Do you think there's an objective 'good' in terms of art, music, etc or do you feel that because everyone has different life experiences, that a difinitive "good" itself is subjective?

Poll result (11 votes) There is an objective good (2 votes) Vote Everything is subjective (9 votes) Vote

mind
--------
matter

isn't taste cultivated from personal experience and perception?

They just go along with what is fed to them.

If people are fed bullshit many of them, even a majority of people, will accept it as being objectively good.

Having taste is about having the ability to say the bullshit they're selling as being objectively good is actually bullshit.

mind
--------
matter

or just different interests and different tastes?

if someone doesn't look at movies in general the same way i do, then why would i use my metric to gauge their 'taste'. Why would one attempt at enjoyment be superior to another if they both work?

is the idea of 'bullshit' also subjective?

***
I'm tryna be better off, not better than...

you can apply the standards of what is popular and considered high quality to determine the "objective" quality of art separate from your own (explicitly subjective) opinion. in truth, even this standard of objectivity is subjective to the times and the whims of other people's subjective views.

on the subjective variables.

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

thats just a group of individuals sharing similar subjective views. winning a majority vote doesn't suddenly make something objective

as objective

we could then evaluate this situation based on those variables to objectively say whether this is an objective definition.

clusterfuck but it holds.


█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

which is a variable dependent on a 'goal'

which in turn is dependent on a set of interests and values, which are themselves subjective and different depending on the individual(s)

maybe there can't really be any objective variables.
thats not to say that's a bad thing necessarily. but i think being cognizant of it when given terms of 'like/dislike' 'taste' 'talent' 'classic', etc, is worthy of some thought about if there really are some goalposts to hit.

we're still talking about art btw.

if this was like infrastructure or government or something like that, then we could talk more concretely.

(to get out of the circular argument of objectively defining objective)

let's say by example we're evaluating comic coloring

we're looking for digital coloring that emulates hand coloring.

now can we objectively say that hand colored art is distinguished by slight color inconsistencies?

if we can agree upon that variable we can objectively evaluate three artists based on that variable and determine who did a 'good' job.

now doing a 'good' job at that variable doesn't mean we'll like it.


█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

so yes, be cause there is (x) we can find a solution to (y)

even if the variables aren't explicitly laid out.

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

"we're looking for digital coloring that emulates hand coloring."
is setting up a goal tho.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

without referring to objects we've agreed upon are blue.

color is the biggest mindfuck in the world when you think about it. we all agree its blue but none of us can verify that we see the same color.

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

Aristotle writes about this in Metaphysics (I think...college was a long time ago). There is an absolute, pure version of everything...the platonic ideal. Our souls or whatever recognize things by their relation to the platonic ideal. There is a TRUE blue, and it's our understanding of this that allows us to discern shades.

Scientifically speaking, the center frequency of the blue section of the spectrum of visible light is probably "Blue"

>Scientifically speaking, the center frequency of the blue
>section of the spectrum of visible light is probably "Blue"

i can't see that.

>Aristotle writes about this in Metaphysics (I think...college
>was a long time ago). There is an absolute, pure version of
>everything...the platonic ideal. Our souls or whatever
>recognize things by their relation to the platonic ideal.
>There is a TRUE blue, and it's our understanding of this that
>allows us to discern shades.

I think you're talking about the thing itself and its appearance. To which we can only know its appearance not the thing itself.

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

and a frequency of ~670–610 THz. One could argue that light waves reflecting 472.5 nanometer wavelength at a frequency of 670THz would be BLUE.

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

think the center of the blue band here

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_pF0P8-ezLug/S-5BWSKngcI/AAAAAAAAAFE/hZnDsco6eqY/s1600/Visible+Spectrum.jpg

and no this isn't moving the goal posts as i said in #12 without referencing an example.

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

That's the base, additive version of blue, and it needs that accuracy with the digitally accurate red (#FF0000) and green (#00FF00) to make the other colors of the spectrum

Everything else is a matter of preference.

Also some people prefer bad.

----------------------------------
I have a webcomic: www.watchthecomic.com

My webcomic has a page: www.facebook.com/watchyourheadcomic

`

I took a course on the Philosophy of Art when I was in University. Many prominent philosophers including Kant, Hume, and writers such as Tolstoy wrote essays on the objective quality of art.

Essentially, a piece of art which is objectively good is timeless. There are many examples of art that will move/touch you when you experience them, and the year or generation you represent will have no effect on the potency of the art itself.

When I first saw Gustav Klimt's Lady in Gold I was speechless. It's at the Neueu Gallery in New York. If you live in NYC and you have not seen it, I suggest you do so and you will know exactly what I mean. Pictures of it on the internet fail to show its real beauty. It is not something that can be understood/felt from a picture online.

http://www.neuegalerie.org/

There is a specific reason certain pieces of art mesmerize people from many generations. It is not by accident and it is not subjective. The same beauty that we find ourselves awestruck by in nature is attainable through expression.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

>Essentially, a piece of art which is objectively good is
>timeless.

