But what *IS* thread?
My AA thread - Updated 06/28/14
She's saying that this thread is going nowhere fast so it's pointless. You can't present evidence for what is and isint art because it's so damn subjective. With religion you have "yes I believe" and "no I do not believe" but with this you get nothing but " it's what I say it is". It's easy to say what you consider art and why and you do not need anything else to back it up because no one cares about each others opinions on the subject to fight back against it. And in the end no one learns a thing from it.
So I've been away from MT for a long time. Yeah, I know, I'm necro-posting, but this is actually a really interesting topic (besides it's not like MT sees much action these days). I've been talking to a lot of professionals, mostly concept artists (which may apply bias to their statements), but I don't think I've ever met a single professional who said art is subjective.
Objectively speaking, art is not subjective. I know that sounds confusing, but bear with me.
Almost every man-made object on this planet was, at some point, designed by an artist based on rules of proportion, perspective, color theory, function, etc, etc. In other words, most of art is based heavily on objective principles. Now, I'm one of those people who thinks everything has a potential to be art (just to answer OP's question), but disagree that all art is subjective and therefore all art is good. Truth is like 99% of art is objective. It's in our vehicles, clothing, toys, packaging, games, movies. The vast, vast, vast majority of art is representational and governed by very objective rules. It's just that a lot of people won't even think to call it art unless it's in a picture frame, hanging in a museum. So they have this weird misconception that much of art is squiggly lines and paint splatters. They don't understand that art is everywhere, so it's easy to say that art is "subjective" because they don't see most real objects as being a product of art.
But when you think about all the individual items on this planet that were designed by an artist of some sort, it becomes infinitely clear that 99% of art is both technical and representational, and therefore highly objective.
Now, art can BE subjective. But only when speaking of the viewing experience. People are allowed to like what they like, and say so. But people need, need, NEED to stop making statements about a community that is akin to an iceberg to their perception. They are seeing only the tip. The rest of the very meticulously and objectively designed iceberg is submerged, directly under their radar.
So, objectively speaking, art is not subjective. You can like what you like, but you cannot tell a community comprised almost entirely of objectively measured work that Pollock makes "good art" that should be respected.
art is my foot up your ass marie
Right here, this is where I have to stop you. What's an artist? You can't use the word 'artist' meaningfully until we have reached some manner of agreement on what the term 'art' means. Because obviously we all know that 'artist' means something to the tune of 'a person who makes art' but that is meaningless unless we have some concept of what is and is not art.Almost every man-made object on this planet was, at some point, designed by an artist
The word 'artist' only has any value to it in relation to the word 'art' and as this entire discussion is about defining the latter term, it's pointless to use the former one. Is a key a work of art? If it is, then our concept of the word 'artist' must include locksmiths, while if it's not, then we would not include locksmiths in our definition of 'artist.'
It's like trying to define 'clocks' as 'things made by clock-makers'. If we don't know what a clock is, then we can't possibly know what a clock-maker is, so that definition is worthless to us.
Do you like big boobs? Dragons? Ninja? Martial arts? Wizards? Then click here and make all your wildest dreams come true!!
Everything has the potential to be art. It just happens that most of everything we see on a regular basis is man-made or a product of a natural scientific process like biology (which knows no subjectivity). That's why I'm saying that most art is objective, because most of everything is objective.
But even if we give art a form and function definition like "a man-made visual stimulus", like 99% of art is still measured against objective standards, because 99% of man-made objects with a visual design are things like cars, buildings, clothing which follow rigid guidelines for quality, appeal and function. Even when it comes to things like designing logos, which are based heavily in taste, there is still a science to it. Red makes people hungry, for example. Red colors are hot, and suggest energy or power. There are tabulated psychological reactions to almost all visual stimuli, so it's arguable that even taste is objectively measured.
Art is a smoothie of subjective and objective.
"It was alright I guess"
Really though I've never been good at wording anything, so I'll just say my piece and be off.
I believe art is just a smoothie of a concept. Toss in some expression, maybe a dash of emotion, some technical skill, principals of your craft (aka [insert design something something theory here], a story, a vision, a dream, an opinion, a statement, who knows what else, and BOOM suddenly you might have '*art'.
Really I don't think we'll get a better broad definition for what 'art' is than the one you can just Google. Buuuut that's just me. I don't believe all art is subjective either, but I generally fall back on that statement because most of the time it's just a subjective thing with objective foundations. But sometimes it's a subjective thing with subjective foundations because fuck the rules I'm art.
*All ingredients not required.
Art is an abstract concept contingent on its embedding in pre-existing social structures. In a sense Cypress is right, but he misses that the 'objective' standards through which we measure objects as art (it begs the question to define ordinary objects as art) are already based on complex social patterns. Art is subjective, but that doesn't mean it's just a matter of individual taste; it's a matter of social convention.
Even taking Cypress's example of a car, there's no reason why you couldn't make something that's shitty as a car but amazing as a piece of neo-minimalist sculpture, etc.
So art is located in the interpretation of a given object as art. The interpretation itself is contingent on social factors (language is social, innit) meaning that it's not subjective in the crass (Modernist) sense of 'whatever bruv' but nonetheless not objective in the sense that it is ultimately located in the perceiver, not the object itself.
Originally Posted by Fenn