You don't trust an artist, any more than you admire a scientist. — Pattern-chaser
As for measurement, if you're trying to measure art - aesthetically or otherwise - in order to judge it, I think you may misunderstand art. :chin: — Pattern-chaser
There is no art that is "better" than other art; there is only art. You will find that you like some art, and don't like some other art. This is the nature of you (i.e. all of us humans), art and the world. — Pattern-chaser
You may look at this response and say, "that's art"; whether it deserves merit is down to logic. — Schzophr
Just because something cannot be measured precisely it doesn’t mean it cannot be measured at all - or you wouldn’t have an opinion in the first place. — I like sushi
If you shit on the floor and call it ‘art’ I ain’t gonna do more than regard you as an imbecile (unless you happen to be able to shat out some geometrically beautiful wonder. — I like sushi
At its most basic art, visual art for instance, can be measured aesthetically or otherwise. These are ‘The Elements and Principles of Art’: line, shape,form, colour, value, texture and space. A shape for instance is created when a line crosses itself, a shape is given form with tone. — Brett
You seem to be talking about taste/preference rather than quality. — I like sushi
I’ve already stated several times things that can be assessed better by people with broader knowledge and know how. You agreed. — I like sushi
We can disagree there no problems. If we’re talking about paintings or movies there are discernible differences in quality — I like sushi
just like a classical pianist would appreciate death metal even though they may not find it massively appealing (they’d still likely be a better judge of the music than someone who is tone deaf and into boy bands). — I like sushi
What I said was that they might be more skilled in identifying the objective properties of the music--for example, they can maybe tell you that a guitarist is playing a run off of a locrian scale, that they're playing sextuplets, etc. None of that tells you anything about whether one thing versus another is better. — 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
There are no objective purposes — Terrapin Station
There are no objective purposes — Terrapin Station
There are no objective purposes — Terrapin Station
At least I wasn't labeling you with insults. — Henri
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.