Maybe. What do you believe I'm not comprehending?

Aside the fact that it's impossible to show that "There are no objective purposes" is a truth claim, I actually didn't mention "objective purposes" anywhere. So maybe the first thing you don't comprehend is how much you hijack a thread, or try to grind it to shallow waters. With nonsense nonetheless. I wouldn't be surprised if it occurs relatively regularly with you.

So if you're not claiming that there are objective purposes, and that art has one, then when you say "Art has a purpose," what you're really saying is that artists can have purposes for their art. Which is fine--they definitely can.

One problem with this, though, is that we need to be familiar with meta information. Namely, we need statements from the artist saying what the purpose of the art in question is, because the purpose in mind can be different for every artist who has a purpose, and for every work they create. An additional problem with this aspect is that we need to be able to sort out whether a stated purpose is really the purpose the artist had in mind, or whether it's not instead just positioning for the sake of marketing, or maybe it was something that's not very accurate but the artist said it because their gallery, or agent, or whatever, was pressuring them for an artist's statement, or maybe the artist see's the statement about purpose as an artwork in itself, or any number of other possibilities.

A more serious problem, though, is justifying, beyond your personal opinion (as well as those who happen to feel the same way that you do), why the artwork's relation to the (meta-stated) purpose is an important factor in judging the artwork.

Or maybe you don't understand art, among other things you don't understand, so you create a "problem" to justify your own ignorance, consciously or unconsciously. And you are so blind that you actually do it publicly.

There is a reason why we can understand who is a winner of a game, which food is healthier, and what photo better documents corresponding news article. And there is a reason why certain piece of art is better than the other. Just because it's more nuanced doesn't make it a wild west of subjectivity. But you seem to be so out of touch of many things, let alone art, that this discussion with you is probably one big "much ado for nothing".

There is a reason why we can understand who is a winner of a game, which food is healthier, and what photo better documents corresponding news article. And there is a reason why certain piece of art is better than the other. — Henri

The reasons are that we have ideals, desires, goals, etc. and we can judge whether some things meet them, no?

The reasons are that we have ideals, desires, goals, etc. and we can judge whether some things meet them, no? — Terrapin Station

Eh... too broad a statement, no? One can, with irrationality and perseverance, run anywhere with it.

How would we narrow it while saying something accurate?

How would we narrow it while saying something accurate? — Terrapin Station

I'm sorry, I have seen quite inaccurate and illogical statements coming from you today, so I don't have confidence that you understand what "accurate" means. So, to answer your question - please don't.

What does me knowing what it means have to do with anything? Don't you know so that you can correct it to the narrower version that's right?

Otherwise it seems like you're stalling/diverting because you have no idea. It's like a Jr. High tactic--"Oh, I know, but I'm not going to tell you." You're supposed to be able to discuss philosophy like an intelligent adult here.

Take it however you like. Not that you have demonstrated to have a mind that can reason rationally and logically. At least not in what I have seen today. Maybe take a nap. Or just go to some other adventures.

Are you figuring that only you and I will ever read this? You don't want to reveal the answer to others who might read the thread, and thus share your wisdom with those folks?

When you have seen thousands of movies and TV programmes it becomes crystal clear that many are all basically the same; same structure, same mood, same plot.

I am always predicting: whodunnit; what happens next; sit there waiting for the hero to have his "crisis of confidence" with mind numbing regularity; and it all tends to end up with fisty-cuffs - even it the most futuristic scenarios. Boy meets girl - split up - get back together. ad nauseum

So it can be very refreshing when something different comes along. Breaking Bad, for example.
But even when remarkable TV comes along the pressures of the money-men tend to mean that they milk the thing until it runs dry and dies. Though I have not seen the latest Game of Thrones I am given to understand that it is complete rubbish.

As for so-called "high brow"...
The more Shakespeare I see the more I love it. Beethoven is peerless. Yes until the the early 1980; Led Zeppelin; Pink Floyd; are unsurpassed in their genres.

If you don't like that stuff it might not mean you are less for it, but there is no doubt that some criteria can be use to determine that some music and drama is better than others.

I made my contribution in previous page, to the OP. Am looking forward to replies from people with whom it's possible to reason with. Que sera, sera.

Okay, but folks might be curious re your comment that "The reasons are that we have ideals, desires, goals, etc. and we can judge whether some things meet them" is too broad, and they might want to know how you'd narrow it. I guess they'll never know. It's a big secret.

Well, folks certainly have a mouth to voice what they want. I don't know how far off am I to guess that for most people here, if you were to be their mouthpiece in life, they would be in trouble. Maybe end up prematurely dead, even.

