Album Rating: 4.0

"The intention is all that matters for me."



And there you go. Thats all that matters for you. Not everyone has the same criteria for what makes something good or bad. You cant prove good or bad, period.

Album Rating: 5.0

idk that's a weak argument. You can apply that to any art: literature, music, poetry, painting, sculpture but we still have 'masters'. My high school short story project doesn't compare to Shakespeare and it never will despite some people probably liking it more than they do King Lear.



Therefore there must a level of objectivity there. Some art is of course more subjective than other art (usually meta-art or similar postmodernist-based attitudes to art creation), but a hierarchy exist based on the use of the tools, facets and structures within the genre of art to create.



The line becomes obfuscated more and more, the higher level you take the comparison (eg comparing Shakespeare and Keats), but the fact remains that all responses to art are valid. Therefore that's where there subjectivity is created - no-one is saying you should or shouldn't like one piece or type of art over another - that's a result of the freedom of expression and speech that you enjoy by living in a country which allows that. That sort of gives the illusion of subjectivity, and to some extent it creates subjectivity itself, but the core objectivity that binds art to the historical structures and context in which they are created still permeates whatever level of individual freedoms those who view the art enjoy.



My take on it anyway

"one person doesn't get to decide if the art is a success or not. the artist decides"

By that token we should objectively hate a lot of classic albums and worship and love a bunch of shitty new ones all because some older artists deride their early work and think each new thing they do is their best.

Bruce Dickenson may think his newest Maiden record is their best ever but that doesn't make it objectively so. So many artists have put out "failures" in their own eyes that everyone else loves. Once art is in the world, the artist has no say or control over how it is perceived.

"My high school short story project doesn't compare to Shakespeare and it never will despite some people probably liking it more than they do King Lear."

Alright, well 1: why does it need to compare to King Lear? Enjoyment isn't based on comparisons or objective development through systems and eras and times. It's a gut reaction perceived through our own experiences, memories, and preferences. This goes for anything. We all have pre-conceived biases based on all sorts of minutiae of our lives.

And 2: If someone likes it more than King Lear, then it's better than King Lear (for them). There's no such thing as, "well, I know King Lear is better but I enjoyed your story more", no, that's bullshit. If you enjoyed that short story more, then it's straight-up BETTER. That is just how it works.

"Therefore there must a level of objectivity there."

Okay, but how does objectivity get defined here? It's clearly based on pre-conceived notions of rules, standards, and theoretical practice of the past. Who defines what is worthy of technical praise, well-written prose, well-composed ideas, etc? Well, that was all based on...subjective opinions! Opinions that were probably common, and appreciated, or that stuck, but opinions nonetheless. But also, a lot of work we appreciate in our time was once derided in its own time. So where do we draw the line for which to place the Godly idea of "objectivism", where are we drawing out stats from? How do we measure it? Or are we basing it on common evolving consensus, in which the idea of "objectivity" will never actually be static and will constantly change with the subjective flux of humanity's progression over decades and centuries?

WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE, JSV, TELL ME, I NEED TO OBJECTIVELY KNOW HOW TO APPRECIATE ART

IS IT THE PART IN WHICH PICASSO CO FOUNDED CUBISM IN THE EARLY 1900s, IN WHICH CASE THE OBJECTIVE STANDARD IS SET ON ONE FORM OF ART AND ITS QUALITIES FROM 100 YEARS AGO? THAT SEEMS TOO EARLY THOUGH, SO FUCK PICASSO HE'S CRAP.

I KNOW LET'S BASE IT ON 18TH CENTURY ROMANTICISM, THAT IS NOW OUR OBJECTIVE STANDARD, RIGHT?

So yes, Mikko's photos suck objectively because they don't even remotely resemble 18th century romanticism. And hell, even if he did try his hand at it, it'd also be objectively crap because Bryullov and Goya did the good paintings gooder.

I agree. Also,
Picasso is the most overrated artist of the modern era. But he explored a new artistic territory and that is worth a lot.

This is obviously a subjective fact, but people are too blinded by mainstream standards and the whims of the inscrutable art world authority to realize it.

