Back to a more substantive aspect of art interpretation, why do you think we even need art if it's purely subjective? — NKBJ
However, I almost never choose to do math because video games are much more rewarding and engaging (by design) - If video games are not "art" then tv, movies, books, etc would still be more entertaining than serious learning. — ZhouBoTong
You’re here to entertain yourself too? — I like sushi
Learning is VERY rewarding and serious learning is SERIOUSLY rewarding. — I like sushi
I would say we don't need art, we like art. To be fair, I am sure there has been the occasional person who accomplished great things after being inspired by art, — ZhouBoTong
I think any definition of art must also be an interpretation of art. It has to be saying something that all art has in common. In order to know what that is, you have to have to interpretive basis. In such a case, you've found -at least one- objective part of the interpretation of art. — NKBJ
If it's all subjective, they should be able to draw the same inspiration from the instructions on a shampoo bottle as they do Hamlet. — NKBJ
I mean, John Cage's 4:33 is (in)famous, but I somehow doubt many people have "listened" to it more than once. — NKBJ
I meant, why would humans need art in order to think of a story or be inspired? If it's all subjective, they should be able to draw the same inspiration from the instructions on a shampoo bottle as they do Hamlet. — NKBJ
That shampoo bottle is suddenly more inspirational than a whole gallery full of "art" — ZhouBoTong
I have NEVER been inspired by art. — ZhouBoTong
But there are plenty of other reasons to enjoy art. — ZhouBoTong
Obviously, Hamlet is FAR more likely to inspire than shampoo. But compared to Transformers, Hamlet is BARELY more likely (depending on the student, it will often be LESS likely). — ZhouBoTong
People can, and do, imagine something like the plot of Hamlet from triggers that are far more removed than even the text on the back of a shampoo bottle. — Isaac
There's more philosophy in one Hamlet monologue/soliloquy than on any shampoo bottle (unless it's printed with Shakespeare quotes I guess?) And I don't think most, even educated people, are able to come up with that stuff on their own. — NKBJ
Brassau paints with powerful strokes, but also with clear determination. His brush strokes twist with furious fastidiousness. Pierre is an artist who performs with the delicacy of a ballet dancer.
Again your religious faith in the art critics blinds you. — Isaac
was the response of one art critic to the random daubings of a chimpanzee which the journalist Åke Axelsson pretended were done by an upcoming modern artist. — Isaac
Compared with the random daubings of a chimpanzee, — Isaac
Now, let's not start getting snarky with another. — NKBJ
Yes, it's entirely possible for critics to be wrong sometimes. — NKBJ
Art critics who interpret chimp art to be meaningful are frauds and are just pretending to read depth into what they see (like in the Emperor story). — NKBJ
If art is subjective and everyone can interpret what they want onto anything, then art critics are fully able to interpret whatever they like on any art (chimp, human, or cloud formations even). — NKBJ
Does, in your view, the phrase "the epistemological implications of Kantian metaphysics" mean the same thing as "rinse and repeat"? — NKBJ
Really? So if I say "chair" and you interpret "elephant" that's just your subjective, totally admissible opinion? — NKBJ
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.