What makes art "good" /ic/?
I was taught that and all art is subjective and considered to be "good" when the artist portrays his or her intended emotions through a piece. Is this right or wrong?
>>2447769
I think there should be a distinction made between good art and skilled art. Someone who's art is technically great might be stiff and not very good while someone who needs more education might produce something full of life that you want to see more of when they do improve.
Does that make sense?
It is highly subjective.
I'd say it's a mix of fundamental skill, portrayal of the desired mood, and visual appeal. Of course none of these can be quantified and each viewer has a different perception, so you can't objectify what is good art.
I'd say that the piece you posted is bad based on skill, but it no doubt was very meaningful to the painter and it has historic value. Does that make it good? That's up to you to decide.
>>2447769
Someone successfully portraying their emotions doesn't make their emotions compelling or worthwhile. This is the fundamental idea that many contemporary artists are unable to grasp.
>>2447805
it's stylized senpai
>>2447769
It's in the eye of the beholder.
>>2447868
So if I said this is beautiful, I'm not wrong?
>>2447769 (OP) #
For me, it should create a valuable/dignified state of being, what is conveyed needs to arrest you from the present moment in a particular way.
>>2447871
Not to yourself. And probably the guy who made it at the time.
>>2447769
good art happens when the unity of its whole is greater or equal to the sum of its parts
>>2447816
I agree with that but then again as other poster have mentioned it is subjective. It isn't worthwhile to you. Sometimes a simple, crude painting that has some humor in it can be much more emotionally impactful than a serious, skillful work that uses a subject that has been beaten to death.
>>2447769
>I was taught that and all art is subjective and considered to be "good" when the artist portrays his or her intended emotions through a piece. Is this right or wrong?
It's wrong. I hate the entire discussion, because it's fruitless.
It's impossible to know whether or not someone's intended emotion is being projected through a person's art, because you have no way of knowing how others feel and it's impossible to describe emotions.
There's also the fact that different people will have wildly different emotional reactions to art, based on an endless amount of factors. There are an enormous amount of people who are easy to manipulate emotionally, but that doesn't make the art good.
On the other hand, there are people who are emotionally shallow or simply jaded, but their inability to feel something, doesn't invalidate the quality of a given piece.
I really don't like the whole idea of art being entirely subjective. It is, to a degree, but the argument is pushed so hard that it loses all meaning. Everything is apparently valid, which in my eyes means nothing is valid.
I think there needs to be an objective basis, and that's skill. Without skill, you have no way to objectively judge anything, and art loses all meaning.
I also believe skill is necessary for the artist to actually convey what he wants. As a very simplistic example, take two comic artists. One has been drawing for a few months, while the other has been drawing for 20 years.
Now, if these people were to draw an expressive character in a certain situation, who do you think would most accurately be able to depict his vision? Obviously the one with skill.
Anyway, I'm rambling, but I absolutely hate the current state of "high" art. It's a mockery of what art could be. It seems to be have been politicized into some far-left ideology, where everyone's opinion is equally valid, where everything has a deep meaning and where everyone can be an artist. It's the principles of communism applied to art.
>>2448101
That's a whole Lotta words for /ic/
Good art interests you and/or you can appreciate its craftsmanship on some level.
Everything else is the bad art.
>>2447769
if the artists set out to do what they meant to do, meaning they know their funds and can draw from imagination
also if they evolve over time whether it be the person themself or the culture/era
that to me is good art
personal taste irrelevant
>>2448101
>Anyway, I'm rambling, but I absolutely hate the current state of "high" art. It's a mockery of what art could be. It seems to be have been politicized into some far-left ideology, where everyone's opinion is equally valid, where everything has a deep meaning and where everyone can be an artist. It's the principles of communism applied to art.
Ayn Rand wrote about this to a great depth. The Fountainhead was basically all about this.
She knew all about this long before the current crop of SJW's existed, probably because she was from a Communist country and could see the parallels in how art and culture was being hijacked in the western world. We're now living in the world where nobody listened to her and the hijacking is complete.