I'd tell people to talk (and think) for themselves . . .unless they have big secrets they don't want to reveal, I suppose.

Atta boy, let them!

Apparently I don’t need nuance as you seem to regard nuance as “elitist” — I like sushi

As @Brett was paraphrasing the OP, maybe I can help (probably not, haha). I would say that use of the word "nuance" strongly hints at an elitist perspective. It really becomes a problem in education. If a student is graded down for their "lack of nuance" that is a problem (whether we are grading recognition of nuance or including it in one's own writing). That would be like getting a bad grade in physical education because you can't do 100 push-ups in 2 minutes or run a 5 minute mile. You are grading/teaching something that should be viewed as largely a natural talent. Can I teach someone to play soccer? Of course. Can I teach someone to be a pro soccer player? Not unless they have a lot of natural talent (and, in fact, if they are largely uncoordinated and not huge fans of the sport, then we are just torturing everyone involved).

Nuance reminds me of the french phrase, je ne sais quoi (I don't know what). To me, when someone applauds nuance, they are actually saying, "I like it, but I can't express exactly why". Well if you can't say why, then are you sure it is so great? (the "I"s and "you"s that I have used here are just figures of speech, I am not trying to directly tie these ideas to @I like sushi - more a summary of past conversations I have had)

If "nuance" is beyond most people for most subjects, and you think "nuance" is a required aspect of creating or even enjoying "high art", then I think you have defined it as elitist. I have not said whether that elitism is always good or bad (only "elite" soccer player get to go pro, and yet I like soccer).

So Zhoubotong goes for film first as a learning tool over the written word, or at least regards it as an equal.(I’m think that’s his position). — Brett

Well thanks for reading :smile: I think you summarized my position fairly well, but may have missed one point I made that may solve our disagreement (I think you have already seen that our disagreement is much smaller than the way many people are disagreeing with my stance).

Somewhere in the last 17 pages (I do not expect you to go back and read, haha), I mentioned that I would like to see around 10-20% of high school (secondary school if you are not from USA) literature taught using movies. Notice that does not quite suggest I view film as a better tool. I just think that film IS an available tool that is typically ignored because it is viewed as "lesser". Films are "lesser" when it comes to teaching grammar and literacy. Films are in no way lesser when it comes to teaching moral lessons or universal truths...why would they be? Films are also not lesser when it comes to teaching many of the literary devices - symbolism is expressed just as well, if not better in a visual medium; on the other imagery is handled so differently in films that it is almost unrelated to imagery in books. Things like metaphor, simile, personification, irony, allusion, etc can all easily be taught using films along with a pause button.

I get the sense that you were thinking I want to replace half of all literature with films. If I only want to replace 10-20% of literature (including scripts, plays, etc) with films, does that seem more acceptable? If not, is there any percent of literature that could be replaced with film? 10%? 5%? 2%? If so then we are just hashing out where to draw the line. If you think no films should ever be used because written words are a better teaching tool, then please give your reasons and I will argue with them :grin:

Your logic is unassailable. Most of your posts are reasonable even, most times, under pressure. And in the case of art and subjectivity I agree with you, even though I don’t want to.

The visual arts has been a central interest all my life and it’s difficult for me to accept that the appreciation of art is subjective, that it’s based on preferences. But there’s no way I can see of getting around it, though it’s hard to accept that some work I look at is not better than others or worse.

It’s partly because of this subjectivity that enables so many charlatans to operate and even steer or influence the course of art. Which is why it’s hard to go along with.

I’ve tried to look at this on a steady incline, where it’s still within the bounds of The Principles and Elements of art. A portrait is a good start. It has to have the basic features of a face: even at its most basic children will draw a circle with two dots or circles for eyes. Then the eyes have to resemble the subject, the nose, the mouth, and so on. These are all based on the the principles of art. So, so far it’s logical and clear what’s working and what isn’t happening, success or failure. But we’re still going up that incline. Then there might be expressions of the subject, things not fixed, but recognisable. The expressions are still formed by the principles of art.
But after that things get difficult. The artist might use colour to suggest character, or darkness, the features of the face may take second place, the portrait becomes more about the personality, or even how the painter ‘knows’ or ‘sees’ the subject.

Now we’re crossing the line, moving away from the stability and logic of the principles of art.

Picasso’s portrait of Daniel-Henry Kahnweiler crashes right through the line. Now you have to know something about Picasso, Cubism, and what Kahnweiler looks like to appreciate it. If one had an understanding of Cubism then they would see the logic applied, the principles of Cubism in action. If you didn’t have this understanding you’d regard it as the work of a moron.

So in a way art is a closed circle. People can call those inside ‘the elite’ if they want, but they have a greater appreciation of what’s happening in a painting than someone who just wants to see a Picasso and see if it’s true that he paints like a child.

