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 »
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.
Winterwanderer · 26-30, M
Certainly, but do you believe that there are objectively beautiful things in this world? Or aspects of something which are objectively beautiful?
(You might have to define what "beauty" is first)
(You might have to define what "beauty" is first)
Magnolia · 31-35, F
@Winterwanderer No, I don't believe that. It's like that thing 'if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?' The answer is no because those vibrations only become sounds once there's an ear to process them. You get what I mean? I believe everything just is what it is until we come along and inject meaning into it.
Winterwanderer · 26-30, M
So your belief is that the world only exists when/if we experience it? Or our world exists separately from one another then? Because we experience different things & thus our realities are different?
But is there nothing inter-subjective? Is there nothing that unifies human experience? Nothing which is true for all of us whether we believe that or not?
No morals, no aesthetics, no attractions, no repulsion shared?
But is there nothing inter-subjective? Is there nothing that unifies human experience? Nothing which is true for all of us whether we believe that or not?
No morals, no aesthetics, no attractions, no repulsion shared?
Magnolia · 31-35, F
@Winterwanderer No I don't believe the world only exists when we experience it. I believe that it exists but it's not good/bad, beautiful/ugly, right/wrong on its own. I don't believe there is this duality in nature. I believe the duality comes from us and our judgment of nature. It just is what it is. It just exists.
I believe that humans are unified in our shared experiences but I don't think our experiences are divine or universal. Our world might only have meaning because we give it meaning but I don't think that's a [i]bad [/i]thing.
I believe that humans are unified in our shared experiences but I don't think our experiences are divine or universal. Our world might only have meaning because we give it meaning but I don't think that's a [i]bad [/i]thing.
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.
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.