Can objectivity exist in Art?

[SomeRandom]

So I’ve been recently bemusedly commenting on a YouTube comments section about art critique of all things.
The somewhat heated debates (which to be fair has remained mostly civil and cordial) is about whether or not one can objectively criticise art.
Of course this is independent of art theory, which exists, can be taught and even updates.
Like I’m not suggesting that that is irrelevant.
People having been bringing up film techniques used in films that have been deemed as “poor.”
But if a film maker deliberately uses those techniques to create the desired affect, are those techniques bad? Or are they just tools at the end of the day?
Someone else mentioned production mistakes as being objectionably bad. But some people like those mistakes and even enjoy hunting for them. There are probably films that put them in deliberately for those people.

So have at it? What’s your take?

 

[dybmh]

So have at it? What’s your take?

I like new ideas in art. So it's pretty easy to say something is objectively unique and original from an artistic perspective.

The performing arts... it's pretty easy to be objective if the performers are inadequate or poorly prepared.

Photography has some additional opportunity for objective criticism.

Also literature and poetry I suppose can be objectively "Bad".

 

[SomeRandom]

I like new ideas in art. So it's pretty easy to say something is objectively unique and original from an artistic perspective.

The performing arts... it's pretty easy to be objective if the performers are inadequate or poorly prepared.

Photography has some additional opportunity for objective criticism.

Also literature and poetry I suppose can be objectively "Bad".

Can you derive pleasure from such instances?

 

[Brickjectivity]

So I’ve been recently bemusedly commenting on a YouTube comments section about art critique of all things.
The somewhat heated debates (which to be fair has remained mostly civil and cordial) is about whether or not one can objectively criticise art.
Of course this is independent of art theory, which exists, can be taught and even updates.
Like I’m not suggesting that that is irrelevant.
People having been bringing up film techniques used in films that have been deemed as “poor.”
But if a film maker deliberately uses those techniques to create the desired affect, are those techniques bad? Or are they just tools at the end of the day?
Someone else mentioned production mistakes as being objectionably bad. But some people like those mistakes and even enjoy hunting for them. There are probably films that put them in deliberately for those people.

So have at it? What’s your take?

The term 'Art' indicates skill, but it has grown to include indirect communication through various media. Its a mixed term, now. Sometimes art means "Telling the truth through a lie" which is an interesting concept analogous to the use of telling stories and parables. Story is considered an art form for both reasons: it requires skill and is communicating in multiple modes. In particular art is valued if it conveys a moral message, lesson or protest, because that is usually considered its greatest potential form.

Another thing about art is that it leaves behind mere imitation. If you are simply imitating things as closely as possible you are not making art. No, you have to present the same object in a different way; and even then if your medium can't be used for communication its not the multimode kind of art but is simply skillful or perhaps enjoyable. You could use an identical object in a different setting in order to achieve art.

For example if I learn how to sing 'Rawhide' as closely as possible to the original I'm practicing, learning a skill but not really producing art. If I on the other hand use the Rawhide song in the right place at the right time to communicate a message, particularly a moral or ethical message, that is art. I have in that case made the song into a new medium, made it multimodal and have done so skillfully. It is objectively art.

 

[dybmh]

Can you derive pleasure from such instances?

Bad poetry is pretty bad... Vogons... Need I say more...

I like bad theater. That's fun.

Boring common photography... No.

 

[SomeRandom]

The term 'Art' indicates skill, but it has grown to include indirect communication through various media. Its a mixed term, now. Sometimes art means "Telling the truth through a lie" which is an interesting concept analogous to the use of telling stories and parables. Story is considered an art form for both reasons: it requires skill and is communicating in multiple modes. In particular art is valued if it conveys a moral message, lesson or protest, because that is usually considered its greatest potential form.

Another thing about art is that it leaves behind mere imitation. If you are simply imitating things as closely as possible you are not making art. No, you have to present the same object in a different way; and even then if your medium can't be used for communication its not the multimode kind of art but is simply skillful or perhaps enjoyable. You could use an identical object in a different setting in order to achieve art.

