IS art subjective?

[gyroscopeboy]

Just remember most "art critics" are just failed artists with an arts degree. Art is subjective, unless you are talking about Da Vinci and the mathematical purity of some artworks (Golden Ratios, etc).

For example, a friend of mine submitted FOR HIS FINAL UNIVERSITY PIECE, a blank photoshop document (with the grey and white squares) and called it "Transparent Seagull". The teacher raved about it and used it as a benchmark example for the class.

 

[guntotingtomcat]

By definition, yes. Is two plus two four?

 

[BlueGlowstick]

And as is the case with subjectivity, some people have flat-out better opinions than others. If you don't believe me:

Spoiler: This should convince you.

lmao. Art is stupid unless it's music. I used to play the piano, the clarinet, and some guitar & fiddle. I knew my boundaries & stopped before it took my life over. But when I took art (paints, pencils, & clay) in my sophomore year of high school, I nearly died. I was excited when I found out I failed the class. But I didn't need the class- I already had my creative arts credit for graduation.

 

[The Wykydtron]

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

Does that answer your question?

and PICASSO IS A HACK!!!
You suck picasso, i hate you so god damn much, you and your squiggles.

Ah i love the fact that people like Picasso, MC Escher etc are so bad at drawing it somehow goes full circle and becomes good. The fuck does that work? Double negatives only work in maths!

[sub]And English if you're being pedantic[/sub]

 

[loc978]

The definition of art [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art?show=1&t=1302997911], no. What does and does not constitute art is pretty concrete. The value of a particular piece of art is completely subjective, though.

 

[SadakoMoose]

Well yes, it is
Much like color and sound.
These are perceptions of the world afforded to us by our human senses.
The way light, color, sound, even form exist are entirely subjective to the sensory tools of the creature in question. They may not even be constant beyond that.
So yes, art is is subjective...

 

[coolkirb]

yes

 

[MindBullets]

There's probably nothing more subjective than art.

Seriously, can anyone think of something?

 

[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.

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.

Not quite. I do not refer to technical skill, and I thought I made that clear. By portray, I do not mean in a hollow, replicative way, or anything that comes with practice. I refer to portray as in portraying the intent of the artist, or as I said in the above, in communicating what the artist wants to communicate. Furthermore, your point about games is interesting, but I can see some potential fallacies. Would you elaborate?

Captcha: siondiv Besh. Sounds like a Star Wars EU character.

 

[thrillingsuspense]

Yes.

 

[Heart of Darkness]

For example, a friend of mine submitted FOR HIS FINAL UNIVERSITY PIECE, a blank photoshop document (with the grey and white squares) and called it "Transparent Seagull". The teacher raved about it and used it as a benchmark example for the class.

I knew my opinion of modern art and art degrees was already pretty low, but this is beyond hilarious. What university does your friend go to?

 

[Flamingpenguin]

I went to an art gallery all about the civil rights movement and slavery/prejudice before it. As a 17 year old white male I found it pretty hard to connect with, but let me tell ya, some people OOOOHHHH NOOOOOOO. Favorite day of the year.

Yes, art is subjective. Think about that game you want to claim as art. Now think of Roger Ebert.

It's peoples' different backgrounds that cause this subjectivity.

 

[HentMas]

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

Does that answer your question?

oh! i agree with you, when we went and saw the mona lisa, i waited for 3 hours in line to get close enough to see it, everybody was "OOOH!! look at that!!! it follows you with her eyes!!, what a strange SMILE!!!" and shit
and when i got in front of the painting all i could think of was "this is it!?, its not even big!!... how boring..."

and then i walked away and focused in other paintings that were much more interesting to me...

that said

i think that the main reason people are "elitist" about paintings is because in their time people dismissed most of them (the most famous paintings) as "dumb" or "ugly" and as time passed by, the "hype" started because of the "story" before the painting, Van Gogh (or however you spell it) made really weird paintings, and yes, they are weird, its only after "over analyzing" them that people realized he was trying to "capture the light" or "capture perspective" and they acclaimed him for it, which in turn if anyone doesn't like the painting he is instantaneously labeled as an "idiot" because he doesn´t "realize" the effort it took to master that technique...

I like Van Gogh, but there are several examples, like the "shit in a can" of an artist, that is sold its weight in gold, people like it because of its "uniqueness" and its "meaning", stuff like that, but it doesn't take away the fact that its "shit in a can"

 

[gyroscopeboy]

For example, a friend of mine submitted FOR HIS FINAL UNIVERSITY PIECE, a blank photoshop document (with the grey and white squares) and called it "Transparent Seagull". The teacher raved about it and used it as a benchmark example for the class.

What university does your friend go to?

The University of Newcastle, in Australia...which actually is pretty decent, usually haha.

 

[Heart of Darkness]

For example, a friend of mine submitted FOR HIS FINAL UNIVERSITY PIECE, a blank photoshop document (with the grey and white squares) and called it "Transparent Seagull". The teacher raved about it and used it as a benchmark example for the class.

What university does your friend go to?

The University of Newcastle, in Australia...which actually is pretty decent, usually haha.

Even so, this is just...wow. Goes to show you that no matter how hard you work in life, someone's still gonna beat you with the minimal amount of work possible on a project.

 

[HentMas]

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

Does that answer your question?

and PICASSO IS A HACK!!!
You suck picasso, i hate you so god damn much, you and your squiggles.

Ah i love the fact that people like Picasso, MC Escher etc are so bad at drawing it somehow goes full circle and becomes good. The fuck does that work? Double negatives only work in maths!

[sub]And English if you're being pedantic[/sub]

i was thinking... doesn´t that same principle occurs in the web?? an epic fail is a win??

now you made me start thinking... i hate when that happens...

do people really like "bad" stuff so much!?

 

[The Wykydtron]

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

Does that answer your question?

and PICASSO IS A HACK!!!
You suck picasso, i hate you so god damn much, you and your squiggles.

Ah i love the fact that people like Picasso, MC Escher etc are so bad at drawing it somehow goes full circle and becomes good. The fuck does that work? Double negatives only work in maths!

[sub]And English if you're being pedantic[/sub]

i was thinking... doesn´t that same principle occurs in the web?? an epic fail is a win??

now you made me start thinking... i hate when that happens...

do people really like "bad" stuff so much!?

Wins and fails are judged by their awesomeosity, so i'd say if a fail is so fail it becomes a win, it would be a win for physics for allowing the epic fail to happen but still a fail for whoever failed

That's how i see it

 

[spartan231490]

I'm talking about all types of art so are they all subjective,non subjective or just some of them subjective from what I can tell music is the most subjective of them all and paintings are the least because different people listen to different types of music its normal but when some people say they don't like Picasso or Van Gogh they are marked as morons.

So what do you think?

Everything is subjective. Even this topic. Anything that is truly objective only has one answer, and so we don't think about it much. Like math, or grammar, or spelling.

 

[Arkzism]

very subjective...

 

[tkioz]

Art is subjective yes, there are things of common beauty that the vast majority will all agree are beautiful, such as a Sunrise or Sunset, but once you start adding a human element it quickly becomes more and more subjective.

For example I see the beauty in many classical paintings, yet show my almost any "modern art" and I'll tell you I think it just looks like self indulgent crap.