IS art subjective?

[Keava]

The borderline nihilist in me told me, to tell You, dear OP that everything is subjective. Humans name things, humans give things meaning, humans define. Everything is just based on our perception, there is no universal truth or set principles.

In case of art, consider the fact that the meaning of art itself changes every few centuries. It's strictly arbitrary norm that defines it, if at given point in time enough people say that some object is art then it is widely considered as such.

 

[no space]

Art is pretty objective. Not entirely, but it is usually easy to tell what is art and what isn't. Now, GOOD art is QUITE subjective. Opinions vary wildly. However, there are extremely strong, statistically significant trends that people who talk about art being subjective tend to conveniently ignore. The only logical conclusion is that there are rational rules that generally lead to good or bad examples of art that can be generalized to the population at large.

The closest thing to the truth thus far stated in this thread.

 

[silverhawk100]

Just to echo 'no space', everyone's focusing on what they like. How about something bad? Does everyone universally believe that Dinoshark has absolutely zero artistic or cultural merits? If everyone universally believes that, then why is it that art is subjective? If someone made it, then supposedly someone liked it. No one likes it, so therefore there is an objective quality to it.

Re: Mona Lisa: I feel like it was the only work by DaVinci that the French Academy had available to them when they were studying the Renaissance Masters right when they first were established and so because they were THE only artistic interpretation for a good 200 formative years, the Mona Lisa got dragged up with it all. It's not DaVinci's best work. But it is worth looking at.

 

[SenorNemo]

Art being subjective is a bit tricky, but maybe this might fuel more conversation. As a shitty-self-proclaimed-not-deserving-the-title artist, I judge the value of my work by how well I succeeded in doing what I intended to do. In other words, even if personal tastes vary, an objectively good work for me is measured by how close the work comes to portraying what I want it to portray; communicating what I want it to communicate.

Which is why none of my work is objectively good.

 

[Keava]

Art being subjective is a bit tricky, but maybe this might fuel more conversation. As a shitty-self-proclaimed-not-deserving-the-title artist, I judge the value of my work by how well I succeeded in doing what I intended to do. In other words, even if personal tastes vary, an objectively good work for me is measured by how close the work comes to portraying what I want it to portray; communicating what I want it to communicate.

Which is why none of my work is objectively good.

No ask yourself a question whenever you are artist or an artisan. Do you create works 'inspired' or just focus on technical perfection. If a work is just done good, as the 'artist' wanted it to be, doesn't it mean it's just predictable and obvious? Doesn't it change given work into just piece of craftsmanship that comes with practice, rather than something that actually brings out emotions? Is it really art and not artwork?

*plants the seed of confusion and self-doubt*

That's why i do not consider majority of games art - They are just as they were supposed to be, they are manufactured product with laid out, pre defined goals. The fact that something looks good doesn't make it art.

 

[funguy2121]

Yes. All art is subjective.

However, some art can in fairness described as original (to varying degrees), whereas some cannot. Dancing lip sync'ers whose music is composed by producers and then marketed to tween girls who've yet to develop taste should be recognized as artists - very very bad ones. Talent is discernible, even if it's displayed in a style you don't like. Just about anyone can learn to play the drums to any AC/DC song in a matter of weeks if not days, while it takes years for just about anyone to play like Neil Pert of Rush or Tim Alexander of Primus.

 

[badgersprite]

Yes. If it wasn't, people would all like the same things and would all have the same favourite paintings, books or movies. It would be impossible to dislike something that is considered good.

Sure, you can say things like "All people like the Mona Lisa" but, really, how many people just accept that as being a great work of art because they're told it's a great work of art and therefore society accepts that it is? Ask any random person on the street and they probably have an image they prefer to any of the great painters.

We're taught from what are considered the greatest works of literature in school, and yet so many people hate them. Literary experts consider, I don't know, James Joyce to be a great writer, yet on these very forums I've heard people say that what they read of him was the single worst thing they had ever read.

See? Subjective.

 

[Cypher10110]

Art is a form of meaningful communication (I would argue that any meaningful communication is art, but I digress).

Understanding any kind of communication requires at least SOME objectivity. Without objectivity, you lose your point of reference, there is only "I", "my thoughts", and "my feelings". The outside world becomes whatever you subjectively think it is. (Not to say that the world could not be this way, but I was merely trying to answer your question, not debate the nature of reality.)

We live in an objective world and each hold subjective views upon it, through our objectivity, we can become aware that there are different subjective views; the views of others. Art is a way we reach outside our subjective shell to touch others (perhaps in the hopes that perhaps they too see as we do?)

