/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11213189]

I realize arguing what is art is pointless instead it makes more sense to distinguish good art from bad. Is it purely subjective? Is there criteria for good art? Leaving music out of it because that is to broad of a subjective on it's own, I mean visual art.

[Anonymous No.11213199]

Do not post harlots such as that on my literature board ever again

[saucy No.11213200]

>>11213189
Maybe art is more verbal than it is adjectival.

[Anonymous No.11213207]

if you cannot agree to the existence of art, how can you agree to judge its characteristics?

think about something else, dude

[Anonymous No.11213211]

>>11213189
Music isn't art. Also, art needs to get out of Duchamp's urinal before we even talk about it. I can taste the piss in your question.

[Anonymous No.11213249]

>>11213189
she is using her large supple breasts and exquisitely fertile feminine shape to attract attention and i do NOT approve of this sort of material on my board, as was already firmly stated by this gentleman >>11213199

[Anonymous No.11213252]

>>11213189
Dude i'm on 3 weeks no fap. Don't post this shit on a blue board.

[Anonymous No.11213268]

>>11213189
females are disgusting

[Anonymous No.11213269]

I don't think art can be objectively good only objectively bad. In music things like melody and rhythm are things that humans respond to but there's no objectively good application of them, some people don't like Jazz, some people don't like classical, some people don't like rap, some people don't like rock, all these genres use music theory concepts that people enjoy but none of them are universally appealing. Take Dream Theater, they are all classically trained highly skilled musicians playing very technical pieces of music but they aren't even particularly well liked in the Metal scene and only really well received by Prog Metal enthusiasts.

[Anonymous No.11213308]

>>11213189
Both art and music can be distinguished from good to bad. There are standards (also called the fundamentals) that form the basis of an artist's toolkit for expression. Then there's the artist's intent and how successfully observing (or inventively deviating from) the fundamentals are employed for the final work. This is currently an unpopular position among everyone except people interested in developing a high degree of skill in an artistic craft, which is not possible unless standards are observed.

[Anonymous No.11213316]

>>11213189
>>11213199
>>11213200
>>11213207
>>11213211
>>11213249
>>11213252
>>11213268
>>11213269
>>11213308
*dabs*

[Anonymous No.11213335]

>>11213189

Art is a subject actualizing an object. That object is mind or spirit or soul or nous or logos or whateverthefuck.

Good art is art. Bad art is not art. There is no bad art. “Bad art” isn’t art.

>Look guys i made fallacious class inclusion arguments.

[Anonymous No.11213507]

>>11213189
No, there is no such thing as art outside of the narrow academic sense, the philosophically inclined, the historico-theoretical notion. In this sense it is objective, in that certain conditions have to be met for something to be considered art (beyond sophistry), and from there 'good' because it can demonstrate something, is relevant to the above conditions. It is not a universal criteria, but it is objective. And on the other hand, not a single subject can decide whether something is good or bad if the subject of their reasoning is an established system and ruleset other than their own, and no one person decides if something is art or not completely outside of the history of art.

>>11213308
The toolkit changes.

>>11213335
There can certainly be a work that passes a threshold required for it to be qualified as 'art', like a lot of contemporary art is 'art' even if it is bad because it doesn't take into account the own conditions of its manufacture.

[Anonymous No.11213514]

Jezebels &c.

[Anonymous No.11213522]

>>11213189

BOOBS! BOOBS BOOBS BOOBS BOOBS!

BOOBERS!

[Anonymous No.11213548]

>>11213507

You’re still applying a deprecated method. Art is not such that its products can be judged as good or bad. Art’s presence is dependent upon it’s means of actualization.

Art has it’s essence in the experience of the maker. The perceiver of the art partakes with the partaker of the art. Artists channel art, through an object, and invite others to join in the partaking with art.

You cannot moralize an objectified subject.

Artists then would Be subjectified objects.

[Anonymous No.11213586]

>>11213308

The standards you are saying must be observed are not objects for you to apply your moral-aesthetic judgment patterns to. They are the structures which, through the historical development of a tradition, have been determined to be for collective contemplation. By the artists, for the artists.