The Picasso worship is thus closely related to the fashion scene, by human mechanisms that can override aesthetic qualities in favor of novelty.

garlic bread

If someone makes the best garlic bread ever ...

... but he hates garlic bread ...

Album Rating: 5.0

Enjoyment of something doesn't have to correlate with how good or bad it is? I made that point myself lol



'If you enjoyed that short story more, then it's straight-up BETTER'



It is to you/an individual because you/an individual base something's worth on the enjoyment that is received. Me too. Why would I bother with stuff I didn't enjoy right?



And yes subjective opinions take on a different context as they age and the structure of future art and expression moulds itself round those standards and they slowly 'solidify' and turn into the objective standard by which we measure new things. There is a level of staticism and also movement in that and that's okay - it doesn't mean that everything is wholly subjective either imho.



As for the last bit that's silly reactionary strawman rubbish and I don't think that or anything similar and haven't said so either so I'm going to ignore it

Garlic bread is a good example. If a person doesn't like it there is obviously something objectively wrong with him. His neurons are firing wrong, he is insane or he was conditioned by upbringing to hate it.

It's the same thing!

"Enjoyment of something doesn't have to correlate with how good or bad it is? I made that point myself lol"

That is literally the only factor on which to measure the goodness or badness of art.

"it doesn't mean that everything is wholly subjective either imho."

Okay but it does, though. Just saying "it doesn't" isn't a rebuttal.

The last bit was a strawman, I just wanted to make fun.

The only thing that could be seen as "objective" in art is in the application of practice: e.g. Rings of Saturn can certainly apply a lot of dense technicality to their compositions. Yes, it's an objective fact that the music they play is A. highly proficient, and B. highly complex.

But those objective factors do not inform quality, and never will. Just like something played with a lack of defined proficiency and complexity doesn't inform quality either.

Face it, you're simply, objectively wrong. You cannot be right about this, because it is impossible.

^All of this.

Even though I feel like I should add that the subjective experience of a piece of art creates objective facts like ... "This song made me happy", "This song made me tear up", that's all objectively true as long as I only reference myself. That means, the closest you can get to "objectivity" in art is being as genuine as possible about the way you feel about it, because the way you feel about it is a fact. As a consequence, the farthest you can get from objectivity in art is creating measures of value outside of your own enjoyment to judge it.

Album Rating: 4.0

how do people not get the concept of opinions, we were taught this in grade school. its impossible to prove whether something is good or bad.

Well why do you think they don't?

Album Rating: 4.0

well i asked for proof that something specific is objectively bad, no answer on that.

Album Rating: 5.0

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00048400903194559



See discussion about how art can be 'failed art' and then subsequently 'bad' art.



https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10790-016-9569-2



See paper discussing the way that we consume 'bad' art and how that can transform into 'enjoyable art' while still being 'bad art'.



If i'm quote 'simply objectively wrong' why is there any semblance of hierarchy in art? In fact that seems to be what the whole art/music/literature world is based off, hierarchy. How do you make sense of that structure without an objective value of quality? The pieces just don't fit together very well in that case.



Idk it seems like you hold the opinion that art can't be good or bad, that the only way we can judge it is via our enjoyment of it, but that's not the widely held view it's just the one that you have? Ofc no-one is stopping you experiencing art that way but that doesn't make human experiences and values of art wholly subjective because they just aren't.



This has nothing to do with opinions. Thinking that that opinions, while of course subjective, is the limit of art and value judgements is simply not right.

Album Rating: 5.0

Read either one for talk about how things can be objectively bad

Album Rating: 4.0

failed art, as in art that didnt fit the original vision of the artist, doesnt = bad to everyone. already explained that a few times now. something can be objectively failed/unintended, something can be objectively more technical, something can be objectively more unique, etc., but good and bad cannot be facts. good and bad are a matter of perspective. that is all.



also, im still waiting on a specific example of objectively bad art and and proof that its bad.

Album Rating: 5.0

Did you actually read the source or just the title?

Album Rating: 4.0

None of it. Im replying to your comment.

Album Rating: 5.0

ah ok cool, yeah read it before you respond to that specific bit because that's not what it says