For example if I learn how to sing 'Rawhide' as closely as possible to the original I'm practicing, learning a skill but not really producing art. If I on the other hand use the Rawhide song in the right place at the right time to communicate a message, particularly a moral or ethical message, that is art. I have in that case made the song into a new medium, made it multimodal and have done so skillfully. It is objectively art.

But why is a moral needed to make a story “art.” Or to make it art? The Libertines weren’t exactly moral, depending on your definition. And their works are still considered part of the “illustrious Western literary canon.”

 

[SomeRandom]

Bad poetry is pretty bad... Vogons... Need I say more...

Hehe!! Appreciate the reference. I’m sure there’s someone, somewhere in the galaxy that is a fan. Not sure if I’d be eager to meet that fan, though.

 

[Brickjectivity]

But why is a moral needed to make a story “art.” Or to make it art? The Libertines weren’t exactly moral, depending on your definition. And their works are still considered part of the “illustrious Western literary canon.”

I mean it makes the art valuable. It makes it high art versus art that is merely fun. If Ghengis Khan left his buttprint somewhere in concrete it might sell, but it still wouldn't be high art. It might even be art if he was using it to communicate. It would not be considered art by me otherwise.

You are an artform if God made you. If God didn't, then you aren't an art form. That is subjective, because it depends on point of view. If on the other hand you take something like a vase with flowers and put it into a dark closet so that people have to open the door to see the vase, and you use this as part of a show that is about secrets then you have definitely made art. You have used ordinary materials to convey a meaning beyond what they normally could be used for.

 

[crossfire]

I think art can be objectively bad if it has harmful side effects, such as causing epileptic seizures.

 

[SomeRandom]

I mean it makes the art valuable. It makes it high art versus art that is merely fun. If Ghengis Khan left his buttprint somewhere in concrete it might sell, but it still wouldn't be high art. It might even be art if he was using it to communicate. It would not be considered art by me otherwise.

You are an artform if God made you. If God didn't, then you aren't an art form. That is subjective, because it depends on point of view. If on the other hand you take something like a vase with flowers and put it into a dark closet so that people have to open the door to see the vase, and you use this as part of a show that is about secrets then you have definitely made art. You have used ordinary materials to convey a meaning beyond what they normally could be used for.

But isn’t that a subjective value? Not every artist seeks to have a moral message. They might even mock said moral message. I’m thinking of the Romantics, who placed beauty and free expression over the cold logic held by NeoClassism. Itself a response to the previous Baroque movements. (I swear most artistic movements are literally artists rebelling against conventional wisdom and previous art movements.)
Those paintings are considered by many to fall into the category of high art. But they don’t convey any moral, that I’m aware of. Maybe be yourself, I guess. Arguably.
I mean are you even supposed to take away a moral message from say Wurthering Heights or to go to another movement Aestheticism/Decadance with The Importance of being Earnest?
And I vastly prefer them to say Aesop’s fables, despite being a folklore junkie.
And how much value do you even place on the authorial intent? Do you perhaps “kill” the author and examine the work as is? Which is an agreed upon critical philosophy. Or do you endeavour to see what the author is specifically trying to say? Which is another accepted critical philosophy.

I guess I can agree that one can make objective observations about something in the arts. But where I struggle with is what art is supposed to be about. Some schools of thought place emotional reactions above all else. Others place more value on the moral message. Others still scoff at the idea of even pinpointing something abstract like it was some mathematical formula. All are argued about and yet all are still accepted in art theory. To what degree seems to rely more on the teacher than anything else.

Art seems to have agreed upon rules and even agreed upon giants. And yet there are just as many examples of artists literally breaking every rule they can being similarly exalted.

What is the true purpose of art? Is it supposed to be a teacher? A guide to moral living? Or is it merely an extension of human expression? Is it supposed to be a mirror? Or is it supposed to be more optimistic?
There are so many different philosophies and approaches in the art world and they are seemingly held in high esteem. By both academia and layperson alike. Of course some do fall in and out of favour. And some are “re-examined.”

It seems more like organised chaos to me.

 

[SomeRandom]

I think art can be objectively bad if it has harmful side effects, such as causing epileptic seizures.

Oh you mean like this?

