Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Do you feel that art & beauty are relative?

Poll - Total Votes: 9
They are subjective.
They are more subjective than objective.
They are more objective than subjective.
They are objective.
Show Results
You can only vote on one answer.
Why?
Magnolia · 31-35, F
I'd say that both art and beauty are entirely subjective. People are bringing up the point of cultural beauty standards and I do think that's a valid point to make. However I believe that cultural beauty standards don't pertain to what is objectively pleasing, rather what is accepted because of herd mentality. It's sort of like saying that if everyone on Earth believes something then it's objectively true. Believing something doesn't make it true.
Magnolia · 31-35, F
@Winterwanderer Sorry if this doesn't answer each question. There was actually a lot going on in your response.
Winterwanderer · 26-30, M
Well one question I'm more curious of your answer to, there's no quality or value difference between someone such as Shakespeare & someone such as George Bush in regards to the artistic presentation of their words?
Magnolia · 31-35, F
@Winterwanderer As far as [b]most people are concerned[/b] there is a difference but I don't believe there is any difference [b]outside of our perception[/b]. Do you understand what I'm trying to express?

As far as objectivity is concerned and the objective laws of the universe, there is no difference. We perceive a difference between the two but our perception is subjective.
revenant · F
both subjective and objective. There is still a universal idea of Beauty with a capital B living in all cultures at all times.
CrazyMusicLover · 31-35
Art critics have always been trying to make art objective but history of art proves that it indeed is subjective. Otherwise art would look the same in every culture in every period of time. What we in Western world regard as kitsch could some member of Amazonian tribe see as a valuable art work.

Philosophers tried to objectify beauty for centuries and their definitions of it only reflected the society and its culture of the period of time they lived in.
So no. Neither beauty nor art is objective. Different cultures have different criteria for what is beautiful and what is art. We can always pretend that beauty is defined by some "objectively demonstrable" rules, but these rules are valid only within one culture and society.
Winterwanderer · 26-30, M
But what value is there in a urinal? Or a pile of dirt? What meaning, beauty, power do such things have? It seems more as though they're held in such esteem only because there were no previous standards in place to prevent them from doing so, and the death of painting & literature at the turn of the century (video & audio recordings).

And in regards to consumerist art, I wouldn't say it necessarily even has to be sold or mass produced, what's so frustrating about it is that many of such pieces seem to created almost exclusively for controversy & (demented) modern aesthetics, but there seems to be some lack of genuine expression of anything significant or powerful, it's just art because it can be.
CrazyMusicLover · 31-35
@Winterwanderer So called "intellectual" value. There is a group of people who believe that idea always predominate over visual representation. Thinking predominates over feeling. Philosophy/religion predominates over individual expression. The most radical form was conceptual art when followers rejected any visual representation and used words instead. This concept is nothing new. The best example is regression of visual forms caused by Christian iconoclasm.

How could have we got from this:


To this?:


I believe that we are in a similar stage of regression now. Regression caused by philosophy that supports supremacy of theory, over-intellectualization and concept over craft.

Nowadays, craft is seen as something inferior. Toilsome work is often seen as pointless waste of time. (Why should we paint a realistic picture if we can make a photograph instead?) Postmodern art follows motto that everything has been already done so we can only reproduce and combine preexisting art forms.

[quote]And in regards to consumerist art, I wouldn't say it necessarily even has to be sold or mass produced, what's so frustrating about it is that many of such pieces seem to created almost exclusively for controversy & (demented) modern aesthetics, but there seems to be some lack of genuine expression of anything significant or powerful, it's just art because it can be.[/quote]

I totally agree. It's all about the money and the power of Artworld that sets the prices and takes care of PR. I'd say Jeff Koons and Damien Hirst are exemplary products of the Artworld.

I can't understand how can so many people advocate and support such philosophy and I wonder if they really see beauty in these absurd forms of art.
I am a visual type and prefer sensuality. I see value in craft and I don't accept this conceptual snobbism that tries to persuade me that idea is ALWAYS more important and that if something was accepted by Artworld it is automatically art.
There is no way I can identify with this over-intelectualization and blending of real life with art.

However, there are too many people who conform to this way of thinking and that means that art is subjective. And if they can see beauty in it, then beauty is subjective as well.
Winterwanderer · 26-30, M
Intriguing response, I'll reply as I'm able.
All art is subjective. Beauty is very much more subjective but some things are naturally pleasing over others
This comment is hidden. Show Comment

 
Post Comment