|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted September 02, 2013 12:22 PM |
|
|
No artu, it's you repeating yourself, because you have no convincing argument for your point, and you know that as well, but you are not prepared to concede the point, because it would somehow be in contradiction to what you belief. But since you have no rational point, you are currently debating not on a rational foundation.
And Sal, Sal is talking about artists improving now. What has THAT to do with anything? If an artist, aspiring or accomplished, isn't satisfied with their work and concluding that their technical merits are not enough to adequately produce what they have in mind, then they either will work to get better or find another way - or maybe become depressed or who-knows what. This is yet again based on the idea that art will be all the better the more technical ability is necessary to produce it, but that is completely wrong:
while someone with more technical ability has in theory a broader arsenal for use to express him- or herself, first and foremost - as mentioned - there must be SOMETHING that IS expressed except sheer virtuosity. Virtuosity is all nice and well, but if it's empty it's not art, but just technical brilliance.
I find it pretty amzing, actually, that people are so keen on rating things, they can't even properly define.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 02, 2013 12:42 PM |
|
|
|
Dude, you just say its all about purely subjective taste and I objected to that on many basis, I gave examples from prehistoric times, small children clearly indicating tastes do evolve, I quoted you talking about tastes as things that can get refined, I asked some very simple questions about the whole metric issue to Corribus (which can be considered directed also at you since you still back that view) and you didnt answer to. them. The only thing you keep saying is "it's all subjective" while the many posts here show it's not that simple.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 02, 2013 02:00 PM |
|
|
Dude, YOU are claiming something you cannot prove, it's that simple. And since YOU are the one claiming things YOU must provide the metric.
You mentioned Jazz as being a minority music. The reason for that, fairly obviously, is that Jazz may have pretty complex patterns and rhythms that may even be atonal, and, phrased simply, that it's not catchy for the most part, and you can sing along.
While that is ok - why wouldn't you start to RATE things now by trying to invent categories to prove that people who listen intently to Jazz and like it ("understanding" it) have a more refined taste, because Jazz in general is of "higher quality"?
It's just DIFFERENT.
Now, if you wanted to make a "quality comparison" between, say, Free Jazz and Country & Western, you'd have to define a "quality metric", which is exactly the point where things stop making sense, because different art (styles) have different purposes altogether and entertain in a different way.
I've been giving NUMEROUS examples in the course of this thread of how it doesn't make sense, and even for how too much secondary, that is meta-level knowledge about techniques and so on may even be detrimental for the actual enjoyment of art, and the only thing you do is repeating that just because you cannot define strictly scientific ways of quality measurement and assessment that wouldn't mean, everything is subjective - but you failed to mention WHY. Statistics? Well, that's certainly selling figures, so that would mean, Jazz sucks - ah, wait, I forgot, that most people actually have no idea.
And that's basically the whole point behind it - people have no idea. You must be an EXPERT in things to rate them, but you forget, that the only people having an interest in that are the experts and those who like to think they are one. The rest simply likes or doesn't like, or maybe finds it interesting or boring, because in the end, when it comes down to it, that's the only thing that matters: does it capture people's interest and what does it mean for them. It doesn't help saying, to really appreciate this piece of art you must have studied this or that for 10 years,
because
Art and enjoying it is not about studying something for half a life as a CONSUMER of it. That would make everyone an idiot in art except in one area or maybe two. Movies? Shouldn't you have studied movie and theater science, before you even have the qualification necessary to watch an Ingmar Bergmann or a Hitchcock movie?
And so on.
But in the end, if you watch Psycho, it doesn't matter whether you can say a lot about composition and stuff, the effect of music, of light and shadow and whatnot, what matters is whether it's a blast to watch or not. It doesn't matter, HOW you are hooked, AS LONG AS you are hooked. And only if you are interested in HOW DID THEY DO IT! because you want to know how the magician knew what card you had, it will be interesting for you to delve into the technicalities - which tend to have an effect on how you view things, and not only a good one, because you tend to overemphasize your field of expertise, even if you don't want to: If you KNOW the tricks of the trade, you'll LOSE something as well.
Look at me, I'm a translator. Meanwhile I read nearly exclusively in English, because when I read it in translation, my field of expertise is simply distracting me - I tend to overemphasize the translation quality, and one silly error or slip may ruin the whole read for me, although the book may be really good.