 

[Brickjectivity]

But isn’t that a subjective value? Not every artist seeks to have a moral message. They might even mock said moral message. I’m thinking of the Romantics, who placed beauty and free expression over the cold logic held by NeoClassism. Itself a response to the previous Baroque movements. (I swear most artistic movements are literally artists rebelling against conventional wisdom and previous art movements.)
Those paintings are considered by many to fall into the category of high art. But they don’t convey any moral, that I’m aware of. Maybe be yourself, I guess. Arguably.
I mean are you even supposed to take away a moral message from say Wurthering Heights or to go to another movement Aestheticism/Decadance with The Importance of being Earnest?
And I vastly prefer them to say Aesop’s fables, despite being a folklore junkie.
And how much value do you even place on the authorial intent? Do you perhaps “kill” the author and examine the work as is? Which is an agreed upon critical philosophy. Or do you endeavour to see what the author is specifically trying to say? Which is another accepted critical philosophy.

I'm leaving out the question of how law defines art, so I"m just talking about the concept. I am avoiding commodity. I think the concept is that you raise the medium to communicate beyond its normal ability. You say something through it or transmit an idea, feeling question and so on. I probably confused the definition of high art in my post. Instead of using 'High art' I will avoid that phrase. I think that art has more value when its transmitting an important message. That is subjective; but the fact that it is communicating something beyond the normal means of its medium is often obvious, and then who can deny that it is art? Often times art just means something you have made that is original. That seems subjective. When its subjective to me is if its hard to identify whether its art or not. For instance if I set a kitchen table its an arrangement, but is it art? Its subjectively art I think. On the other hand if I arrange your eggplant spaghetti into a cone to recognize that you make a good point, then I think that has to be considered art. The spaghetti has transcended its normal purpose and has become a bridge between two people.

I guess I can agree that one can make objective observations about something in the arts. But where I struggle with is what art is supposed to be about. Some schools of thought place emotional reactions above all else. Others place more value on the moral message. Others still scoff at the idea of even pinpointing something abstract like it was some mathematical formula. All are argued about and yet all are still accepted in art theory. To what degree seems to rely more on the teacher than anything else.

Yeah definitely I think that there is nobody who can say what it has to be about, except it has to relate to people. The purpose is in our heads. I don't think we count art as valuing itself. If you put two paintings facing one another, you can imagine that they appreciate each other; but its only if that speaks to you that it can be art. Their opinions don't really count, since they don't have any real opinions. Its common for homes to feature Pinkie and Blueboy. Its a little girl in pink and a little boy in blue, each in separate picture frames. People imagine that they are together, because they come in a set. Nobody sets them facing one another. I don't know why.

Art seems to have agreed upon rules and even agreed upon giants. And yet there are just as many examples of artists literally breaking every rule they can being similarly exalted.

What is the true purpose of art? Is it supposed to be a teacher? A guide to moral living? Or is it merely an extension of human expression? Is it supposed to be a mirror? Or is it supposed to be more optimistic?
There are so many different philosophies and approaches in the art world and they are seemingly held in high esteem. By both academia and layperson alike. Of course some do fall in and out of favour. And some are “re-examined.”

It seems more like organised chaos to me.

It is a substitute for experience. Sometimes art lets you smuggle an idea through that would otherwise be suppressed. Huckleberry Finn is fiction by Mark Twain, but it speaks plainly. If I tell you "You need to read Huckleberry Finn" I am saying something to you indirectly. Sometimes art just opens you. It may open a door that was closed. You may learn something about yourself or others. It may help you deal with a question, somewhat like a dream can. Sometimes the beauty or the horror can reach you and stimulate you. Sometimes it enables you to test your boundries, to do in your mind what you are forbidden to do. It can be that you have been told that you are always being watched by God, or it can be that you are under the thumb of a very powerful government. Maybe that art is critical of God or of that government. Maybe you look at art to find out if what is true, to find out if anyone knows what you are looking at -- to realize your autonomy. Autonomy is a human need that some people are starved for. Art might enable you to imagine tastes that you cannot taste, to live vicariously and to learn more richly.

 

[PureX]

Art has a purpose. Specific works of art have a specific purpose. The culture within which a work of art is produced defines purpose of art for that culture. But the artwork itself will define it's specific purpose within that context. Then, how well it fulfills that purpose will determine if it's a "good" or a "bad" (successful) work of art.