[Anonymous No.11213603]

>>11213189
imagine the odor

[Anonymous No.11213614]

>>11213507
>The toolkit changes.
No it doesn't. Artistic anatomy, perspective, composition etc. are timeless, even if a few of them are (relatively) recent in discovery.

>>11213586
>By the artists, for the artists.
They were developed by artists for the viewer.

[Anonymous No.11213639]

>>11213603

[Anonymous No.11213773]

>>11213548
Why can't an artist be a subjectified object? Did you not just argue that art is channeled through an artist's subjective experience? Can a method of actualization not be moralized, as you say?

[Anonymous No.11213811]

I WANNA SUCCLE DOSE BOOBIETIDDIESSSSSSSSSSSS

[Anonymous No.11213814]

>>11213548
all i gleaned from that was: 'non sequitur non sequitur, non sequitur non sequitur non sequitur'
>Art is not such that its products can be judged as good or bad
Why not?
>Art’s presence is dependent upon it’s means of actualization.
Contextually, this seems like a supporting statement of the preceding one, but it just does not follow, i.e. it is a non sequitur. It is also a very convoluted way of saying 'art must be made [by an artist]'.
>Art has it’s essence in the experience of the maker.
Ah, essences. Okay. Wherefore is this the case? Because an artifact does not exist without it's maker? Fine. Is the essence of a shoes the experience of the cobbler? That of a pie the experience of the baker? What is it about 'art' that differentiates it from these other created object or 'experiences'?
>You cannot moralize an objectified subject
Why not?
>Artists then would Be subjectified objects.
Oh. But aren't all conscious beings 'subjectified objects'? Or does the artist somehow transcend his objectivity? If so, how does he manage such a feat? By creating art, perhaps? But that seems to beg the question.

[Anonymous No.11213820]

>>11213189
Men of /lit/, I implore you, by the tapir, to cease posting vile women to attract attention.

[Anonymous No.11213822]

>>11213548
Art's essence is elsewhere if it is to be channeled by an artist through an object (putting aside for now that not all art is or results in an object), or if others are to partake in it. It borrows from a structure outside the artist, the patron, the viewer, the critic, etc., the same structure of logos and the rest, that is metaphysics. And within metaphysics is moral action, a reconciliation of free will in a determinate universe. Art can play in the house of metaphysics, as it always does, and so by this much it is art, and art is actualised in this economy of presence -- good art, then, is more fully actualised, gives itself more openly, purely, freely, to actualisation, to logos, to dialectics, to reason, in short is 'transcendent', because it is the very praxis of metaphysics, of ideality in a non-ideal world. The perfected imitation of nature and natural systems.

[Anonymous No.11213826]

>>11213335
>Art is a subject actualizing an object
What if I don't believe in the subject/ object dichotomy? Does this have to be a premise to the rest of your argument?

[Anonymous No.11213829]

>>11213614
Transposing three dimensions onto a 2d plane is not really art. Art uses this, or used it in its toolkit for 500 years, but they are only necessary for the metaphysical aims of art at that given moment in time, in a less sophisticated society.

[Anonymous No.11213834]

>>11213189
Universal rule is if they have blue hair they’re mentally ill, aggressive, stupid and infected with genital diseases.

As for art, if it’s not inspiring to YOU, then don’t try to pretend to like it. If everyone claims it’s the greatest thing ever but to you it’s meaningless then be true to yourself.

[Anonymous No.11213860]

>>11213822

You can’t say this is art, but that is arter, and, as all things greater than are greater than all things great, get to call it a moral judgment. You’re merely making notice of difference, not of any quality, merely of magnitude.

To say that Bach is more art than Chopin is absurd. So you say Bach is good and Chopin bad. And then go to sleep content in knowing good from evil.

[Anonymous No.11213895]

>>11213860
>You’re merely making notice of difference, not of any quality, merely of magnitude.
But judgement is inherent to perception. To judge something as good or bad you must first understand it how you perceive it. To witness the magnitude of such a thing is to assume its quality. This is assuming the thing you are perceiving is even a thing outside your perceiving of it. If it were, it would be quite baseless to assume that your judgement of it is absolute or can be derived from a perceivable absolute authority.

