What is objectively good art?

[Rival]

I love Mediaeval art the best. It's symbolic, meaningful, colourful and often hilarious.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I think what the invention of the camera really showed us was that representational painting and drawing were never only representational. They were a view of the subject through the artist’s eyes, heart, and mind. In fact, that’s what made the great art of those days, great art. Not the accuracy of the visual representation, but the gift of being able to see the world through the eyes, heart, and mind of the artist.

It’s why photographs are not automatically considered works of art. They only become works of art when an artist uses that medium to share his view of the world, his heart and mind in that moment, with us.

Partly, perhaps, because an artist shows us what he or she sees; they share their vision with us. And the best of them always see beneath the surface of things, inviting us to do likewise.

But just to see the surface of a thing, to really see it in all it’s intricate beauty - this in itself is some achievement

 

[Secret Chief]

No such thing, I think.

This.

 

[Kooky]

But it has a clear objective value unlike art.

Does it really? Without a subjective need to sleep, would beds have value? Cultures such as Classical Rome made do without chairs, because sitting upright held no significant value to the Roman elite who would have commissioned these pieces of furniture.

Even economic value is a function of an object's use value, coupled with supply and demand. So, while one could argue that art has an economic value (or, actually, several economic values, derived from different metrics) I would not go so far as to claim that this economic value ought to be considered an objective one.

In general, I would argue that objectivity is a tricky issue because so much of our social constructions don't really offer anything "objective" in the strict sense, because their usage and meaning depend on a specific cultural, social, or economic context. Value, specifically, only really makes sense in an intersubjective or social environment. Without anybody to value something, what "objective" value would it really have? Arguably, none at all.

 

[Kooky]

But how does that help us towards whether art is objectively good, the artist would have to explain his experience for us to know if he had achieved his purpose.

Arguably, this constitutes a major portion of (post)modern artistry; the art may speak for itself, but only somebody else can lend it the necessary philosophical, political and, ultimately, critical depth. A lot of academically trained artists here are required to take Philosophy or other Humanities subjects in order to be able to speak meaningfully about their own art and that of others.

 

[Secret Chief]

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? )

Hang on. Are you saying you form your own opinions?

(When I see the word 'supposed' I reach for my...brush...)

 

[Secret Chief]

Without there being a few rules in art, I can draw this in 10-15 seconds like I did, and call it 'art':

View attachment 54096

And?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

And?

Well it's not art to me. It's just scribbles. It may have minimalistic value, but that's not the point.

The point is that: There are best practice rules to art, I feel, despite art not being objective.

 

[Secret Chief]

If we are talking about visual art, then before the invent of the camera, representation was one objective criterion that could be used to judge a work of art. The ability to paint a horse that looked like a horse, or a human hand that looked like a hand, was enough to show that the artist was capable of achieving what he or she set out to do.

The camera changed everything though; the decision to paint or draw, rather than photograph, a face, a moving form, a still life or a reflection on the surface of the pond, is a decision to do something more than just reproduce an image. So before we can begin to judge a piece of art, we have to have some idea of what the artist is trying to show us, beyond simple representation. In a sense that was always true, but with the likes of Titian or Vermeer or Hokusai, we know straight away that we are in the presence of greatness simply because the images they produced were so visceral you could step into the painting.

So how do you judge a Jackson Pollock or a Mark Rothko? Objectivity, it’s arguable that you can’t, really. Speaking for myself, I have never failed to be moved by the series of paintings Rothko created on commission for the Four Seasons restaurant in New York, which he donated at the last minute to the Tate Britain (thanks, Mark). But it’s a futile job , for me anyway, trying to defend them from the accusation that they are ”just massive daubs of paint”. Because that’s really what they are.

My partner hates the band Oasis. She says it’s just a noise; to which I always reply, “Yeah, but what a bloody noise”.

I was with you till the word "Oasis."

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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

Frequently -- but that is, of course, 100% subjective.

Art is always subjective -- that's part of what makes it "art."

 

[Secret Chief]

Well it's not art to me. It's just scribbles. It may have minimalistic value, but that's not the point.

The point is that: There are best practice rules to art, I feel, despite art not being objective.

The time it took you is, to me, irrelevant.
There are practices / techniques but I don't see how that relates to the question of there being "objectively good" art.

 

[Secret Chief]

What is objectively good art?

Convince me that art can be objectively good.

Why in this forum?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

The time it took you is, to me, irrelevant.
There are practices / techniques but I don't see how that relates to the question of there being "objectively good" art.

Well, my answer was: There is no objectively good art, but there are additional nuances to the subject worth consideration.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

If your art has a goal, then its objectivity is reached when it matches the requirements of such . If I wish to paint a realistic picture of someone, you will look at it, and judge how close I got to doing that.

Maybe another goal , or complimentary one , might be how much aesthetic pleasure it gives the maximum amount of people. That can be measured too, and then your work becomes closer to being objectively aesthetic

 

[SalixIncendium]

What is objectively good art?

Convince me that art can be objectively good.

As opposed to evil?

 

[JustGeorge]

Hang on. Are you saying you form your own opinions?

(When I see the word 'supposed' I reach for my...brush...)

Opinions? Is that what those things are called?

Are you going to brush your hair? I hope you're not going to brush my hair...

 

[QuestioningMind]

What is objectively good art?

Convince me that art can be objectively good.

There's no such thing. You may as well be asking what is objectively the best flavor of ice-cream.

 

[Rawshak]

As opposed to evil?

As opposed to bad.

 

[Rawshak]

Why in this forum?

Because I have always been fascinated by the importance people put on the objective/subjective argument. So I chose a subject which is intangible, valued by all societies and which many people have an opinion on. As a new member it will be interesting to see how many of the posters who are not bothered by objective/subjective feel the same way when the subject is good morals or truth.

 

[Tiberius]

What is objectively good art?

Convince me that art can be objectively good.

I don't think it can be done. Art is a subjective experience, there's no objectivity to it. What is a masterpiece to one person can be considered junk by another. If there really was some objectivity to it, we would have figured it out long ago and we'd have people churning out masterpieces by the truckload.