What an observer likes or dislikes about any work of art, or kind of art, is not relevant to the artwork's value or purpose. It's only relevant to the observer. So to determine a work of art's "objective value" the observer must determine that artworks general (cultural), and it's specific (intrinsic), purpose. And then determine how well it fulfills those.

I have participated in many, many fine art critiques, and one of the first rules of art criticism is that it's not about what I or anyone else "likes" or doesn't like. It's about being a detailed, thoughtful, and trusting observer, and then sharing one's observations with others, to form a consensus.

 

[crossfire]

Oh you mean like this?
View attachment 35045

yep

 

[HonestJoe]

People having been bringing up film techniques used in films that have been deemed as “poor.”
But if a film maker deliberately uses those techniques to create the desired affect, are those techniques bad? Or are they just tools at the end of the day?

Something being objectively good or bad requires context. If the technique is being intentionally used to create a specific effect and it succeeds in creating that effect, it is good in that context (whether the resultant effect is artistically good is a separate question). If the technique is used but doesn't have the intended effect, it isn't good in that context (though again, whether the actual unintended outcome is artistically good is a different question).

Cause and effect can be objectively assessed. Artistic quality probably isn't.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Check out this new thread:

.

"A Methodist church in Claremont unveiled a Nativity scene Saturday night depicting Jesus, Mary and Joseph as refugees in cages, likening one of the most well-known images of the Christmas season to photos that have become synonymous with criticism of the Trump administration’s border separation policies.

The display, which has stoked debate on the Facebook page of the church's lead pastor shows classic Nativity figurines of Joseph and Mary in cages on either side of a cage containing the manger of Jesus.

“We see this as, in some ways, the Holy Family standing in for the nameless families,” said the Rev. Karen Clark Ristine, the lead pastor at Claremont United Methodist Church. “We’ve heard of their plight; we’ve seen how these asylum seekers have been greeted and treated. We wanted the Holy Family to stand in for those nameless people because they also were refugees.”

While the Nativity scene shows Jesus shortly after birth and is the foundation of the Christmas holiday, the Claremont depiction appears to be invoking Joseph and Mary’s flight to Egypt. Under most interpretations, the infant Jesus and his parents had to escape Jerusalem for fear King Herod would have the baby slaughtered, perceiving the child as a threat to his reign."
source​

Thoughts?

That's got to be art.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

The somewhat heated debates (which to be fair has remained mostly civil and cordial) is about whether or not one can objectively criticise art.

Indeed, well this seems to be sort of the core problem of my life, as I am a musician who tries to use this status as a basis for art creation. For me, the problem eventually evolved into a mostly 'inward debate.' I have trouble identifying the endpoint for my own goals apparently. It can change from day to day, or from realization to realization. I might record a song 4 or 5 times in radically different ways for example. A problem is, once I get a 'better idea' it is often sort of too late to implement. Beginning a work can be overwhelming as well, as one can very quickly allow themselves to be drowned in possibilities. So in frustration, I don't think I'll be doing anything creative today. I suppose I'll spend the remainder in taking a lonely walk into the middle of the marsh.. maybe the bird-song with enlighten me

 

[Secret Chief]

I would say in answer to the question: No.

To think that there is could be the start of a slippery slope.

 

[PureX]

'Art' is basically a category of human activity. But for that activity to occur, some sort of 'objective' medium is needed. In that sense, art is always 'objective'. Yet the physical medium is not the art, it's only the means of conveyance, the way words convey ideas from one human to another. And because that means of conveyance must be 'interpreted' for it to function as art, art becomes fundamentally subjective, rather than objective.

Ultimately, all human experience is subjective, as we are the "subjects" doing the experiencing. "Objectivity" is somewhat of an ideological myth created by our recognition of the difference between what we think is 'real' and what we experience as reality. In many ways a primary function of the artistic endeavor is to provide we humans with a more full experience and understanding of reality by sharing our own, with others, through works of art. So in that way, we could say that art is both objective and subjective. Objective in it's intent to open our experience and understanding of reality beyond what we currently think it is, yet subjective in that it's a shared experience and understanding of one individual's reality, with others.