[Anonymous No.11213894]

>>11213826

It’s essentially the process of turning thought into thing. Thoughts are in, or of, things. Our minds are embodied, or, we are an emanation of soul through matter as a vehicle for structure=consciousness.

It could also Be said it’s a translation from the language of soul (which runs into dualist implications, ignore them) to of the senses.

It turns a timeless universal to a particular in time.

[Anonymous No.11213906]

THE ARGUMENT OVER GOOD ART AND BAD ART AND THE SUBJECTIVITY THEREOF COMES FROM A LACK OF DEFINITONS
WHAT IS GOOD ART
BOILED DOWN TO THE LOWEST LEVEL OF COHERENCY: ART IS GOOD IF IT FULFILLS ITS OBJECTIVE

ART WHICH LACKS AIM CAN NEVER BE GOOD - THE BEST IT CAN BE IS MERELY INOFFENSIVE.

[Anonymous No.11213911]

We need to learn to distinguish art from visual philosophy and visual lectures.

Good art stimulates the aesthetics. It is also possible for art to stimulate the intellect but that does not define it as art nor does it make it 'good' art, it simply has a strong intellectual property.

Our inability to distinguish these values has led to the deterioration of art and the empowerment of rich pseudo intellectual mental masturbators. Art should instantly stimulate the common and learned man simultaneously and equally.

[Anonymous No.11213914]

>>11213906
WHY ARE YOU SHOUTING

[Anonymous No.11213919]

>>11213914
TO FULFILL MY OBJECTIVE

GAS THE ILLITERATI
BRAIN WAR NOW

[Anonymous No.11213924]

>>11213894
>we are an emanation of soul through matter
Sounds pretty dualistic to me.

[Anonymous No.11213927]

>>11213860
No like I said there is a threshold of basic concerns i.e. metaphysics, to qualify something as art, but some art has a greater hold on metaphysics than others that are just playing the part. How can a 17th c academy form a hierarchy of genres without some notion of what makes art greater than other art? To ignore this is to ignore history of art is to ignore theory of art is to ignore art in general, and in that case we are no longer talking about art

[Anonymous No.11213932]

>>11213894
Not entirely true and someone else brought this up. Making a chair is not an art, the Renaissance brought about the key distinction between art and craft that we can't go back on for sake of convenience

[Anonymous No.11213935]

>>11213927
the second you start talking about metaphysics is the second you lose the argument

[Anonymous No.11213939]

>>11213935
There is no such thing as art outside metaphysics unfortunately. In such a case no one wins the argument

[Anonymous No.11213940]

>>11213932
you are operating under a pre-modern definition of art, please catch up grandpapa

[Anonymous No.11213941]

>>11213189
>I realize arguing what is art is pointless
How can an edgy thing be pointless?

[Anonymous No.11213942]

>>11213932
Can a chair be beautiful?

Of course it can.

[Anonymous No.11213943]

>>11213939
metaphysics has no relation to reality by definition - consider changing your diet because your excessive flatulence has your head stuck in clouds

[Anonymous No.11213947]

>>11213941

[Anonymous No.11213948]

>>11213943
>metaphysics has no relation to reality by definition
If it's meta, then it definitely does have a relation. Not an internal one, obviously.

[Anonymous No.11213950]

>>11213940
The modern and post-modern definitions didn't entirely do away with the Renaissance distinction, since it is impossible to escape metaphysics and its consequence of the definition of art. It is the same history through the patron, the church, the academy, the monarchy, the exhibition, the museum, the gallery.

[Anonymous No.11213952]

>>11213942
Of course, but beautiful objects only have a claim to art when other conditions are met as well

[Anonymous No.11213954]

>>11213943
>metaphysics
the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Study philosophy at least once before participating in such threads.

[Anonymous No.11213960]

>>11213943
Only rarely were artists ever concerned with reality, and when they were it was more metaphysical ends when the situation allowed, e.g. Courbet and a socialist avant-garde

[eat a dick i have an art histo(...) No.11213961]

>>11213954
>also metaphysics
abstract theory or talk with no basis in reality.

[Anonymous No.11213965]

>>11213961
What is reality? What is its bearing on the discussion of art? Art is real?

