How can music tastes be subjective if aesthetics is entirely objective?
It's kind of laughable that people insist that beauty is relative. Everyone knows that aesthetics is objective, yet when an artist is objectively criticized, fanboys and fangirls leap in to defend the artist. Everyone has a right to an opinion, but objectively speaking bad music is bad, plain and simple.
There's a reason why the Mona Lisa and Mozart's music are still considered great works of art while Slipknot and Metallica are just musical fads that time will soon forget.
>>60359652
musical taste is not subjective
Please take a high-school philosophy class before you go spouting such shit OP. Tell me, when you say aesthetics is objective, whose aesthetical system are you using? Kant's? Burke's? Hegel's? Are you saying *all* aesthetical systems are objective? Or are you just a shitposting /mu/ 'patrician'
who hasn't even read the Homeric Epics?
You disgust me.
>aesthetic is objetive
Brb, burning my aesthetic books.
>>60359652
>Metallica
>musical fads that time will soon forget.
i don't even like metallica but that is simply not true
daily reminder that this is how the people who call themselves 'patrician' act
>>60359814
also this
lmao OP
>>60359814
Aesthetics as in everywhere, duh.
Realistically speaking, there's a reason why women naturally gravitate towards tall, muscular men while high test men prefer girls with nice hips and curves.
>>60359652
Greeks in antiquity often attended outdoor philosophical lectures in large numbers. Modern Westerners jam to Slipknot. The liberal myth of inexorable progress of man has proven hollow.
>>60359906
>Aesthetics as in everywhere, duh.
>>60359906
>evolution shapes preferences towards get genes with good fitness
>somehow this proves that shit is aesthetic
>>60360023
Aesthetic tastes are purely apriori. We are born into the world inherently knowing what is aesthetic and what is ugly, yet societies have robbed us of our autonomy by forcing tastes upon us.
This is why elitist, would-be "patricians" are some of the worst posters on this board.
>>60359652
>comparing mozart with metallica
It's like comparing Miles Davis with Janis Joplin
and asking who is the best Salsa pianist.
>>60360064
>Aesthetic tastes are purely apriori. We are born into the world inherently knowing what is aesthetic and what is ugly, yet societies have robbed us of our autonomy by forcing tastes upon us.
Not necessarily. In certain cultures, large bellies are considered attractive since they are a status symbol, whereas they're considered borderline grotesque in the United States
Objective aesthetics don't exist, at least not in large and multi-varied societies
>>60360130
this
>>60360064
aesthetics is objective doesn't follow aesthetic tastes are apriori at all
>>60360064
So if we are born knowing what is aesthetic and what is not, then how would explain somebody 'developing' their taste? Surely that would imply there was something they did *not* know about the aesthetic. Unless you are using the Socratic argument of recollection, I do not know how your idea would work.
>>60360064
>Aesthetic tastes are purely apriori. We are born into the world inherently knowing what is aesthetic
[citation needed]