>>2448180
The Norwegian traditional painter Odd Nerdrum has been talking about this since the 70s. He's actually one of the few contemporary artists who are politically conservative, and is of the opinion that art should require classical training and genuine skill.
Here's a very interesting article on this topic and the state of current art education. It's frightening how far the insanity has gone.
http://www.artcyclopedia.com/feature-2004-02.html
>>2447871
This is the most beautiful art I've ever seen.
>>2448180
http://hyperallergic.com/57158/ayn-rands-theory-of-art/
Didn't she say that photography and any form of abstract art isn't art?
>>2447769
Not sure, exactly... I've been copying out a Lucian Freud etching (in paint), presumably done In the forties.
It is cramped in terms of style, it offers us no perspective and the skeleton is incorrect. Yet it works. Go figure.
>>2448776
>Yet it works. Go figure.
Does it really, though? Or have you just convinced yourself that it works because it was done by a big name artist who you associate with valuable art? Ask yourself if this was posted in the draw thread, would you still think it works?
>>2447769
you're basically asking for someone to explain the entire field of aesthetics.
Okay /ic/ I'm drunk so let's get honest here.
I'm the first to get a boner at skilful art like pic related, but with much less effort, an abstract artist like Pollock can produce paintings that I enjoy as much as classical art. It all depends on your point of view.
Like with music, shit like Merzbow or Tim Hecker apparently has no structure, just random noise, but in the correct mindset you can appreciate it, just listen to this, try to empty your mind of opinions and enjoy it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ARhSFAe8TA
>>2448818
Its not yet complete but I already like it.
The back haunches require something, yet it does work as an 8x6". I wouldn't take it as anything larger.
It's not being sold so I'm not marketing it as a product.
I thought it needed a kind of a naïf background, maybe I'll paint in a few shafts of light peering out of a barn in the back as well.
Value is subjective. We see this all the time in everyday life, but we can ground it in biology if we want to.
Your brain is unique. Due to your own unique genome and your own unique set of life-experience (literally everything you've ever experienced), your brain is similarly completely unique. Think of it like a mathematical function. An input gives an output. In this sense, everyone's function is different. The same song, painting, dance, book, game, etc. do not produce identical reactions in people.
In this sense, artistic value is subjective -- i.e. it depends on the human subject experiencing the art.
>>2449000
Just fuck off with this communist bullshit.
Seriously, this exact line of reasoning is what has destroyed art.
>>2449013
Standard response to this perspective. I believe people respond this way because they feel their own perspective on value is delegitamised or render invalid.
It is, in the sense that you cannot impose your standards on others as though they were somehow absolute. Any claim you make is relative -- and that's not some postmodern, fringe-ass thinking. I've grounded it in empiricism.
Your post is only an assertion, there is no explicit reasoning, so we don't know why you think my perspective is incorrect.
>>2449017
No, you braindead fuck. I'm saying that not every opinion or perspective on art are equally valid. My personal taste has no bearing on anything.
If art has absolutely no standards, then it's worthless. Everything and nothing is art. It's an opinion spouting by spineless people who have misconstrued the concept of equality, in a bizarre attempt at making everyone feel good about themselves. It's in direct contrast to reality. How the fuck you can equate that to empiricism is beyond me.
Your logic more or less indicated that Rembrandt and a ten year old's first Naruto drawing are equally valid as art.
>>2449000
Are you saying that composition doesn't matter?
>>2449027
>No, you braindead fuck. I'm saying that not every opinion or perspective on art are equally valid. My personal taste has no bearing on anything.
Your original post was extremely vague. It's a bit unreasonable to assume I'd understand this position you espouse within this new post from the previous one.
>If art has absolutely no standards, then it's worthless.
To who? You've readily acknowledged that value is subjective by mentioning personal taste.
>Everything and nothing is art.