[Anonymous No.11213967]

>>11213960
artists being brainlets has nothing to do with what art is

[Anonymous No.11213970]

>>11213961
Yeah the label of metaphysics can be used as a pejorative, but that is irrelevant to this thread. Obviously that anon was referring to the metaphysics in philosophy, so your reply made no sense.

[Anonymous No.11213971]

>>11213965
*poof* u just disappeared up your own ass
is this performance art?

[Anonymous No.11213972]

>>11213967
It had everything to do with it since the idea of art is historically and socially determined, not a universal

[Anonymous No.11213977]

>>11213971
Nice defense mechanism you have there. Answer the questions bozo

[Anonymous No.11213978]

>>11213971
You have quite a while before this thread will hit bump limit so I wouldn't recommend the strategy you're using now

[Anonymous No.11213981]

>>11213970
did you read this?
vvvv
>>11213939
>There is no such thing as art outside metaphysics unfortunately. In such a case no one wins the argument

guy is clearly a brainlet in love with multi-syllabic words

[Anonymous No.11213984]

>>11213981
Do you think art begins in the 19th c or something? I have no idea how someone can be so clueless but so sure of themselves

[Anonymous No.11213988]

>>11213977
>>11213978
can i finger ur navel while u suck my dick?
>what is reality???
fucking lol

[Anonymous No.11213992]

>>11213984
>bruh cave-paintings r so metaphysical
>by the way u should come to my slam poetry recital, bring chicks lol

[Anonymous No.11213993]

>>11213988
Point is 'reality' is a metaphysical concept too so you won't get far defending a metaphysical concept while dismissing metaphysics. How old are you btw?

[Anonymous No.11213995]

>>11213981
He is clearly referring to metaphysics as understood by philosophers.
>Metaphysics
>a division of philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being and that includes ontology, cosmology, and often epistemology
All of which need to be understood coherently before anyone can judge art.

[Anonymous No.11213997]

>>11213992
All images are art? This is an art discussion not visual studies

[Anonymous No.11213998]

>>11213993
concepts aren't metaphysical dummy, suck my noumena

[Anonymous No.11213999]

>>11213988
>he still hasn't even tried to answer the question
Are you scared we will make fun of you? Stop being so defensive, I am just curious what you think is going on.

[Anonymous No.11214001]

>>11213998
In this case you would be bad art, living in the house of metaphysics without doing the chores

[Anonymous No.11214005]

>>11213998
>suck my noumena
I would but I can't find it.

[Anonymous No.11214008]

>>11214001
imagine unironically saying something this pseud
>>11213997
putting art on a pedestal is not smart or cultured
art is pornography and wank.

[Anonymous No.11214037]

>>11213960
>Only rarely were artists ever concerned with reality
Honestly, what else can you concern yourself with? What are the limits of reality? Your comfort zone and perspective?

[Anonymous No.11214041]

>>11214008
>putting art on a pedestal is not smart or cultured
>art is pornography and wank.
I'm smelling a smelly iconoclast and a kike. Maybe a communist, even.

[Anonymous No.11214105]

>>11213189
in the most general sense, art is completely subjective, since it's good or bad-ness is completely determined by a variable set of backgrounds, values, likes, needs, desires, etc for each person.
HOWEVER, humans as a collective form a certain taste, have things that most individuals agree on, certain things that have a reported psychological or even physiological positive/negative effects, etc. art can be meaningfully compared to one another within these values.
it becomes really difficult to compare things though when art subverts these general values on purpose. often experimental/subversive art is pleasant for those who have seen too much of the normal "good" art that they're tired of it and want to see something new, and then this art can be good or bad within this new community of values and backgrounds.
i feel like this is also where pretension comes in. pretension is when you pretend to be tired of the normal stuff so that you seem more studied than you actually are. this is valid for both the artist and the consumer, both of whom can pretend to be "above" normal art.

[Anonymous No.11214181]

>>11213189
god I wish that were me

[Anonymous No.11214203]

>>11214041
art can be more than porn and wank
but it's mostly porn and wank - designed to create a momentary onanistic arousal and a narcissistic climax

[Anonymous No.11214225]

>>11214203
Go take a look at the night sky somewhere far away from city lights. I'm serious. Before that, don't even pretend you have a right to speak.