First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
How to judge artistic worth?
768 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / England
Offline
Posted 11/28/06 , edited 11/28/06
*yawn*
6212 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / US
Offline
Posted 11/28/06 , edited 11/28/06
geebus, I typed out a post similar to what you will see here, but it got lost.

Anyway, yes If I see the discussion is not going anywhere I'll bail, but artclow seemed at least somewhat receptive.

I don't know all that much about the philosophy of aesthetics (its is the weakest branch of philosophy after all) so I have been trying to play the doubting Thomas, while providing information.

Kant was another very important philosopher for aesthetics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kant#Aesthetic_philosophy
He considered aesthetic judgment as "subjective objectivity," in that it is subjective, but we want others to hold our opinions as well. He had four criteria for judgment, goodness, agreeably, sublime, and beauty.

Some of my issues with subjectivity are as follows. There is no difference between "this is a good picture," and, "this is a picture I happen to like." Someone who knows nothing about art opinion's are as valid as someone who has been studying it for decades. Why are Shakespeare and Bach almost universally considered to be great? Not because of some feature of their work, but just that many people happen to like it. Thus, there is no ground for saying that this or that is beautiful like people normally do, but only something like "I find this beautiful." I think I want subjectively, but only to a certain point.

Another problem I have is your definition of art as hinging on emotion. Perhaps this is just a fault of mine though as art has rarely stirred my emotions, so to speak. Your wrote: "art is something that we as sentient beings have to quantify in some way, as art stirs emotion in only us (that we know of) therefore we have to deal with it somehow." I would tend to focus on the fact that we as humans even make aesthetic judgments. Why do we prefer one thing to another at all? I find that only sometimes is emotion involved. I think it might be poor to pin down art to emotion. Sometimes its the painters intent to accurately portray the sceen well, and so on. There is more to art then emotion I would say.

What is art: http://www.philosophytalk.org/pastShows/Art.html
46535 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/28/06 , edited 11/28/06
Here is something I found.

"Many philosophers have considered the pleasure that art gives us as vital to its value. But virtually all who do so insist on making some distinction between 'proper', aesthetic pleasure and other pleasures which we may feel.

This distinction is very clear in Kant. Kant argued that true aesthetic pleasure is 'disinterested'. What Kant means by this is that the pleasure must be independent of any consideration of whether the object of aesthetic appreciation actually exists. Consider, for example, the pleasure we take in looking at an attractive man or woman. Much of this pleasure is not disinterested, in Kant's sense, because it is linked with a desire for that person. The possibility - real or imagined - or enjoying this person in the flesh is part of the pleasure we take in looking at them. For there to be genuine aesthetic appreciation of a person, that pleasure must be purely in the contemplation of their appearance, regardless of any thought as to their real existence.

Many other philosophers have tried to distinguish between pure aesthetic pleasure and other, cruder pleasures. Commaraswamy, for instance talks about the Indian concept of rasa, which is a distinctive form of aesthetic pleasure, to be distinguished from ordinary pleasures such as eating and drinking. The experience of rasa is more akin to religious experience than sensory enjoyment.

Of course, this means that if millions of people claim to enjoy the music of Britney Spears, it is possible to argue that this is not proper aesthetic pleasure. Whether this distinction is justifiable or merely an excuse for snobbery is a question for another time."

It's from http://www.philosophersnet.com
My first post was mostly based on previous class notes, and I guess my high school teacher used this site as a reference because I have pretty much the exact list of criteria
This is a game from the same site called Shakespeare vs. Britney Spears
http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/britney_spears.htm
1261 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Inside people who...
Offline
Posted 11/28/06 , edited 11/28/06
woah
1152 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Im... Im... sky high
Offline
Posted 11/29/06 , edited 11/29/06
To answer the original question I would have to say that you just can't. Art is strictly an opinionated subject. Meaning, that you like what you think is good according to your own standards. Simply put, if it does not meet your requirements then you pass it off. Like I said "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder." The only objective part of art is technique.
265 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Iowa City
Offline
Posted 12/13/06 , edited 12/14/06
I am digging this up at request of Mauz. I do not care if it is an 'old' thread, as it piqued my interest the moment I saw it.