I believe that attempting to define art is largely a case of semantics, yielding little value or agreement over its definition. I view art as self-expression -- that means an enormous amount of shit is art. It's not a particularly useful word for discussion, but nobody said it had to be either; I find this definition to be the most adequate, fundamental and encompassing. Others use the word "art" to describe something which takes an enormous amount of practice to make, or to describe something that they themselves like, or that a certain group of people like (typically also held in high-esteem -- e.g. "knowledgable" critics).
> It's an opinion spouting by spineless people who have misconstrued the concept of equality, in a bizarre attempt at making everyone feel good about themselves. It's in direct contrast to reality.
Constructing an identity for me based on previous experiences you've had is not worthwhile. I am not an advocate of the "feel good" party. I do not advocate for participation ribbons, or banning the concept of first and second place.
> How the fuck you can equate that to empiricism is beyond me.
It's written clearly in the first post. If there's a bit you don't understand, point it out.
> Your logic more or less indicated that Rembrandt and a ten year old's first Naruto drawing are equally valid as art.
Yeah, they are equally valid as art, because art is just self-expression.
This will likely devolve into a discussion of semantics.
>>2449031
> Are you saying that composition doesn't matter?
I'm not sure what you mean by that. There are no objective, absolute measurements by which we can quantify the "value" of a piece of art.
If you see someone saying "this piece of artwork has objectively good composition", what is really being said is that "I really like the composition of this piece of art, because it appeals to my personal and subjective preferences".
>>2449041
I wrote extensively about my opinion on art here: >>2448101
>Yeah, they are equally valid as art, because art is just self-expression.
Which again means everything a person does is art, including this argument we're having. Don't you see how utterly useless that is as a definition?
I believe art can be judged objectively, by using some kind of standard based on skill. I'm not saying there is no subjective component to art, I'm saying art is not entirely subjective.
I could go on, but I loathe discussions about what art is, because it's a fruitless endeavour. It's been discussed for millennia because no one decided to sit down and give it a proper definition. The fact that you consider Rembrandt and a ten year old Naruto fanartist on the same level, also invalidates anything you might have to say.
>>2449062
>Which again means everything a person does is art, including this argument we're having. Don't you see how utterly useless that is as a definition?
Nobody said the word had to facilitate a discussion. It describes something. That something is so all-encompassing that it isn't all that valuable in terms of a discussion. So what?
> I believe art can be judged objectively, by using some kind of standard based on skill.
Why? It seems you value art that is difficult to reproduce. That is by definition a personal preference you hold. I don't care all that much about skill.
>The fact that you consider Rembrandt and a ten year old Naruto fanartist on the same level, also invalidates anything you might have to say.
Nice assertion, but without reasoning it means literally nothing to me. I consider them both art -- however, I subjectively value one more than the other.
>>2449074
>Nice assertion, but without reasoning it means literally nothing to me.
Yeah. One of the greatest masters vs a ten year old kid.
Hmm. What could possible be the reasoning behind preferring one over the other. Nah, it's just subjective.
>It seems you value art that is difficult to reproduce.
Art is based on presenting something visually. The greater someone's skill, the better they are at doing that. There is nothing subjective about it. I'm not talking about my taste either. There are loads of extremely skilled artist whose work I don't enjoy, but I don't try to devalue them. For example, I don't like Odd Nerdrum's art, but I still value him as one of Norway's greatest contemporary artists, and can appreciate the technical aspect of his art. I would enjoy looking at it and studying it in an art gallery, because the technical skill level has an inherent value that I can enjoy, even if the subject matter is gross. I'm not saying that's the only aspect of art, but it is a huge aspect of art that can be analyzed and discussed with a certain level of objectivity.
On the other end of the scale, there are plenty of things that I enjoy, that I will openly admit isn't very good. My enjoying something, doesn't elevate it into some new level.
art:
noun
1. the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination
/thread
>>2449094
The topic is about what makes art good, not what the word art means.
>>2449084
> Hmm. What could possible be the reasoning behind preferring one over the other. Nah, it's just subjective.
It is subjective. Just because you can give reasons as to why you prefer one over does not suddenly elevate the perception of value into a physical law, and not just an emergent property from the arbitrary configuration of your brain.
