I think these would sill be classified as best practice, rather than hard and fast rules.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is objectively good art?
- Thread starter Rawshak
- Start date
PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
Without there being a few rules in art, I can draw this in 10-15 seconds like I did, and call it 'art':
PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
Oh wait. I agree with you.
Rule of thirds, etc?
This image is oddly satisfying and I thought of it as an atheist symbol - maybe it reminded me of the humanist symbol.
Last edited:
PureX
Veteran Member
Art transcends the subjective / objective divide. In fact, it marries these two conceptual paradigms to give us a glimpse at a realm beyond. Art is quite extraordinary that way.
OK thank you, that is not helping me be convinced that art can be objectively good, though I might agree with your answer.
PureX
Veteran Member
‘Good art’ is not concerned with whether or not it is considered good art by you or me or anyone. Very few people understand this or understand why this is so. In fact, very few people even know what art is, or why it exists. That’s unfortunate, but that’s also what makes it so rare and so special.
If you cannot show that art can be objectively good how can you argue what good art is?
What are you basing your subjective argument on?
PureX
Veteran Member
The problem is with your criteria: objectively good. A table is objectively good. Even better with a chair. What does this have to do with art? Why are you making it an art issue in you mind?
PureX
Veteran Member
Art has a purpose. How well it fulfills that purpose determines whether it’s good art or not. Not whether you like it or not.
Art has existed in all societies and therefore has a value placed on it by humans.
How do you determine arts purpose?
PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
I agree that you and I may have different ideas of art based on our past interactions. Honestly, you strike me more as the type who would value the kind of stuff you see in a museum, and that's okay. I respect that, if so. I consider myself more of the type to do digital art, paints, maybe even try something like colored pencils.
I disagree however, that few know what art is, though I do think some people aren't born with a natural inclination to being artists. And there's not much in the immediate, rather than long term, way of helping them get better at it.
On the other hand, I agree that 'good art' can be rare and special, even though I think you and I may have different ideas on 'art'.
PureX
Veteran Member
So has furniture.
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
That's the exact opposite of an objective criterium, though, isn't it?
If you actually want to appreciate art objectively, you would have to decouple it from individual experience. Now, that certainly can be done - it all depends on what criteria we care to use in order to assess the quality of art (and on our definition of what constitutes "art" to begin with!).
But even so, I would pose the question of - why? What would be the point of stripping art of its subjective components entirely? (Not a rhetorical question!)
But it has a clear objective value unlike art.
PureX
Veteran Member
We don’t need to determine it in a general sense. It already has been determined. Art is one human’s endeavoring to share his / her subjective experience of being with other humans, by capturing and displaying it in some objective medium.
Last edited:
Yes I think so, but I want to know if art can be objectively good.