Look at what the ancient Greeks - or better, Aristoteles - wrote about the theater and the effect of the tragedy: it's all about all katharsis, which is living through a couple of emotional states like grief and emotional touch, horror and shudder to cleanse the soul.
That doesn't work on an intellectual level. You either let yourself draw in or not, but if you start thinking, what the hell, that's completely unlikely to happen to anyone, it just won't work.
Art works primarily with emotions - it's emotion processed by the brain, but the emotions have to there to perceive as what they are, not filtered through rationalization, that is maiming the experience.
That's why a catchy tune that lifts you up and lightens your mood has one hell of a lot of worth, because it IS something. Saying, come on, it's silly, doesn't change that.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 02, 2013 04:10 PM |
|
|
You really miss the point(s), I already told you its not like studying an exam but even having an interest sometimes requires more investment of your time and attention and you keep caricaturizing that process into a lab experiment. You also keep expecting scientific accuracy in a field that works differently. All this thread my first objection has been it is not a black and white picture of scientific metrics versus total subjectivity. Aristotales talked about katharsis, yes, but he also had a bunch of criteria on what an art piece should be and he said that it must be enlightening also, so he's really not your best buddy on the subject.
You say it is JUST different while this whole discussion is about the significance of the differences. If I say jellyfish and humans are just different and none of them are chosen or special creatures, that does not change the fact that one of the organisms is more sophisticated than the other. A refined taste is a taste that is able to RECIEVE that sophistication, why do you have a problem with such a simple concept?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 02, 2013 05:16 PM |
|
|
Because it is ridiculous. There must be objective criteria, otherwise it's just elitist nonsense based on some bias.
Your example is faulty, because suddenly it's about SOPHISTICATION of BIOLOGICAL ORGANISMS.
However, we are not talking about what is more sophisticated or complex, because you'd have to show first that sophistication or complexity would a generally enhancing factor in art.
That is YOUR problem: you have an idea what makes one art better than the other, but you cannot formulate it in general terms - and you are not the first one who struggles here; you follow the general assumption that there must be a measurable, describable difference between pieces of art that would allow a quality assessment, because your idea is that there is art and there is crap, that there is a difference between art looking like crap for some, but IS actually art, and art looking good for some, but IS actually crap.
But in order to do that, you must define the CORE of what art actually is. But your problem is, that art depends ON THE RECEPTION OF OTHERS, which would mean that you either had a somewhat democratic understanding - if it sells it must have something - or an elitist understanding (which you have) - you must be qualified to judge whether it's art or crap.
However, the elitist point of view is in complete opposition to the actual purpose of art that should be EXPERIENCED individually and unbiased without a "critic" telling them what they SHOULD feel.
You can watch this foolishness with the "election debates": candidates have a TV battle nowadays, but instead letting things simply take effect on the audience, afterwards EXPERTS tell the audience who supposedly won, was better, looked better, presented himself better and so on. All that's missing is that they start something like that in courts as well, after the prosecution and the defendant side made their pleas: experts who tell the jury who "won", had the better arguments and was more convincing.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 02, 2013 06:04 PM |
|
|
I'm not talking about being guided by critics, I mentioned critics on a totally different context to emphasize there is a limit to subjectivity. Besides, reading literary ( or other) theory is never a bad thing, I enjoy it and I consider a good work of criticism or theory more creative than a cliche, mediocre novel or poem .
You can read Moby Dick at fifteen as a naval adventure, all that whale hunting and the storms etc etc. You can read it just like the way you read SpideMan.When you're 30, you can read it again as an enormous observation on human psychology, obsession, passion and the elegance of the style would be a pretty good bonus too. Because it has those layers and depth. With SpiderMan you would get bored much quicker though, it would basically have nostalgic value. I dont need science or critics to make that distinction, having been read good critics would help me realize more layers though, that's not a bad thing and not something you deliberately study either. You still get the katharsis. But someone who only read Spiderman in his life can't. The way I see it, its his loss, sigh.... But if he claims there is no qualitative difference between the two because it cant be measured scientifically, that is a totally misplaced expectation and comparison.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted September 02, 2013 06:20 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
... that art depends ON THE RECEPTION OF OTHERS...
So true. Art is evenly split between intent and perception, just like any communication.
As a poet, I was initially very bewildered when my intent was invisible to some because what they read & related, was completely different than anything I imagined.
