it's still not ideal or even sufficiently adequate to judge art. As there isn't any objective reality to us, subjective individuals, there can never be "objective" criteria to deem what is "good" and what is "bad" art. Only what you did or didn't like. that quality is objective
I know a bunch of artists (painters, writers, film directors) and literally none of them would agree with this. They might agree that classical technical quality is objective, as defined by this or that canon (classical poetics, Hollywood style), but if you're working outside of that framework it's just not a relevant measure of anything.
>As in, everyone decides for themselves and themselves only.
Lol no. Did you even read my post?
A person can like or dislike a piece (a drawing, a sculpture, a movie, etc.) even if they know or don't know anything about the technique behind it, but that isn't going to to erase or elevate the skill that required to make it.
>>Art and entertainment cannot ever be objective
>no one ever knew perspective
>no one ever knew lighting
>no one ever knew prose
>no one ever required skills of any kind to make a painting or write a poem or make art to begin with
This is what happens when you grow up believing media lies that art can be "anything".
You do that technical skill isn't inherently tied to quality? If something sucks it sucks regardless.
>You do that technical skill isn't inherently tied to quality?
It is.
>If something sucks it sucks regardless.
If it sucks it's because the person who made it did a shit job at it, not because a zoomer grew up thinking that marvel movies were fine arts.
lol, you are fricking moronic
No it isn't. You can make the best technical masterpiece of all time, if the plot and writing sucks it sucks.
>writing doesn't requires skill
seething coomsumer
those are some examples of techincal skill
besides cubism is a mastery of perspective but keep adding those reddit spaces my friend I'm sure I'm gonna take you seriously
But like art can be anything, its entirely subjective. Some people like certain types of art but think other types are pure shit. Its nothing but snooty people liking what they like and shitting on what they dont?
>But like art can be anything
Kek no, this is what millennials and zoomers grew up thinking because that's what scams sites like Sothebys sell and media perpetuates that. This is why you have brainlets like
simping for disney and other conglomerates.
Art was always thought as a imitation of life, something that requires intelligence and a rational process in order to be made. It wasn't until Marcel Duchamp started this "art can be defined by the artists" and galleries ran with it because it was highly profitable for them and scammers like Cattelan.
Are you moronic? Art was never ONLY or even mostly thought of as "imitation of life" when looking at all of art history. For example, the Ancient Greeks were quite unique in striving for this sort of naturalism in their sculptures and paintings, but Egyptians of the time on the other hand were far from concerned with the human perspective. This is why the postures of their sculptures and figures are always so upright, static and eternal contrary to the plasticity of the Greeks. The Egyptians were not trying to imitate humanity or our life, but a far more esoteric and cosmic worldview. You are the brainlet for wanting to fit a phenomena so complicated as "art" into a box so tiny "life" or "reality".
That's some tasty projection for someone who enjoys throwing around terms like "non sequitur" around.
>If there's no objective quality for art, then why try to make art in the first place?
Oh you're an actual robot then, that explains why you don't understand something as fundamentally human as artistic expression. Here, let me try something in a way that you can actually understand:
01000110 01000001 01000111 01000111 01001111 01010100
Yes it does. But if you're a skilled writer you can still write something that sucks.
IMDb-brained take. Material (in)consistencies are simply a matter of how much polishing a work has gone through. Some of the greatest books ever such as Don Quijote, Iliad and Moby-Dick are replete with inconsistencies, contradictions and narrative dead ends, that are simply a consequence of their size (easy to miss an issue in a long text) and the situation the authors were working in.
Yes, if you release a piece of music that is you just banging a bunch of random shit and calling it a song, no one would find subjective enjoyment from it therefore it’s objectively shit. There has to be some sort of standard you play by. However there are artists like the shaggs who had no idea what they were doing but still had some semblance of quality meaning people found some enjoyment from it. With film you can make the shittiest thing possible on your phone and since it follows a certain standard someone is bound to like it
Yeah, because a piece's quality depends on the technical skill and mastery used to make them.
Whether someone enjoys or like a piece is independent of its quality.
Do you like the original OPM webcomic?
of course. people who fall back to 'that's just your opinion' are often trying to shut down discussion as a way to cope for their own lack of knowledge
Sure, there are some purely technical moments.
Like take a look at webm related: this is objectively a terrible scene. The lighting is technically wrong, the depth is wrong, the staircase is glitching, in addition to actors' noses disappearing.
But beyond that, no. No matter how many people dislike something, it doesn't make it *objectively* terrible. *Objective* criteria are bound to strict, quantifiable rules.
Art and entertainment cannot ever be objective, because it is not a quantifiable science. Your "objective" analysis is a contrived series of ultimately subjective rules created by people expressing their opinions on a subject and pseud-ing their way into your head because you crave validation for something that ultimately nobody cares about. I'm sure you like plenty of things that other pseuds like you have called "objectively bad" in the past.
Of course, because "objective" by definition means perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations; independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind. Therefore, objectivity defeats the very purpose of art.
However, like I said, there *are* certain objective rules, which are perfectly quantifiable and provable, independent of any particular subject, free of opinion. The rules of lighting and perspective *will* be objective, regardless of what you think about them. Therefore, scenes like
and pic related are objectively bad, because they break the rules.
Surely, some directors break the rules intentionally. However, in case of "Attack of the Clones", that is certainly not the case. It is just poorly applied digital effects.
What "rules" who's "rules"?
Rules of reality.
but the thing is its so wrong that it manages to circle back around to being kind of artistically mesmerizing. that shot genuinely transfixes me
LITERALLY obsessed
>perspective
>lighting
>prose
>"required skills"
gee I guess Picasso is an objectively bad painter because he didn't apply perspective and lighting to Guernica and every poet in history and every storyteller before the 18th century is objectively bad because they don't conform to your notions of what objective measurements for good art are huh
better grab my time machine and go tell Homer that the Iliad is fricking garbage too
picasso still had great brush technique and paint mixing skills
Absolute brainlet post, you're not capable of grappling with the topic at hand. Quit embarrassing yourself
Absolute brainlet post that doesn't actually refute the argument.
Nearly every scene in the OT looks like a cardboard set piece
>S O V L
I don't know, ask Kant!
Nothing can ever be objective, but for exactly that reason human beings must find the line we can consider objectivity for the sake of standards and society as a whole. If there weren't a baseline of objective perspective we'd devolve into chaos. Where that baseline is for art, I don't know.
yes
on the most simple level, every piece of art (or work in general) requires one or more technical skills. those can be qualified
The quality of an art isn’t judged by its technical skill, since the skill only exists to serve the art. The art is itself the end of the skill and technique. That’s why saying ‘his brushwork was good’ or ‘the cgi looked so real’ say nothing about the quality of the art, only the skill of the technician.
yeah, I think you say say something is objectively poorly crafted. for example: thor love and thunder is horribly written mess.
but even so, opinions are still subjective.
Bump
yikes
Cope
Not only do I believe the is no objectivity to art criticism, I believe art should be valued by our gut reaction to it. I find The Room is more enjoyable than most milquetoast movies, so it's better than them to me.