What is objectively good art?

[Rawshak]

What is objectively good art?

Convince me that art can be objectively good.

 

[Rival]

No such thing, I think.

 

[Rawshak]

No such thing, I think.

Do you ever look at a painting and feel moved by it?

 

[Rival]

Do you ever look at a painting and feel moved by it?

Very infrequently.

 

[JustGeorge]

Do you ever look at a painting and feel moved by it?

I have. But I find the paintings that I feel are moving aren't the ones I'm 'supposed' to like. And a lot of artists that people are supposed to like... I often don't. (Guess this means I'm some kind of slob? )

 

[Rawshak]

Very infrequently.

But sometimes, do you think that it is entirely subjective what you believe about that art?

 

[Rival]

But sometimes, do you think that it is entirely subjective what you believe about that art?

I do.

 

[Rawshak]

I have. But I find the paintings that I feel are moving aren't the ones I'm 'supposed' to like. And a lot of artists that people are supposed to like... I often don't. (Guess this means I'm some kind of slob? )

I do not think so, I think that those who pretend art can be objectively good are snobs.

 

[sun rise]

Since this is a 'religious debate' because of its location, religions assign 'good' if it glorifies God and the religious tradition.

 

[Rawshak]

Since this is a 'religious debate' because of its location, religions assign 'good' if it glorifies God and the religious tradition.

Would you assign "good" as if it glorifies God and the religious tradition?

 

[Rival]

It's my view that all art is subjective; I'm not sure how it could be anything else.

 

[Brickjectivity]

What is objectively good art?

Convince me that art can be objectively good.

Just because it can't be proven doesn't mean no such thing exists. Prove that there isn't objectively good art.

 

[Rawshak]

It's my view that all art is subjective; I'm not sure how it can be anything else.

I think we are in complete agreement here, I wonder if we will as the debate develops.

 

[Rawshak]

Just because it can't be proven doesn't mean no such thing exists. Prove that there isn't objectively good art.

Not the point of the challenge.

 

[sun rise]

Would you assign "good" as if it glorifies God and the religious tradition?

Personally no. It might be good propaganda but ugly.

I took a course in aesthetics in college decades ago. At the end of that course, I decided that there was no objective way to assign good to a piece of art given the vastly different thoughts philosophers had.

People can say they like something. A piece of art can be judged according to some arbitrary standard. But that's it.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Not the point of the challenge.

Ok. So let me try, but you'll need to clarify some things. What is art and what isn't art? Does art exist? If so what is it for?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

There are rules of thumb for making good art and what makes art good - but I don't further feel it makes art objective.

 

[Rawshak]

Ok. So let me try, but you'll need to clarify some things. What is art and what isn't art? Does art exist? If so what is it for?

Art can be anything you want it to be etc, just convince me that it can be objectively good.

 

[Rival]

There are rules of thumb for making good art and what makes art good

Such as?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Such as?

I'll keep it simple for now:

Focal points: Let's Talk About the Focal Point in Art (Part 1)