User Tag List

View Poll Results: Can we judge/grade art?

Voters
28. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, I think there are objective principles we can use to evaluate art

    6 21.43%
  • No, the value of art is subjective and determined by the individual viewer

    6 21.43%
  • It's a combination.

    14 50.00%
  • I have some strong objections thread's premise/wording and I am going to write a long post about it.

    2 7.14%
First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 62

  1. #21
    Gotta catch you all! Blackmail!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Posts
    2,934

    Default

    Bless be Coleridge.
    "A man who only drinks water has a secret to hide from his fellow-men" -Baudelaire

    7w8 SCUxI

  2. #22
    Society
    Guest

    Default

    subjective vs. objective becomes meaningless when you ingulf that the objective world is made of subjects:

    If the goal of art is to communicate a notion, than one objective criteria for communication is how well does the job of conveying it.
    another standard can be the complexity of the notion, which can be measured by how difficult it would to present the same notion otherwise, literally "the picture is worth X words"... so how large is X?
    likewise, the more accurate that alternative description of the notion can be, the closer it is to the existing building blocks, so the more vagueness becomes a necessity, the deeper the notion becomes.
    you can also add appeal, entertainment value, attention grabbing, and probably many other variables... all including the reactions of the subjective PoVs within the objective. in that sense, technique is probably the simplest one.

  3. #23
    Senior Member Pseudo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    2,051

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Kross View Post
    For me, an interesting idea in the form of visual commentary isn't enough to be considered art. I think art must appeal to the emotions because otherwise it creates a slippery slope where too many other forms of communication can be included. A news article may be written with beautiful and elegant prose; it might convince us to see the world differently and make us question what we think of ourselves those around us. But it's not art. It's primarily appealing to the intellect. It's informative and/or persuasive (although most journalists would disapprove of the use of persuasion, as they are expected to relate objective truth, free from partiality - problematic as that idea is).

    I see Conceptual Art as not remarkably different from an article or essay; like you said, "the transmission of ideas". Of course, great art often contains an element of that as well, but it takes a backseat to the immediate aesthetic response.
    I don't agree that we can separate art from the intellect. Mostly because I don't think an artist can circumvent the viewers mind. Firstly, in the sense that if they are painting a scene the elements included (say a mother and child) only elicit emotion one they viewer has process the figures and their relationship. Interestingly enough some mom-objective painters argue that they are trying to get to a more universal response by eliminating subject matter or extremely abstracting their figures (say like Keith Haring) so that the work in free from cultural markers that would inhibit people from other cultures from connecting to them. I think in most works art those there is no way to escape the intellectual aspect. If you see a work of art and the first question might be "how dos this make me feel" followed by "Why does it make me feel this way". The order of those questions are reverse from whats actually happening in time.

    Secondly because using emotional impact as the gauge doesn't prevent the slippery slope. Say for instance if I had an extremely emotional response to that overturned trash bin.

    One possible line to draw is functionality. Almost everything in our world has been designed but you could narrow the art out of this perhaps by going back to intentionality. If I have a tactor in a field it's a machine, if I bring it into a gallery people might pay more attention to its design.

    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Kross View Post
    As for intention, effort and skill, I remember an 'artwork' that won an award in NZ a few years back. Each year the winner of this award would then go on to represent NZ in an international art exhibition and every year something very controversial won. This one year, a pile of rubbish won - literally. Someone had taken a bin and turned it upside down and emptied out the contents. While the contents could potentially be of interest (they could reflect modern life and people's choices etc), it's still just a pile of upturned rubbish. The 'artist' made no effort to create it. It didn't require skill or intention. It had no aesthetic quality. It's only value was in what you choose to see in it. There was an outcry among the public and more significantly, by the art community. I remember one artist on the news basically saying, "if this is considered art, I don't know why I the hell I bother spending endless hours toiling away at my own work".
    I will agree that this would' take skill. However I don't think it could be argued that this was unintentional, have no aesthetic quality or that it took no effort. It took a small amount of effort to do (maybe who knows how difficult it was to procure and transport trash, but it doesn't even matter). It was definitely intentional since he didn't just bump into the trash, and it does have aesthetic qualities even though those might not be pleasant or beautiful, they might me ugly or disgusting.