> Art is based on presenting something visually. The greater someone's skill, the better they are at doing that.
Do you think Jackson Pollack could have more "skilfully" scattered paint on a canvas? Do you possess objective criteria by which skill can be measured? If I wrote a poem, what are the objective, undeniable criteria by which we can analyse my poetic skill?
Technical ability exists. It is not synonymous with value. You have constructed two systems: one of art which you believe is "objectively" valuable because it is hard to reproduce/or because it is widely recognised as such, and one where you subjectively (and most truly) value art -- you refer to this as your personal taste, and that is in actuality all there is. The first system does not exist, because it is merely the composite of the personal taste of influential individuals.
>>2449110
>It is subjective. Just because you can give reasons as to why you prefer one over does not suddenly elevate the perception of value into a physical law, and not just an emergent property from the arbitrary configuration of your brain.
This is just mindblowingly stupid. The brain isn't some etherial phantom that is disconnected from reality. It's a physical object that exists in this world, and it has the ability to perceive and analyze art.
If you took a thousand tribesmen out of the jungle and showed them a scribble and a Rembrandt painting, I'm fairly certain they would be drawn to and amazed by the Rembrandt picture.
>Do you think Jackson Pollack could have more "skilfully" scattered paint on a canvas?
Pollock is just some asshole who sprayed paint on a canvas. Hardly an artist.
That being said, non-figurative paintings and designs can be judged by many different criteria. It's the basis for a lot of actual professions that deal with visual designs.
>Do you possess objective criteria by which skill can be measured?
Yes, but the greater the skill, the more difficult it becomes to judge. Also, just because we lack the ability to describe everything perfectly, doesn't mean something doesn't have an objective reality to it. Many things that appear subjective to one individual can be judged objectively by another. By your logic, Twilight is one of the greatest franchises in history, because it makes teenage girls' cunts tingle. That doesn't mean you can't judge it objectively for the trash that it is.
Anyway, I'm really fucking sick of this discussion, and neither one is going to convince the other. Let's drop this.
>>2449140
Assertions: the post
>>2449147
Right back at you.
>>2449000
You're saying that "good" art is determined independently based on how each person values it.
>Think of it like a mathematical function
Can't someone's function be inefficient or broken? Kind of like how you benchmark a program. One algorithm performs better than another.
First there is the feeling or emotion that the art conveys to the viewer. Determining the worth of that felling is most likely subjective. Then there is the talent, skill, and expressiveness put into the painting that would be objective.
There are many good things that artists (primarily) can recognize that appear to be more difficult for others to describe when they see them. I can relate more to how music is judged rather than art, but some things that could be benchmarked are intonation, dynamics, tone, evenness in runs, expressiveness added through rubato. For art, you can probably notice good things about anatomy, clean lineart, rule of thirds, etc.
What I don't understand is how someone can look at a piece that has blatantly bad lineart / messed up anatomy (even for any style) and claim it has more value than something that is far better crafted. I know the feeling/emotion it gives to the viewer is subjective, but maybe the viewer's brain function is just busted and they rule out the objective portion all together.
What if you had judges at a solo and ensemble festival and they all grade basted on the gut feeling they have when hearing a piece regardless of the performer's talent? 10/10 for the lady violinist because the piece reminded me of my grandmother. 5/10 for the flute dude because I cried, but only a little bit.
Why is the art world different? You have some guy who pisses in a jar and it is compared at the same level as some of Rembrandt's paintings. Talent is completely taken out of the equation. Like... pretty much entirely.
>>2447769
>I was taught that and all art is subjective and considered to be "good" when the artist portrays his or her intended emotions through a piece. Is this right or wrong?
This is the Protestantism of definitions of art.
"Every man his own Pope."
>>2449041
Art is not equal to, or limited to self-expression. Art is a subset of self expression: as not all self expression is art, although all art is self expression. That is why we refer to all great achievements of men as "works of art", because in order for something to be called art it must take a highly skilled person to make. When you define art as just being any form of self expression you are trying to take away power from people by changing the definitions of words. That is why he called you a communist because that is what communists do- take power away from people who they don't think deserve it- often resulting in a sick and tragic contradictory totalitarian state, where in your case- what was once beautiful is no longer allowed to be recognized as such, and in the instance of a nation.