Art is a subjective thing; I think we can all agree on that (The Lockeian in me is screaming, "NO! THERE IS NO UNIVERSAL ASSENT! STOP IT!").

Beyond that... everything is art to me when I think about it. Art elicits emotional response and... well... if I think about the brick in a particular wall... I wonder about the makings of the brick, the reason why the wall is there, etc. That elicits thought and emotion. Anything can.

An athlete running. Making love. Eating a tasty bowl of X. Art.

What I have said is... ambiguous... to say the least. Perhaps that is what art is?
Posted 12/13/06 , edited 12/14/06
Distinct originality will get you the most points.
6326 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Hogwarts
Offline
Posted 12/13/06 , edited 12/14/06

artclown wrote:

To answer the original question I would have to say that you just can't. Art is strictly an opinionated subject. Meaning, that you like what you think is good according to your own standards. Simply put, if it does not meet your requirements then you pass it off. Like I said "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder." The only objective part of art is technique.



Exactly what i said. beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.
46535 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/13/06 , edited 12/14/06

bellus-vae wrote:

Exactly what i said. beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.



WrathS wrote:

I am digging this up at request of Mauz. I do not care if it is an 'old' thread, as it piqued my interest the moment I saw it.

Art is a subjective thing; I think we can all agree on that (The Lockeian in me is screaming, "NO! THERE IS NO UNIVERSAL ASSENT! STOP IT!").

Beyond that... everything is art to me when I think about it. Art elicits emotional response and... well... if I think about the brick in a particular wall... I wonder about the makings of the brick, the reason why the wall is there, etc. That elicits thought and emotion. Anything can.

An athlete running. Making love. Eating a tasty bowl of X. Art.

What I have said is... ambiguous... to say the least. Perhaps that is what art is?


Yes and no
265 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Iowa City
Offline
Posted 12/14/06 , edited 12/14/06

gopherthegold wrote:

Distinct originality will get you the most points.


Yes, because points are what this is about.

Mauz, I was wondering why I get the 'no'?
Posted 12/19/06 , edited 12/19/06
*Comment Deleted to spare others of having to read his idiotic statements*
613 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
43 / M
Offline
Posted 12/19/06 , edited 12/19/06
Being an artist, I am sometimes intrigued and confused at some of the modern artists, display of artwork. I like to be fair on all I see, but sometimes it's hard. If you want to know what I judge as art... then this is what I do.

I look at the art piece... read the description... and look at the artpiece again. If you need to read the description a couple of times to understand what you are seeing then, it's not really 'ART', but someone's thoery with visuals.

Example: I visited a modern art show, and someone, put a display of an apple on top of a statue of the virgin mary... I thought it was interesting, then I read the description, it was 3 paragraphs talking about virgin mary being so holy, but still could not get rid of original sin, until jesus died... something to that effect.

Well I talked to the artist and asked him what I was looking at and why he considered it art. All he told me was the same thing in the description.... He could not tell me one reason why it was art... then he told me that I wouldn't understand it... I told him 90% of the people who look at it would not understand what they are looking at, and what he has is not art but thoeries with a visual example. He got angry after that and left him alone....

I mean any monkey can draw a line in a canvas and talk about the thoery of how the line represents the timeline of life... and I still would not call it art.

If you want to judge artistic worth... Then look at at an art display... if you can feel what you see... and can describe it's meaning in a couple sentences... its probbably art.

If you look at something, and you don't know what the hell you are looking at or even understand what it means, without reading a long paragraph... it's not really art but someone's interpretation of art... Art ahould effect most people and not just the creator of the piece.

I do like modern art... just not the garbage people put up and claim as art... -.-
46535 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/19/06 , edited 12/19/06
^ Ever heard of the "artist" who wanted to get a human ear implanted on his arm because it was "Art"?
9121 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 12/19/06 , edited 12/20/06
Some art can be detailed as hell and be the most thing you have ever seen but it do'nt mean jack to me there is no message in its contents.
2142 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / America, Fuck Yeah.
Offline
Posted 12/19/06 , edited 12/20/06
I think art should be original, and symbolic.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.