Later on I began to really respect & enjoy this elusive aspect of Art because it did much more than prove "beauty is in the eye of the beholder to me (because I knew that was true) but that value or purpose and meaning were all dependent on the receiver and not "easily" under the command of the Artist. It is much more akin to this; I write "Red"; while the different readers react with " * Riding Hood", "in the * ", "Better * than dead". " *-Dawn", "Little * Wagon" and on and on. A few might even think "Red a book"<vbg>
I shared this fun for a purpose; Art is a personal expression and therefore I think very important. That our artistic efforts might be understood in odd ways, once it leaves our private domain, should be expected and should not deter ones further attempts at Art.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 02, 2013 06:28 PM |
|
|
There is a great book that consists of debates on that matter (the gap between the intended and the received) by Umberto Eco: Interpretation and Overinterpretation.
I may quote some parts from it when I return home if I can find an English pdf version. Anyway I highly recommend it, its a great read.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 02, 2013 06:49 PM |
|
|
|
I'm starting to get pissed. We are not talking about differences, we are talking about differences IN QUALITY, and you cannot define any general quality requirements. Which makes quality comparisons silly, except when you come up with a requirement catalogue that makes sense.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 02, 2013 06:54 PM |
|
|
|
So you dont think the example above has anything to do with quality? Something can be deeper, has more layers, more enduring and these are all only differences and not differences of quality? What does quality actually mean to you?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 02, 2013 06:59 PM |
|
|
Quality means that it's enjoyable in some sense, whether directly by being entertaining or indirectly by being useful in some other area of life. Something that has more layers can be more enjoyable, but that's not a guarantee and sometimes it conflicts with it being enjoyable by making a work too complicated. It's hard to pull off a good many-layered work, and usually (IMO, because it's all subjective  ) artists fail to do it well.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 02, 2013 07:08 PM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
Quality means that it's enjoyable in some sense
No. That's just a part of it.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 02, 2013 07:13 PM |
|
|
It's what quality means when it's applied to a work of art. Obviously, "quality" in something like "quality surgery" means something slightly (but not entirely) different.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 02, 2013 07:16 PM |
|
|
|
That's just a part of it in art also, THere is a reason entertainer and artist refer to different concepts. They intersect but they are not the same.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 02, 2013 07:34 PM |
|
|
artu said:
So you dont think the example above has anything to do with quality? Something can be deeper, has more layers, more enduring and these are all only differences and not differences of quality? What does quality actually mean to you?
It doesn't matter what it means to me OR to you. Look, artu, you find "art" - pieces of it - good or not so good or bad or whatever else for certain reasons; SUBJECTIVE reasons, because it's reasons that are IMPORTANT for you. OTHERS have other reasons, that are as important for them. For me, for example, an important thing is: it should CAPTURE me. However, I would not add something like a time: HOW LONG should it capture me? Can't say, actually, and I don't think that length of captivation makes a difference.
But that's SUBJECTIVE. It should capture ME. Saying, ok, provided it captures ANYONE, is a quality feature - well.
Or HOW MANY does it capture?
And what does it capture WITH? Shock value? Uncommon angle of perspective? WHAT? Is one better than the other?
Who knows?
I also don't know whether making people laugh is different in quality from showing people the consequences of greed or ambition or whatever and put up the finger. I always HATED Schiller because of the inevitable morale lecture that comes with his stuff. Quality? No, for ME it's not - for me this is more narrow-mindedness and boredom.
So QUALITY is pretty elusive to define, and, I repeat, as long as you can't there is no point you can make, because you cannot support your point.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 02, 2013 07:49 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 19:50, 02 Sep 2013.
|
|
That would have been right if I was trying to specify a single parameter for quality (like the Nazis did in your example). There may be many criteria and schools of thought. What I say is there is a difference between quality work and non-quality work which is not totally subjective. You dont like Schiller, I dont like opera. But I wont claim Be Bop A Lula can be just as worthy as Verdi becuse I dont like it. My likes and dislikes are not the center of the world. Saying there is no single criteria for what is quality art and saying it is completely subjective are very different things which I already stated in my example of Stones vs Beates and Bach vs Bieber.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 02, 2013 07:59 PM |
|
|
For Bach's sake, NO. You can't just claim that there IS something. That's Eloding proclaiming that there can't come something from nothing and there must be a first cause, even if you can't find them.
I don't discuss on that level.
You can't also say, I can't name one single quality parameter - but there must be one. That is IRRATIONAL.