Your definition of art makes money laundering easier.
>>2449147
>doesn't know what an assertion is, but thinks using the word gives him the appearance of a seasoned logical debater and thus others will concede his points without question
Go back to /lit/ you pretentious, pseudo-intellectual, useful idiot. You have an incredibly shortsighted and superficial understanding of the subject that you're trying to debate.
An anon once told me you can even throw shit on the US flag and call it art, which doesn't it's good art.
>>2448180
Hey, I'm a leftist, but that doesn't mean that I personally like "art" that ONLY has concept, and then has piss poor aesthetics.
I will, however, defend freedom of speech, and the right for these people to make glorified statements. I'm not gonna interfere with things purchased by art consumers. If a block of used chewing gum with some sort of half-baked statement on feminism is someone's economic preference, who cares? By all means, I applaud anyone who can make a sale like that.
>>2450471
No that just makes you a terrorist.
>>2449334
link me to piss jar please. I'm not sure if you mean Serrano's piss christ, really I just wanna see this piss jar.
>>2450658
It has nothing to do with freedom of speech. The government isn't going to arrest contemporary artists, just because we call them out on their shit.
Of course, I'm not surprised a leftist doesn't know anything about freedom of speech. The abhorrent behaviour of the left in dealing with Trump shows that leftist don't believe in the ideals they spout.
>>2449110
>It is subjective. Just because you can give reasons as to why you prefer one over does not suddenly elevate the perception of value into a physical law, and not just an emergent property from the arbitrary configuration of your brain.
So you're saying the configuration of one's brain is not objective? Is it not a physical object? Are the things we believe random, changing from day to day, and different to everyone who observes us?
You've basically admitted that our tastes emerge from our values and believe systems. If we can assert something as bold as that some values are better than others, then it follows that certain types of art (the ones espousing those values) are also better.
So the question becomes if all values and belief systems are equal? Do you think your worldview is better than, or equal to, that of an ISIS terrorist?
>>2450667
Again, you assume that I wouldn't defend Trump's right to spout off the shit he says.
Anyone still has the right to say that his "ideas" are total shit in response. You strike me as one of those people who just want to call a wahmbulance if Trump is criticized.
>>2450928
I'm not talking about criticism, you fucking imbecile. I'm talking about people who physically try to interrupt rallies, charge at him or try to find undemocratic ways to stop him. Thousands upon thousands of lefties have done that.
You never saw conservatives trying to storm Obama or Bernie's rallies, even if they're hated equally by the right.
>>2450673
>So you're saying the configuration of one's brain is not objective? Is it not a physical object?
That's not what objective means
/ic/ doesn't usually say this, but THE most important part of an artist's legacy is their life story. If someone lives a humble life where they loved the people around them the art is worth more even if the art isn't particularly noteworthy.
two best examples are gauguin and van gogh. Gauguins work is looked down on cause he was a prick. Van Gogh's work is held up as almost religious because he was so pious ( the only bad part of his record in life was his relationships with women and his frequent visits to brothels)
Look at it like this, if Jesus Christ had made a painting in his lifetime and it survived it would be priceless. Unfathomably important piece of history. But he didn't and in his place we have Vincent van Gogh's work as a close second.
also Hitler made decent artwork but who gives a shit because he was an ass hole.
I saw this one wasn't posted yet, so here is the mandatory post.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNI07egoefc
>>2448101
Except communism is the wrong metaphor. If anything it's pure capitalism. Artists like Damien hirst have reduced production costs and increased volume (by ignoring skill), thus maximizing $$$. This is good business, which is the opposite of communism.
>>2450663
anon may be thinking of Piero Manzoni's famous piece "Merda d'artista" (Artist's shit). It's on wiki.
>>2450673
the trouble with all this logical thinking is that it overlooks the reality of art. Art is a commercial proposition; artists make the things they will get money for.
