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.
You can only vote on one answer.
Why?
26-30, M
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
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.
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
So you're saying there are no truly objectively demonstrable rules? That those attempts at creating them were still subject to that society's limitations?
But if that's true, doesn't that mean no art has any more value over another? That a random toilet or rock is as valuable as a more toilsome work of art?
I admit the value in, some, freeform poetry & modern art, because it is created as art, created with the intent to express in the most potent way available, but when does art become a product?
Art currently has so little definition, so little inter-subjectively definied traits, that really anything is art, but how can that be true? Is Shakespeare no better than a corrupt, mud-slinging, apathetic politician (Not saying all are like this, just a for instance)? Is there nothing that sets them apart?
But if that's true, doesn't that mean no art has any more value over another? That a random toilet or rock is as valuable as a more toilsome work of art?
I admit the value in, some, freeform poetry & modern art, because it is created as art, created with the intent to express in the most potent way available, but when does art become a product?
Art currently has so little definition, so little inter-subjectively definied traits, that really anything is art, but how can that be true? Is Shakespeare no better than a corrupt, mud-slinging, apathetic politician (Not saying all are like this, just a for instance)? Is there nothing that sets them apart?
This message was deleted by its author.
CrazyMusicLover · 31-35
@Winterwanderer
[quote]But if that's true, doesn't that mean no art has any more value over another? That a random toilet or rock is as valuable as a more toilsome work of art? [/quote]
Not random, they must be accepted by Artworld which has been doing whatever it wants since 20. century.
[image deleted]
For you it might be an urinal, for art critics it's the milestone in the history of art.
[image deleted]
For you it might be pile of stones, for art critics it's art.
For better understanding of the influence of art institutions try reading Artworld by Arthur Danto or Art Circle: A Theory of Art written by George Dickie.
Art become a product mostly with reproductive techniques, which allowed them to be produced on mass scale. The biggest turning point happened in 19th century with invention of photography when painting lost its meaning as imitation of reality. That's why modern art became so successful. The techniques of reproduction and making copies that are indistinguishable from original caused the loss of what Walter Benjamin calls "aura" - loss of cult value. Cult value was overpowered by exhibition value. And exhibition value is now set by Artworld - artists, art critics, curators, galleries etc.
And sad thing is that they can do whatever they want.
[quote]But if that's true, doesn't that mean no art has any more value over another? That a random toilet or rock is as valuable as a more toilsome work of art? [/quote]
Not random, they must be accepted by Artworld which has been doing whatever it wants since 20. century.
[image deleted]
For you it might be an urinal, for art critics it's the milestone in the history of art.
[image deleted]
For you it might be pile of stones, for art critics it's art.
For better understanding of the influence of art institutions try reading Artworld by Arthur Danto or Art Circle: A Theory of Art written by George Dickie.
Art become a product mostly with reproductive techniques, which allowed them to be produced on mass scale. The biggest turning point happened in 19th century with invention of photography when painting lost its meaning as imitation of reality. That's why modern art became so successful. The techniques of reproduction and making copies that are indistinguishable from original caused the loss of what Walter Benjamin calls "aura" - loss of cult value. Cult value was overpowered by exhibition value. And exhibition value is now set by Artworld - artists, art critics, curators, galleries etc.
And sad thing is that they can do whatever they want.
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.
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.
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.