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

Why is it that people travel half way around the world to to the Louvre? Why is it that certain pieces of art capture the attention and imagination's of peoples from all walks of life and age? A timeless piece of art is not bound to the era it was created in but stands on its own for generations. Meaning, that you can show it to someone from any part of the world and they will be captured by it, their age and background rendered irrelevant by the artwork.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

the reasons people go to see old commissioned freelance pieces and stuff from somebody's old decrepit sketchbooks are wide and varied and has more to do with what they personally value (or perceive they SHOULD value) than any kind of objective good.

>the reasons people go to see old commissioned freelance
>pieces and stuff from somebody's old decrepit sketchbooks are
>wide and varied and has more to do with what they personally
>value (or perceive they SHOULD value) than any kind of
>objective good.

The only way to measure artistic merit is through objectivity. Objectivity is not bound by a certain set of rules or ideologies, or culture, or age, or socialization. Let's assume that a piece of art was made in a certain era, influenced by a point in time where the culture represented a specific set of ideals. The rebirth felt in the renaissance had a very vibrant, exploratory, and powerful energy. Art, people, information, knowledge, etc. was flowing from the old world and in the process people awoke from the dark and middle ages, which was pure savagery and insanity.

One can argue that "subjective" art from that period could only be understood, felt, enjoyed, etc. by people whom experienced that specific era, as they would be the only ones to feel and understand its roots. However, as we can see, there are pieces of objective art from that era which are just as powerful today, and garner just as much attention. Not all of them, but there are many examples, those are the objectively good pieces of art. Timeless art is able to transcend cultural and time constrictions and touch us today, in the same way it touched the artist in his/her day. The Objective good label is usually given to pieces of art which transcend our socialization and grab us as human beings. The only way to know is to go and experience them yourself.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

"The only way to measure artistic merit is through objectivity.

Objectivity is not bound by a certain set of rules or ideologies, or culture, or age, or socialization. Let's assume that a piece of art was made in a certain era, influenced by a point in time where the culture represented a specific set of ideals. The rebirth felt in the renaissance had a very vibrant, exploratory, and powerful energy. Art, people, information, knowledge, etc. was flowing from the old world and in the process people awoke from the dark and middle ages, which was pure savagery and insanity."

^this is a personal value. it may not seem like it because many people share this romanticized view, but it is undeniably subjective. I'm not sure transcending time actually dictates an objective good. Do you think you can have objectivity without the weight of any kind of precedent or context?

>
>^this is a personal value. it may not seem like it because
>many people share this romanticized view, but it is undeniably
>subjective. I'm not sure transcending time actually dictates
>an objective good. Do you think you can have objectivity
>without the weight of any kind of precedent or context?

I was explaining the historical/contextual background to the Renaissance. It is not my opinion or value, it is what happened. A piece of objective art that is good, that transcends time, culture, race, creed, etc. is not just loved by one or two people. It is felt by many, in the same way we can feel awe struck by observing a giant waterfall or an ocean.

Nature is a clear example of objectivity that has no cultural, or even "human" defined context. It is loved and appreciated by many and can exist independently of us completely. It is probably the best example there is.

As far as human art without precedent or context, I would say the Pyramid of Giza is a pretty strong candidate. It is a basic shape of awe inspiring size, shrouded in complete mystery, which fills you with wonder by the sheer sight of it. The commonly accepted explanation of its construction has been debunked, and the mystery remains unsolved.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

________
http://twitter.com/aehorton
http://instagram.com/aehorton

plug plug plug

<--- Big Baller World Order

There are few things that annoy me like this idea of a objective taste. It's the smug junction of elitism and mindless group-think. It's
always peddled by a bunch of boring, middle-brow people trying to impose their shitty consensus on everybody else. It's nothing more
than obnoxious status-signaling. Good art is a personal measure of what moves you, and that should be enough.

I believe there's a baseline "mediocre", but something can be baseline mediocre and be subjectively dry, boring, and uninteresting. That being said:

Art: if you are doing non-abstract figure drawing or painting, there is a knowledge or referencing of anatomy, foreshortening, and perspective that should be implemented in the work. How much stylization is up to the artist, but clearly misdrawn fingers and toes and poorly built figures (we see you, Rob Liefeld) in otherwise quasi-realistic renderings shouldn't be excused as stylization.

Music: music is based on frequencies and math sequencing. There are notes and chords that sound good together, and notes/chords that do not. Singing off-key is still a thing (the note doesn't change b/c you can't reach it, TRUSt ME I KNOW), even though if you have enough subjective style that is appealing (see also: Mary J Blige *ducks*), you may be able to pull it off.

Film: presuming we're talking about studio films, there are certain professional standards to writing (the three act structure), direction (how the acting, shots, etc fit the narrative0< cinematography, lighting, editing, sound, and special effects that are necessary for a film to look professional. Some of these (particularly the lighting, camerawork, and sound) I consider non-negotiables: simply making sure that images and sounds reproduce properly on film. If these things aren't in place, it's hard to get your film to even a subjective mediocrity.