If any old crap can be art these days (well, since 1910 or so!), it's because artists have found they can sell any old crap.
Arguments about aesthetics (like this one) are attempts to force a system on an incoherent reality.
It would be nice if artists were rewarded according to their skill and ability, but we might as well wish only honest people went into politics.
>>2451502
I think the problem with is that there is no artistic community in the sense that the 16th or even the 19th Century might have known it, there is really only the individual, who is left to decipher the various paints, brushes, mediums and canvases on his or her own. There's not much of a studio system focused on external involvement today. Individualism has done quite a lot to erase these cohesive traditions, even those on the level of painting. Art is more of a discipline than many would have us believe.
Even in many 'art classes' which remain on grade student's class schedules, you'll find that they're being taught by the gym teacher or the substitute, or more often not at all. This leaves a population very defenceless against visual communication, and it's occuring in an era of what we might consider ideational democracy.
Leaving young artists to their own devices is really contributing to some or more anti-social currents within individualism.
The value of art is subjective. Value cannot be measured empirically.
The best-case scenario is that people reach consensus on a property of a piece of art that they all subjectively value and then measure that property (e.g. technical skill). We can devise a framework by which technical skill can be measured, e.g. how realistically a form is rendered with relation to construction, lighting, colouring, etc.
Value itself is impossible to measure objectively, or absolutely. This is because it is inherently an internal, subjective emotional response, that differs from person-to-person. It is dependent on the structure of one's brain, which is always unique. It is the very definition of subjective.
For something to be objective, it must be undeniable and measurable. Rembrandt is objectively more capable of rendering reality than a four-year old. This does not mean his artwork is objectively more valuable than that of a four-year old's. That would depend on the subject's personal tastes and preferences.
Whatever I like is good. Everything else is bad.
Who cares?
>>2452139
I'd argue that Rembrandt's art has more value than a four-year old's.
You can measure the skill of an individual as he gets better and the art he or she creates reflects that. Rembrandt as an adult would produce something that is less impressive than he would as a child. Others can also be compared this way as well.
Think of the child as he gets older and improves. He gains an artist's perspective and understanding of techniques to use in order to improve his paintings. He can also compare his works to other artists and recognize both strengths and flaws of their work. As a child, he would have potentially found everything or anything as equally impressive because he had not gained the experience necessary to distinguish the talent required to create the pieces.
Think of two of his paintings hung up together in an art gallery. One painting he created as a child, and the other as his final piece. Both are weight at equal value to the museum as they have historic value. People debate over which one has more value to them, comparing themes or whatever.
Why are we comparing it's value from every single viewer's perspective instead of the perspective of the artist himself or those experienced in the same kind of work. It is necessary in order to recognize it's true value. This is often something that has taken years of classical training to perfect. These are the individuals that have perfected their work from childhood in order to create art that conveys the message and visual elements of exactly what they want.
Now you have a child, or even an adult who is not an artist that says they like the child painting because it is "blue" and reminds them of sadness. This is their reasoning for it's value that is somehow weighed with equal value as Rembrandt's perspective.
>>2452278
cont...
>>2449342
I'd agree with this guy's idea that art is a subset of self expression, but not all self expression is art.
"Every man his own Pope."
Not every practice has equal value.
Value of a piece of art to an individual does involves subjectivity, but that subjectivity tends to matter less as they become a more skilled artist. They are able to recognize flaws and strengths of pieces regardless of how their life experiences and values contribute to their perception. This is an appreciation from an artist's perspective as he or she improves.
The subjective value of a skilled artist's perspective matter more than a layman's.
These values can be compared objectively because the layman's values change as he or she gains experience or skill as an artist.
>>2448891
>Lopatin
Garden of Delete is actually my choice of audio-stimulant atm. Lift i so good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a44OkmbVug
>>2449342
>Art is not limited to self-expression.
>all art is self expression.
dat immediate contradiction two lines in
damn senpai
>>2447769
Back to work, Jake!
http://www.city-journal.org/html/new-old-masters-14188.html