TLDR;
So to answer your question in its simplest terms; Art is the connection BETWEEN the subjective world and the objective world. So it will always be a part of both, regardless of specific circumstance.

 

[Shirokurou]

Initially art was by definition... something that was aesthetically appealing to everyone. So it was subjective to the mass mindset.

But then somebody had to say that art is about self-expression (which it is) and it doesn't have to be liked by everybody (it doesn't)
And oh boy, what a shitstorm started.

So now I define to myself, "Fine art" - something carrying universal (majority's opinion) aesthetic value and expressionist art, which translates to
"This looks like shit!"
"The artist wanted to give that very same thought to you through his work. It expresses his thoughts on X"
"Couldn't he have done it in an aesthetically pleasing way? So I would like it?"
"He doesn't have to? He's an artist."
"Cause now I'll express my thoughts on this artwork by again saying, it looks like shit and also not buying it."

 

[badgersprite]

There are things you can do objectively right with art. Such as your shading, technique, styles and use of colours. But the end result will always be subjective. Popular doesnt equal good. eg. Van Gogh or Picasso. If you find a piece moving or love the sight of it, well then thats just fine. But if you despise a piece others love, well then that's fine too. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that lark

Actually, even those things aren't objective when you take different cultural practices into account. Different cultures and periods in history have valued different techniques and considered them more valuable than others and thought others that we use here today are completely the opposite of what a good artist should do.

 

[Qmonster]

"Art is what you can get away with." - Andy Warhol

 

[Lilani]

I think if you have to ask, that's a pretty good indicator.

 

[Giest4life]

Dude, everything is subjective.

 

[teebeeohh]

yes, of course
thats the beauty of it, while nobody likes everything there is always something that you like. Just because it's not high art does not make it bad, if you happen to like twilight or Jersey shore thats perfectly OK.
Of course the number of people flocking to certain kinds of art implies scary things about society as a whole but thats another topic

 

[SoranMBane]

Whether something is good art or not is somewhat subject to personal opinion, depending on what one finds aesthetically or ideologically appealing. As for what the actual definition of "art" is, that's something that can not, for practical reasons, be considered subjective. Not having an objective definition of art pretty much makes any kind of intelligent discussion on the topic impossible, because some moronic jackass who can't stand the thought of being wrong will ALWAYS use the "well, art is whatever you want it to be" card to cover for their idiocy, and that's a level of insanity that you just can't argue with.

 

[fates_puppet13]

art is very subjective to the artist
not just the observer

 

[Marik Bentusi]

Everybody has developed a unique set of memories over the course of their existence. These memories shape our perception of everything we encounter on a daily basis. Thus everything we can perceive with our five senses is subjective.

Mathematics and physical laws that - according to their respective theories - are universal concepts and nothing we directly perceive. We can only perceive to what they lead, their results, and those observations are subjective again.

Well, to be more accurate our perception is pretty much objective until it actually enters our mind. Up until then all colors and pictures are merely reflected photons and different wavelength. Our brain interprets what we see is a pipe and not just reflected light. That's why you might hear the phrase "We see with our brains" from time to time (at least in German, but I'm sure a similar phrase exists in the English language).

TL;DR
Art is subjective, just as anything else that enters our senses and is interpreted by our brains. Theoretical concepts in their purest form are unaffected (tho it doesn't stop a lot of brains from actually imagining a landscape of numbers for example).

 

[The Wykydtron]

I'll just say that i think the Mona Lisa is shit

Does that answer your question?

I wouldn't call it shit, just sorta unimpressive up close. What you never see in all those pictures of it is the gorgeous wall sized painting directly across from it. Comparing the two to each other, yeah; the Mona Lisa looks like a second year college student's project.

I have a policy to use as few words as possible, i could say it is unimpressive, overrated,mediocre and all those other big mean words but just calling it shit makes a bigger impression...

Besides when i get rolling i tend to start over explaining myself ending up with increasingly roundabout statements... 'S not good so cutting things short is better for me XD

 

[Thespian]

I think art's value can really only be measured by how much of an emotional response, good or bad, is garnered by the audient or participant end of the product. And I personally get nothing from some contemporary art, as I'm sure other people do. So yes, it's really a cop-out argument but unfortunately there's no getting around that art is subjective.

 

[nothinghere]

Yes. It's quite obvious, especially on these forums. "Everybody likes X music, but I hate it."

You're not an official Escapist member until you've expressed one of those pointless opinions.

I've never done that... You telling me i've been living a lie!! What should I do? I don't see a question thread!?

A bit off topic, but whats your avatar? Its awesome