This doesn’t explain much except my position.

I get the sense that you were thinking I want to replace half of all literature with films. — ZhouBoTong

No, I wasn’t thinking that, well I don’t think so (I can’t be bothered even going back over my own posts). Anyway, I don’t now. Like I said, if kids aren’t going to engage with books and if things are going nowhere then why not use film?

But, because students don’t want to engage with books is no reason to let them have it their way. However, if I was going to use a film for the purpose of education it wouldn’t be ‘Transformers’.

There's justification for it, and not only a little. Art has a purpose, and when we understand the purpose we can understand which piece of art fulfills it more. — Henri

If you can clarify the "purpose" of art beyond its definition, then maybe. But you would have to justify the "purpose" using the definition, and I don't see how you can.

How was art defined in this thread? Piece of art is human product with primary purpose to provide you with an impression of human experience through passive consumption (no interaction), usually through sight and/or sound. — Henri

Close. I went with this one (first one on google): the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

Is there a photograph that can give you more depth, width, impression of human experience - as a piece of art — Henri

Neither of our definitions suggest how much "depth, width, or impression of human experience" is best. Why is more better? What "purpose of art" does the added depth achieve? If a photo can't be judged to be as artistically valuable as a novel, what about a painting? So, War and Peace is automatically better than the Mona Lisa? I don't get it? What definition or purpose of art would allow us to even begin to make such an assessment?

With that said, how much of a human experience was impressed into you through seeing Transformers movie? — Henri

IN ALL HONESTY (capitals denote emphasis, not sarcasm), more human experience was "impressed into" me in ANY Transformers movie than was "impressed into" me by ANY Shakespeare novel. Oh, and if you tell me it is because I did not really grasp or comprehend Shakespeare, then I will just respond by saying "well everything I am saying makes perfect sense if you are smart enough to understand it" (sorry Henri, I don't mean to blame you, but I hate when that line of reasoning is used without justification).

And if you couldn't do it now, it wouldn't be because of subjectivity, but because of lack of exposure and experience. — Henri

And there it is :grin: My knowledge of Dostoyevsky is VERY limited. However, I will happily test my knowledge of Shakespeare against 98% of ALL humans on the planet (I have to teach it).

Maybe, just maybe, it is possible to be of average or even above-average intellect, and not like all of the classics? And maybe, such a person would find more value in artworks that have not historically been highly valued. Crazy, I know, but if such a person exists, there is nothing in the definition of art to suggest that they are wrong...unless you see something I don't?

So in a way art is a closed circle. — Brett

I should add that there are many closed circles, some big, some small. They’re closed only in the sense that you get it or you don’t. Some get William Burroughs, some don’t, some get Harold Pinter, some don’t, some get Van Gogh, some don’t, I never have. But I accept the love others have for him. ‘Transformers’, nah.

But, because students don’t want to engage with books is no reason to let them have it their way. However, if I was going to use a film for the purpose of education it wouldn’t be ‘Transformers’. — Brett

yes, giving kids a little bit of film does not mean they get a pass on reading. And I really picked Transformers because I know people view it as crap for teens, but I don't hate it (certainly like it more than Shakespeare). But I could teach the concept of "symbolism" just as well using a Transformers movie, and many other concepts as well (many literary devices do not actually require literature). Aside from concepts that require a written medium, please list everything you can think of that one could learn from Shakespeare, that cannot be learned from a Transformers movie. Careful, it is trickier than one might think. Maybe start with, what important lessons have you learned from Shakespeare?

Some get William Burroughs, some don’t, some get Harold Pinter, some don’t, some get Van Gogh, some don’t, I never have. But I accept the love others have for him. ‘Transformers’, nah. — Brett

indeed, ALL art is subject to interpretation and perspective. except Transformers apparently, which is just crap :roll:

But I could teach the concept of "symbolism" just as well using a Transformers movie, and many other concepts as well — ZhouBoTong

I’m not disagreeing. When I said ‘nah’ I’m just being flippant. It’s how we elites roll.

There are a ton of snobbish elitist people running around in the art world. That's not the only place.

Promoting friendship loyalty and goodwill is not crap. It doesn't require alien life that somehow comes in the form of our car designs, but none the less...

Crap overstates the case.

Maybe, just maybe, it is possible to be of average or even above-average intellect, and not like all of the classics? And maybe, such a person would find more value in artworks that have not historically been highly valued. Crazy, I know, but if such a person exists, there is nothing in the definition of art to suggest that they are wrong...unless you see something I don't? — ZhouBoTong

Piece of art, generally speaking, is one of the, if not the most intricate product human makes, which communicates to the mind of another human with the purpose to impress a human experience. So we have highly complex variables in the mix. If you don't appreciate the intricacy of the product itself, generally speaking, there's not much to be said really.