    Now that isn't to say that this piece of art was good or successful, but I would still qualify it as an intentional aesthetic work.

    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Kross View Post
    The point is, if you make art appreciation too subjective (which as you say, is, in part, the goal of Conceptual Art) you risk undermining the value of art altogether. If it is acceptable for the idea to take precedence over the aesthetics, where does that leave artwork that requires real skill to accomplish? - something that has been rendered over time with love and attention. In doing so, you even undermine the value of Beauty itself.
    Whoa there. I never meant to suggest that conceptual art was about moving art appreciation subjective. Not at all. I do not think that conceptual art is about this idea that anything can be art. I think conceptual artists bush the boundaries of what art is. They ask the question "what can be art?". It's simply a different way of approaching art making that stresses the concept over the craft or physical production. There is still an underlying logic behind it which I think get lots due to two factors. One people misinterpreting the idea as "Anything can be art" and then making very bad art. Two, by people sometimes not understanding Art about art namely that certain people were trying to push and explore the idea of art and the constraints of the art world. Again duchamp's toilet, He wasn't asking people to find it beautiful or put it in their homes, he wanted to people to think about why they accepted things in galleries as art simply based on setting and why we classify some things as art at all and what was the role of the artists.

    I don't think conceptual art leave do room for beauty, I think it leave no room for beauty with out some underlying thought. Firstly that makes things like mountains, waterfalls ect., secondly it makes elephant paintings not art. But it doesn't attack realism or traditional styles because those all involve intentionality. In assessing value it would degrade certain genre scenes and sentimental works, and move them more into the realm of "decorative arts". However things formerly considered frivolous could become more important such as things usually marginalized to craft that might not give immediate emotional responses.

    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Kross View Post
    To me, idea based art is a cold, hard thing - like concrete and steel. It's like designing and constructing a building purely for practicality. It might achieve it's goal, but you can't delight in basic functionality. That would be like celebrating mediocrity. And you certainly can't hold that building in the same esteem as those that are both functional and aesthetically pleasing - buildings that inspire awe and wonder, intrigue and surprise, that move and impact you.

    Conceptual Art might tell me something, but generally my response is, "who cares?". The idea itself isn't sufficient; I need to care about it too. I need to feel something to appreciate it.
    The idea that functionality is mediocrity I think ignores the entirety of the design process and how difficult it can be to actually make something that works so well that you don't even have to think about it.

    Are great buildings usually an overlap of aesthetic appeal and functionality, Yes. But that doesn't mean that functionality takes a back seat. For example Frank Gehry's Guggenheim is said to have very poorly designed gallery space. As aesthetically appealing as it might be I think there is something very unsuccessful and artistically void about designing an attractive building that doesn't serve it's function. To me that is mediocrity. However there can be great beauty in object that perform their intended task seamlessly. Basically and argument of form follows function. I think beauty can come from either side of form or function.


    Basically My question would be why do you care about non-conceptual art? How do the sensory impressions become important if not by some how attaching themselves to ideas about say purity, loss, closeness, beauty, freedom ect.

    And yes, conceptual art can be a less emotional, but I also think people sometimes don't allow themselves to "feel" conceptual art because its presented in a way the find off putting. For instance marina abromovic did a piece where she just sat with another artists and they screamed into each others faces for 10 minutes. It's off putting. But if you watch in all the way through I found it very emotive. For me when their voices begin to break, and there both struggling to continue with this little process they've designed, when there screaming is intermingling it's very interesting and emotionally powerful.

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    5 sx
    Posts
    506

    Default

    No. A person's response to a piece of art doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the artist's level of skill. So you could judge it objectively by many criteria, but in doing so you miss the point.

    Artwork that fulfills the typical aesthetic criteria overlaps significantly with popular taste (the eyes of many beholders). But this doesn't mean that such criteria should be immediately consulted when viewing a piece of art. Art meeting these standards appeals to us because it stands out as art; its separation from everything else we take in visually helps prompt the visceral response.

