craola
crayon master
Location: pdx
|
- #61
- Posted: 12/19/2018 21:15
- Post subject:
|
| baystateoftheart wrote: | | RockyRaccoon wrote: | I mean, I'd love to hear how you can empirically measure quality so as to determine what art is objectively of the highest quality.
We've been trying to solve this mystery since art started, so I'd love to hear the solution to a centuries-old problem.
What is, objectively, the greatest piece of art in history? I mean, if we can objectively judge art, there must be an answer to that question? I can tell you who threw the most touchdowns in NFL history, that's measurable, I can tell you who sold the most albums in music history, that's measurable, so if quality is measurable, then we should be able to truly, officially, empirically determine what actually is the greatest piece of art of all time. Or at least come up with a top five. |
The Sistine Chapel, obviously  |
per the culture we were brought up in, it's no surprise he thinks that. i've never been there, but i have seen pictures and have little desire to see it in person. there are a thousand works of art i'd rather see.
and rockyraccoon brought up another good point as well: cultural significance is entirely different than the fictional "objective quality". the sistine chapel is culturally significant, and that's one reason i could see myself going out of my way to see it. cause history, y'know? ahem, y'know, for something so objective and factual as the measure of greatness in art, it's funny how much ideals in art change over time. cause while the sistine chapel may be significant, if it was objectively the greatest achievement in art, we'd have example after example of artists forever imitating and expanding on this sistine thing everywhere. but as is often seen in art, instead of repetitious monotony, we see a lot of the opposite. the baroque artists were undermining the renaissance, and were then usurped by the rococos, romanticism, impressionism et al until we get to the most absurd abstract-expressionists and pop artists. impressionism was possible during the rococo era, but that wasn't the culture. rococo is possible today, and there are artists who imitate that style, but it's really not the culture of today. it's almost as though each movement makes up its own set of rules and plays up to those until it gets too stuffy.
personally, i prefer the "see spot run" equivalents of the sistine chapel - the lowbrow and the pop surrealists. you dig that chapel - that's cool. you do you. but i hope you understand that what moves you will not move everyone, and as much as you may hate it, culture informs your opinions on this more than science, meaning that preferring dilbert to the oath of horatii doesn't make anyone part of "the mindless masses", and whoever did that dilbert strip is no less a good artist. note: i don't know your opinions on these artworks or artists, but insert whichever names piss you off the most, and the point is the same.
| Fischman wrote: | | So tell me, Why do we never see See Spot Run in a literature appreciation class? Are all those professors who know more about literature than you or me nothing more than elitist snobs? |
this is a strawman argument, for one. for two, who is to say there aren't any classes appreciating see spot run? i bet a couple of my old profs would love to talk about the book if a student requested it. there's actually a lot we can learn from that book.
| Fischman wrote: | | And thank you for your reference to Kayan measures of attractiveness. By your own description, you've acknowledged that that particular feature is unhealthy. By any rational measure, that "taste" would be considered problematic, even inferior. So yes, taste, as subjective as it may be, may well have an aspect of quality attached to it. |
people who drink water daily have a 100% mortality rate, so drinking water daily is objectively problematic, even inferior. there have been 0 fatalities reported among people who shoot 50 grams of mercury, lead, orange juice and toilet water directly into their bloodstream on a daily basis. ok, ok, i know you're talking about causal relationships...
so you're saying long necks are problematic and inferior? that's not a slippery slope at all, and it's certainly not elitist. granted, the degrees the kayan go to pursuing that ideal looks pretty unhealthy from my perspective, but it's easy to judge that when it's not my culture (as my lifestyle must look unhealthy to other cultures/religions), and it doesn't change the fact they like long necks, a quality that in itself isn't objectively inferior. if i showed up with my short neck, i suppose i might be told that i'm objectively ugly on account of it.
_________________
follow me on the bandcamp.
|
|
|
|