You could also understand that since art is highly intricate product, one we don't know how to empirically directly measure for quality, a list of "historically valued art" is an approximation mixed with politics and other additional factors, and as such certainly questionable.

But that still doesn't change the fact that one piece of art is better than the other.

You can be brought up with store bought frozen pizzas, and that's what your palate will be trained for and will know. That doesn't mean pizzas cannot be ranked from worst to best, or that fresh pizza makers are snobs. It just means your palate is living in poverty.

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

Well, you liked Armageddon - which I took some pleasure in, I mean Steve Buscemi...- but you might find yourself looking down on someone who thought vomit was art or soap operas. You might not. But it's worth a look, because if you find that you also would judge some things as not every good, then you are like the
elitists, but with a different taste, at the very least.

However, once convinced of their superiority, the elites are happy to force their tastes on the rest of us (I never learned anything about Michael Bay movies in school) and they even have the audacity to suggest I am wrong when I say "I like x better than y". Why are we teaching opinions in school? I appreciate the discussion of opinion in school but there should only be judgement of the justification, not the opinion itself. — ZhouBoTong

I'm pretty radical when it comes to education, so I dislike forcing anyone to learn certain things or pushing aesthetic issues - and I think this even backfires. I've had to overcome resistence to certain classics because they were forced on me. So the dynamic I can be critical of also, but here's a difference between Michael Bay and, say, The Brother's Karamazov.

The former work can entertain, and heck you might even learn something about fathers or nobleness or whatever. But there is a limit to what you can learn. From a work like dostoyevsky's there are actions parts, there is a kind of thriller or mystery AND there is a whole wealth of other stuff. Michael Bay films don't have much new to offer over the previous Michael Bay or some other skilled but shallow director (shallow at least to the extent he is a director, he might be the deepest guy in the world other wise.) I can't see any point to choosing to show children a Michael Bay film. They will find that stuff on their own. Many of the classic works continue to give you something the more you dive into it. Dive into Michael Bay and you reach pixels. Classic works, most of them, changed the range of ways we can think about life, ourselves, relationships, meaning and more. And these options got sucked up directly and indirectly by the culture. They increase possibilities and insights. Amazingly, they can often still do this even centuries later. Transformers is not offering anything new.

Which does not mean I am against Bay films. I love and enjoy all sorts of media and from what some would call low to high art. But from the latter I often can get things beyond the enjoyment and it can be worth the struggle. And the skills used to get more are useful in other contexts. I am sure I could come up with a way to base a lesson on Transformers, though I might as well use Homer. But the possibility that students would turn to more challenging works in their lives and have the tools to do this well, makes many of the classics much better choices. This is all done in a fucked up manner by most schools, but I get why they choose certain works and not others. Because they offer more.

Bay's got nothing (that he is showing through his films) that shows he has a deeper understanding of anything related to human relations, psychology, the nature of the world, what the good is, how to come fully alive, whatever. He's not in Kubrick's league, let alone Shakespeare.

Why not learn from the best?

we need statements from the artist saying what the purpose of the art in question is, because the purpose in mind can be different for every artist who has a purpose, and for every work they create. An additional problem with this aspect is that we need to be able to sort out whether a stated purpose is really the purpose the artist had in mind, or whether it's not instead just positioning for the sake of marketing, or maybe it was something that's not very accurate but the artist said it because their gallery, or agent, or whatever, was pressuring them for an artist's statement, or maybe the artist see's the statement about purpose as an artwork in itself, or any number of other possibilities. — Terrapin Station

Surely art is presented to you (to us) by the artist, and we like it or we don't. I can imagine that, sometimes, the artist might pass along some idea of her intention, but is this really necessary? Do you need art to be explained to you before you will like it, or to persuade you (how? :chin: ) to like it? Are we so unsure of ourselves we need to be told what art is intended to convey before we can ... discover what it conveys to us? :chin: Isn't the 'mystery' part of its appeal?

Surely art is presented to you (to us) by the artist, and we like it or we don't. I can imagine that, sometimes, the artist might pass along some idea of her intention, but is this really necessary? — Pattern-chaser

I was saying you need that if you want to know the purpose the artist had in mind, if any, for the art. You can't glean the purpose from the art itself.

I don't personally think one needs to know the purpose, and I don't personally evaluate any art relative to the artist's purpose (I more or less buy the tenets of "the intentional fallacy").

If I really like someone's work, I will be interested in some of the background info, but just as general curiosity about something I like a lot.