    Then again, sometimes it really is the incredible skill that prompts the visceral response. I'm thinking of Michaelangelo's sculptures. The level of concentration and technical ability alone just make me want to cry. It's like witnessing amazing athleticism.

    So, yeah: an artwork's value is totally subjective, but the subjective response is obviously influenced by objective standards. There's no way of getting away from them because nothing occurs in a vacuum and stuff.

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    5 sx
    Posts
    506

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pseudo View Post
    Basically My question would be why do you care about non-conceptual art? How do the sensory impressions become important if not by some how attaching themselves to ideas about say purity, loss, closeness, beauty, freedom ect.

    And yes, conceptual art can be a less emotional, but I also think people sometimes don't allow themselves to "feel" conceptual art because its presented in a way the find off putting. For instance marina abromovic did a piece where she just sat with another artists and they screamed into each others faces for 10 minutes. It's off putting. But if you watch in all the way through I found it very emotive. For me when their voices begin to break, and there both struggling to continue with this little process they've designed, when there screaming is intermingling it's very interesting and emotionally powerful.
    Aesthetic preferences are (for many people, anyway) based on a rich trove of subconscious links between meaning/emotion and sensory information. These connections are extremely personal and unique to the individual. For me, what's provoked by art goes beyond ideas about "purity, loss, closeness, etc." That's the beauty of it and this is why I don't really enjoy a lot of conceptual art: it's often meant to evoke something specific and archetypal. Again, in non-conceptual art, the purpose is infinitely nebulous and a viewer is free to experience a more pure and personal reaction.

    (I feel like I've read about this subject before, and I wish I could remember what, because I think it communicates what I'm trying to say much more clearly and concisely. I'll add it if I find it.)

    I wouldn't enjoy the piece by Marina Abromovic because stuff like that just feels too forced/staged to me. My guard is up to it, so I can't really have the "emotionally powerful" reaction you and others might have.

  6. #26
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pseudo View Post
    Art includes (but perhaps is not limited to) sights, sounds or conditions created by humans for sensory experience.

    Judging means evaluating a piece of art as either good/bad or evaluating it in comparison to other works of art as better or worse.



    Do are there objective, universal criteria or is beauty in the eye of the beholder?
    These days I'm concerned with whether people actually have the ability to judge art in the first place. Today people stare at images on various screens for 12 or more hours a day. They see a plethora of images that cause an immediate, but fleeting emotional response. They are essentially addicted and desensitized to visual stimulation. In this context is it possible for people to actually appreciate beauty and its transformative power when they see it or will each piece of art just be another image that comes and goes? I'm pretty sure the latter is becoming more often the case. I was at the met in NY recently and while sitting and trying to take in a painting I was next to several other people sitting as well. They looked at the painting for 15 seconds and then went back to their phones tapping away. This is in sharp contrast to the fact that some of these paintings took years for the artists to complete. Then again at least these were people who were willing to go into an art museum. How many others don't even see the point?
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  7. #27
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default

    You can rate art along the lines of any one of a alrge variety of technical components. However, none of those things automatically amount to art having a value such as good or bad.

    So, you can call music more or less comlpex, or louder or quieter, or whatever, but I've found that good an bad is pretty much individual.

    Some people like to measure art in terms of how closely it resembles what the author says it's supposed to be. That's an interesting measure, but it still does't amount to value. If someone wanted their music to be one, long, torturous note, and achieved their goal almost perfectly, I would not call it good music myself.

    "There's no accounting for taste."
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  8. #28
    Senior Member Pseudo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    2,051

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by decrescendo View Post
    Aesthetic preferences are (for many people, anyway) based on a rich trove of subconscious links between meaning/emotion and sensory information. These connections are extremely personal and unique to the individual. For me, what's provoked by art goes beyond ideas about "purity, loss, closeness, etc." That's the beauty of it and this is why I don't really enjoy a lot of conceptual art: it's often meant to evoke something specific and archetypal. Again, in non-conceptual art, the purpose is infinitely nebulous and a viewer is free to experience a more pure and personal reaction.

