I would argue that on most objective measures some works of art are better than others. For example, some works of music are more complex if you want to define complex as meaning a piece has rhythm, beat, melody etc. You can argue that the objective measures we currently use are meaningless or insignificant to you, but art is made popular if it is loved by most people, so it is your job to try to convince people that the media you prefer is better on some measure . — curiousnewbie
Though the script for a movie is made for the camera and edits. — Brett
Scripts standardly have no camera notations at all. Only shooting scripts have any camera directions, — Terrapin Station
It seems a given in educated circles that Shakespeare and DaVinci created "better" art than, lets say, Michael Bay (makes movies that many would consider "low brow" like Transformers or Armageddon). Is there even a little justification for this? — ZhouBoTong
No. There is no 'good art' or 'bad art', nor is there any such thing as 'better' art. If the artist presents someting as art, it is art. Your part, and mine, is that we get to say "I like it" or "I don't like it". It's nothing more than personal taste. And every expression of personal taste is correct and unchallengeable, although other such expressions may contradict it. That's what personal taste is.
So no, there is not even "a little justification for this". — Pattern-chaser
the objective measures of what makes candy good — ZhouBoTong
The only art that is still taught is Poetry and Literature. And it is taught A LOT. Why? What gives these art forms more value than painting, sculpture, music, movies, or television? — ZhouBoTong
No. There is no 'good art' or 'bad art', nor is there any such thing as 'better' art. If the artist presents someting as art, it is art. Your part, and mine, is that we get to say "I like it" or "I don't like it". It's nothing more than personal taste. And every expression of personal taste is correct and unchallengeable, although other such expressions may contradict it. That's what personal taste is.
So no, there is not even "a little justification for this".
— Pattern-chaser
I tend to agree with this, but I am always open to hear counter arguments. I would like to hear what T Clark has to say on this. — Noah Te Stroete
So what makes a piece of art high quality? And why should anyone accept your standard? I’m open to arguments. — Noah Te Stroete
Everything always comes down to a matter of human values. Good or bad, right or wrong, true or false. But saying something is a matter of values is not the same as saying it is all a matter of preference. Values are a product of social, cultural, and personal factors. Biological factors. — T Clark
No. There is no 'good art' or 'bad art', nor is there any such thing as 'better' art. If the artist presents someting as art, it is art. Your part, and mine, is that we get to say "I like it" or "I don't like it". It's nothing more than personal taste. And every expression of personal taste is correct and unchallengeable, although other such expressions may contradict it. That's what personal taste is.
So no, there is not even "a little justification for this". — Pattern-chaser
Judgment of quality is an application of social values and, as I wrote, those are determined based on social, cultural, and personal factors. As with all social judgments, consensus plays a big part. There's lots of room for individual preference, but if you get too far out, you are no longer talking to anyone other than yourself. — T Clark
I find this to be a strong argument. Rembrandt produced high quality art. That at least is the consensus of the art world. It’s rooted in Western social, cultural, and historical factors that give rise to our common values. I might like my art, but if I’m the only one, then it is not high quality. It also probably does not reflect our common social, cultural, and historical values. I would also add that most high quality art is difficult to produce; taking a lot of creativity, skill, and/or original thought.
However, a lot of people really enjoy craft fairs and fill their homes with such artifacts. These artifacts may also reflect these values, and they might also require skill, creativity and/or original thought. You won’t find any of these artifacts in art museums, though. — Noah Te Stroete
presenting something as art is essentially offering an invitation to view something aesthetically. — praxis
I think it's actually a beautiful thing, to ask others to view something in the world aesthetically, maybe especially if that thing is not what we'd normally consider beautiful or pleasing in some way. — praxis
It's logically impossible to say that it's objectively true that all interpretation of art is subjective since that is an interpretation of art. — NKBJ
Values are a product of social, cultural, — T Clark
As with all social judgments, consensus plays a big part. — T Clark
What artwork is that supposed to be if it's an interpretation of art? Who is the artist — Terrapin Station
And we're not interpreting anything by noting an ontological property of interpretations. — Terrapin Station
In any event, saying that interpretations are subjective doesn't denote that interpretations are "endless" at all. — Terrapin Station
Yes, you have to. It's part of the process of being able to say anything about an artwork or art is to interpret it. You literally can't say anything about art without interpreting it. — NKBJ
If there is nothing objective about interpretation of art, then how could you possibly make any claims about the objective limits of subjective interpretations? — NKBJ
. If you tell me I can't realistically have that interpretation, — NKBJ
then you're saying that there ARE objective parameters to how any artwork can be interpreted. I — NKBJ
relative depth of possible interpretation — NKBJ
It's not saying something about art per se. It's saying something about interpretations, what they are ontologically. I already explained this. It's in no way itself an interpretation of any art. — Terrapin Station
First, "You can't subjectively make a claim about an objective state of affairs" is false. — Terrapin Station
??? Why would you think I'm saying anything like "You can't ('realistically') have that interpretation"? (And what the heck would it be to realistically versus non-realistically have an interpretation?) — Terrapin Station
I'm not saying anything at all like this . . . whatever "relative depth" of "possible interpretation" would be, by the way. — Terrapin Station
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.