You can either come up with something or you can't. Remember, YOU want to insist on a Verdi opera having more quality than Bieber - MY point is, that it DOES NOT MATTER, since you have no general parameters.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 02, 2013 08:01 PM |
|
|
artu said:
THere is a reason entertainer and artist refer to different concepts.
That's because the term "entertainer" doesn't mean "creator of aesthetically pleasing works", but only of certain kinds of works. Perhaps "entertaining" is the wrong word, because a good painting is aesthetically pleasing but not really entertaining. I would then rephrase what I said to "art is enjoyable if it's directly aesthetically pleasing or useful in some other area of life".
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted September 02, 2013 08:20 PM |
|
|
I see a lot of talk about art as consumer, as enjoyable activity, as pleasure, but where is the educational dimension of it?
The idea that art can be anything whatsoever is a symptom of a dying culture. We need a new art that, rather than merely echoing this cultural death, prepares for the culture yet to be born. One common error is to consider that what is good depends on what you happen to like, and one thing is as good as another. Relativism puts everything on the same level.
"My opinion is as good as yours. Nothing has any value of its own, but if someone likes it, it is good for them".
It doesn't take much effort to see that such a view leads to a catastrophic levelling down, a slide into cultural death. Because you ignore the educative purpose over the spectator. The first purpose of art is educative. If you argue about that, I will only tell you that this view is thousand times more beneficial for us than yours, which compares art as a substitute to a tasty spaghetti dinner, you consume and forget about.
Art can manifest under various forms, as a 12 bars simple pop song which does not educate you in any way and only creates 5 minutes of enjoyment. It can also manifest under the form of a symphony or a story which required years to complete and are the witnesses of a long process during which the creator metamorphosed and introspected himself endlessly. From the point of view of art, if nothing is better than anything else, then Rembrandt's last self-portrait is no better than his first, and no better than the bag of refuse which was recently displayed as art in a public gallery (thrown away by accident by a zealous museum cleaner). It is hard to see how the relativist position can be sustained without denying the power of Rembrandt's art. For example...
However, there is a restricted sense in which relativism is quite correct. For those who are not interested in the struggle for truth, nor for objective art, it is correct to say that art is whatever you want it to be. Strictly speaking, the aim of art, as with anything else, depends on our own aim. Therefore, if our aim is producing excitement, then good art is the one which produces excitement. If, on the other hand, our aim is to touch something more profound, then we must look for a different kind of art. In this sense, good or bad in art can only be judged in relation to its aim. That's why one only gets ridiculous if he tries to define art as one dimensional thing. What I do is proposing different levels and steps, those steps representing us at different life moments.
Trivially, relativism fits in very nicely with our consumerist age. If someone likes the product, it will sell. Things have a value after all: the value of everything is to be measured in money.
Art, if it is good enough and if we are ready, can make us better than we were. At its best, art can bring us to a wordless seeing. A person can be moved by seeing Leonardo's drawing of Mona Lisa, without knowing the complex symbolism of these works. But, learning even a little can enhance the experience, and here the educational purpose is shining. Not only you enjoyed it, but you also achieved a new level of comprehension, and so on.
So please stop going hysterical about one group trying to force another by using elitist arguments. There is nothing of that, but only a reflection on what can influence and transform us in a better being. You want to have the last word, that's fine with me. I exposed my views, you exposed yours, a few trolls joined to bit the remains and lay on semantics, this thread became a epic tragedy in itself, with heroes and chorus. 
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 02, 2013 08:21 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 20:33, 02 Sep 2013.
|
@jj
I have parameters, they are just not scientificly measurable as in the temperature of a room. Depth, creativity, originality, intellect, skill, being genuine... Now, some stuff can capture you more because of its depth, some more because of it is genuine like in a very simple masterpiece. Usually, it's a unique combination of all of them. But there are works that consists of these in this way or the other and there are works which consists almost none. There is no single consensus on what are masterpieces and there never will be, but there is a consensus on works that are aiming for these and cheap, fabricated stuff and there are things in the middle. We dont recieve the differences on a completely subjective level, especially if we invest time in it, refine our tastes (not as a duty but as a natural process) and our expectations are improved. On some level, this happens to everyone, nobody enjoys the child songs they used to clap to at age seven. For some people, it happens more massively.
Again, why does one agree to a degreed subjectivity when it comes to defining porn (you know it when you see it) or a CoC being applied but when it comes to art suddenly its all about subjectivity and nothing else? In reality, nobody treats it like that.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