    (I feel like I've read about this subject before, and I wish I could remember what, because I think it communicates what I'm trying to say much more clearly and concisely. I'll add it if I find it.)

    I wouldn't enjoy the piece by Marina Abromovic because stuff like that just feels too forced/staged to me. My guard is up to it, so I can't really have the "emotionally powerful" reaction you and others might have.
    It doesn't have to be adjectives I've listed. What ever your subconscious links are they are still relating the sensory to some other concept that makes them pleasurable or not pleasurable. It could be warmth or light or positive/negative.

    I'd have to disagree that there is such a thing as non-conceptual art. I understand that you meant art that isn't part of the Conceptual art movement, however it still think all art work has concept.

    To me there is more freedom as move away from cultural indicators. For instance, color field painun seems a lot more open to personal response than a naturalistic Madonna and child painting.

    My whole point about a robins peice was that people do have that emotional gaurd because of the different form but thy it still has emotional content. I'm not say you need to like or feel it. I was jut making a point to another poster that some conceptual art does touch on emotion.

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    5 sx
    Posts
    506

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pseudo View Post
    It doesn't have to be adjectives I've listed. What ever your subconscious links are they are still relating the sensory to some other concept that makes them pleasurable or not pleasurable. It could be warmth or light or positive/negative.
    but all emotions are related to concepts. the "conceptual art" label is meant to draw a line based on what this relationship looks like. in my mind, the way I differentiate between conceptual and non-conceptual art is whether the artist's intention was to overtly use concepts to evoke emotion. and I do actually love some conceptual art - when I first read this thread I was thinking more along the lines of artworks created solely to serve as a metaphor or make intellectual commentary. "Ceci n'est pas une pipe," for example.

    I'd have to disagree that there is such a thing as non-conceptual art. I understand that you meant art that isn't part of the Conceptual art movement, however it still think all art work has concept.

    To me there is more freedom as move away from cultural indicators. For instance, color field painun seems a lot more open to personal response than a naturalistic Madonna and child painting.
    Color field painting is considered Conceptual Art? I know hardly anything about art history, but to me it seems like that would be the opposite.

    as for the Madonna thing - I guess it just depends on your relationship to your culture. you can still have a very personal response to cultural indicators, even if it's different than the artist intended.

    My whole point about a robins peice was that people do have that emotional gaurd because of the different form but thy it still has emotional content. I'm not say you need to like or feel it. I was jut making a point to another poster that some conceptual art does touch on emotion.
    that's a good point. sorry, I was just rambling.

  10. #30
    Senior Member Pseudo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    2,051

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by decrescendo View Post
    but all emotions are related to concepts. the "conceptual art" label is meant to draw a line based on what this relationship looks like. in my mind, the way I differentiate between conceptual and non-conceptual art is whether the artist's intention was to overtly use concepts to evoke emotion. and I do actually love some conceptual art - when I first read this thread I was thinking more along the lines of artworks created solely to serve as a metaphor or make intellectual commentary. "Ceci n'est pas une pipe," for example.


    I
    Color field painting is considered Conceptual Art? I know hardly anything about art history, but to me it seems like that would be the opposite.

    as for the Madonna thing - I guess it just depends on your relationship to your culture. you can still have a very personal response to cultural indicators, even if it's different than the artist intended.



    that's a good point. sorry, I was just rambling.

    No, color field painting isn't conceptual art. I was thinking you meant more traditional art when you said non conceptual so I put color field as an example outside that, when really maybe you were referring to art that isn't performance art? Or just art with a specific message.

    That brings up a good point. I think maybe that's a divide between performance and conceptual art? Performance is more open ended, an experience whereas conceptual art is more driven by specific messages. Though each style might have elements of both (more traditional forms of art too)

    Sorry for the confusion. Also the auto correct changed some words around too

Similar Threads

  1. What can we do with this?
    By Giggly in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 06-15-2009, 04:41 PM
  2. Can we change attitude?
    By coberst in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-07-2009, 05:40 AM
  3. Can we know only what we are prepared to know?
    By coberst in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-01-2009, 06:22 AM
  4. Can we compare physics and psychology?
    By coberst in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-28-2009, 04:24 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO