Subjectivity VS Objectivity in Art | 2 To Ramble
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 май 2024
- Thank you Displate for sponsoring us! For 20-30% off - Visit displate.com/2toramble OR use our code at checkout: "2ToRamble"
Private Book Club! Join/Support:
/ 2toramble
Check out our Merch!
2toramble.com
Our social media:
linktr.ee/2ToRamble
Timestamps:
00:00 - Intro
1:54 - Modern Art
3:39 - What is Art?
8:15 - Is beauty in the eye of the beholder?
13:00 - What is subjectivity vs objectivity?
20:14 - Objective techniques
23:56 - Subjective Universality
29:49 - The Outliers
31:34 - Reviewers
33:35 - Our Rating System
38:45 - Skill & AI
46:32 - Must there be a perceiver for something to be beautiful?
Rambler Rating System:
rating.twotoramble.com/
PO Box address:
200 Lawyers Rd #6 Vienna, VA, 22183
Thank you Displate for sponsoring us! For 20-30% off - Visit displate.com/2toramble OR use our code at checkout: "2ToRamble" 😁😁
The thing about art is that there's a reason it's distinguished from science: everything about it lacks hard boundaries. So I think, yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but no, not all that is styled "art" is properly beautiful. So where do I draw the line? That's the point-no hard boundaries. Somewhere between those two is a point of no return in either direction.
intersting point 👊
@@2ToRamble Ah yes, the inter-sting point: the teetering point where the sting breaches the epidermis and makes you cringe. 😉
By the way, I don't think to comment this enough: I love what you guys are doing on this channel/podcast-keep up the good work! Richard, remember that you orbit the sun, not the sun you, and that other people are orbiting it with you; Austin, keep the faith.
@@eustacetuberson4375 Why is this podcast becoming a cult? 🤣🤣
@@eustacetuberson4375 Lol this is such beautiful advice thank you for enjoying!!
“I think one could call science the knowledge of the general, abstracted knowledge; art, on the other hand, would be science turned into deed; science would be reason, and art its mechanism; therefore one could also call it practical science. And so, finally, science would be the theorem, art the problem.”
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
What I love about conversations around art is that it’s actually a conversation about language.
We have to define so many abstractions before we can even start the discussion, and as is present in the comment section and in every arts university and post graduate discussion about art, the person next to you may not agree with your definition, no matter how broad or granular you get. It’s an impossible but still supremely important conversation that we can’t stop having.
It’s poetry, in a sense. Like, if I were to define the sun in the most objective standards to a young child, they likely wouldn’t understand anything about it-hydrogen, energy, gravity, etc... But if I were to tell them that the sun brings the morning as it rises and leaves behind the night when it sets. Well. They can intuitively make that connection. Great art, I’d argue, doesn’t just do this effectively. It also expands what you already know about the world. It either communicates a new idea or an old idea in a new way.
And language has one purpose: to communicate ideas. Which is why art IS language. It requires communication to be of any use or merit. Whether that communication is present on the pages of a book or exists in the abstraction of a starry night, doesn’t really matter. It’s still communication.
That’s why all these discussions about defining a nebulous concept like art sound so similar, even among the great thinkers.
It’s fun to watch. Thanks, boys.
Thank you and thanks for sharing your thoughts on this 🤝
“In my head I have an objective standard” I hate to break it to ya Rich. That’s almost exactly the definition of subjectivity 😂 Love you both though. Fun conversation even if I don’t always agree with you.
I’ve found myself putting you guys on in the bg when I’m working on stuff and I’ve got to say it makes me feel less alone working from home. Not many podcasts can do that for me where even there’s no new ep I just replay one of the old ones cause I like hearing you guys talk while working. So thanks :)
Thats way too kind, wow, thank you for listening and enjoying! Much more to come 🤓
The goal of art is to transcend subjectivity.
Beautiful art is pleasing to me because it rings true with what I know: it helps to harmonize my worldview/overall idea of reality.
The experiences I must bear as a member of my culture can be portrayed by artistic media which help to give voice to my disposition. I feel represented by the art of my culture. This shows that subjectivity can transcend into objectivity, albeit if not verifiably absolute/universal, at least in a quantitative collective.
Failure to find the beauty/truth/objectivity in art is only the inability to penetrate into the culture or subculture that is being represented.
Granted, that which I perceive as beautiful or entertaining often serves merely as the placation of my need to experience objective truth in a distracting way by triggering my unresolved emotional states. But this does not refute that the media I enjoy is art; rather, it confirms that fact when I commiserate with the artist and audience.
The qualifications for great art require another discussion tho.
A new video uploaded? My marriage is saved again 😎
Hell yea
My definition of art is a “work” that requires skill, is aesthetically pleasing and is self expressive (with reference to the artist). Modern art focuses on the self expression because the aesthetic portion is too difficult and was perfected hundreds of years ago, meaning they are brining nothing “new”. Wes Anderson has a great movie that delves partially into this concept called The French Dispatch.
(Sorry my messages are always long. Im currently doing my thesis on this very idea of whether 'classics' have any merit or if its all subjective and whatever who cares about standard. Fun Fact I looked up 10 Top 100 Classics lists (so far) and while a lot of books were unique to each list, Pride and Predjudice got 10/10, was mentioned on EVERY list. I think that says something, it was universally recommended (so far, question is if i compare 100 recommendation lists will it still have an 100% success rate))
Ive been thinking about this a long time and im about to go to sleep and havent watched the video yet but here's my two cents anyway:
A common misconception is that subjectivity is opinion and objectivity is fact; and internet loves to assume taste is the end all be all or craft is the end all be all its art, its all opinion and taste at the end of the day, but in the same ways we can collectively understand grammar, there are measurable 'media literacy' for what communicates well and what communicates poorly, even though theres (by design) wiggle room for abstract metaphor in between the lines. When people hear "this is objectively bad" they assume theyre being told they cant like it or that their subjectivity doesnt matter - it matters, but theyre assuming theyre being dismissed because objectivity is OUTSIDE your subjective experience. Its NOT about you, its impersonal by design.
Subjectivity is YOU and YOUR TASTES.
Popularity is THE COLLECTIVE and PATTERNS OF TASTE.
Objectivity is THE MECHANICS OF ART and REVERSE ENGINEERING TASTE.
All are valid but so many try to weild one to justify the other. "I liked it ergo its objectively good" no. "Its mechanically poorly communicated and therefore it objectively tastes bad to everyone" not necessarily.
Its just two ways of defining your position. Its hard because im a big defender of craft but i get why people get the urge to decry craft because it can come across as dismissing their private taste. A lot of media literacy is devoted to analysing media, i do feel we're a bit lacking on clear ways to discuss personal taste in a way that doesnt devolve into defending why the opposing viewpoint has to measure up to the opposite (being able to say I Like X without feeling compelled to defend why its objectively good, and being able to say "I think this is a well crafted piece" without feeling compelled to cater to people arguing "but i hated it, it wasnt that good"
(A big part of this is general aversion to negativity though. I didnt like it and i dont think it was well made both lead to defensiveness when people want to fundamentally argue that what they like is also the best thing ever and all criticism sounds 'objectively personal')
EDIT: The video played while i was typing, my take on Art is simply that its anything outside 'reality'. A play is on a stage, its art. A book is an event written down, ita art. Art is simply anything dressed up as more than its immediate function (a brand logo is art). But there are with that levels of creativity; a jar of butter isnt trying to sell you an emotional philosophical catharsis but its advert might.
(I stayed up and watched the whole video. This is why i find subjectivity reductive sometimes: the idea a sunset stops being beautiful when no one is there to read it devolves every 'okay so we can reverse engineer this story device' 'but only because we understand it' '...yes, thats how english works'. Of course all objectivity is defined by collecting data on how humans psychologically understand communication, and of course a persons tastes are personal to them and not bound in permanent rules that everyone must agree on.
Neither subjectivity nor objectivity are given pure authority NOR invalided solely due to their limitations. Despite how they might get weilded when people want to 'win' discussions instead of have them, Preference isnt a democracy and Craft isnt a dictatorship, surprisingly they function more like the other way around.
Love how well thought out this is - thankya for your opinions on this
Just love the Boromir statue in the middle!
I got that from New Zealand!! One of my favorite things
I think art becomes beautiful when it speaks to an idealized virtue; much of the art I love deals with themes of mercy, redemption, love, exploration, unity, etc. It expands our understanding and teaches us about our relationship to truth (truth that exists regardless of an observer). As long as it keeps teaching us it will be art. For example: have you ever had a song in your life that you loved and thought "Every listen sounds just as good as the first"? Something in that song is still reaching you and teaching you. I think that is why in 100 years from now people will be reading Hamlet, listening to Beethoven, or making pilgrimage to the Sistine Chapel for the works of Michaelangelo.
I know this is a sci fi fantasy channel but I'm not sure if enough time has passed to say with certainty how profound Tolkien or Pratchett will be, though I would guess they'll be amongst the greats. The works that reach the deepest will connect with the greatest number of people and survive.
Art teaches us (by definition) something new with each encounter. That's partly why I don't really believe AI will be the death of creativity or art. A computer cannot generate anything "new". Most ai creations I see I quickly get bored of. Just because people can make Homer Simpson sing country music doesn't mean they're artists.
Creative people will always be needed to take us deeper.
Love the thoughts
This is one of my favourite conversation topics
given the thumbnail i know im going to deeply dislike this conversation, but on some sick level im going to love every second of it
Hell of an interesting topic, lads! I love a good ol ranking video but these type of in depth discussions hit different. Up the ramble!
🤝
Time is the one metric that can be used to measure book’s impact; here the example of Lord of the Rings vs a book published recently that hits on the note of loss. Great video guys!
Thank you!
Subjectivity is democratic and, therefore, cringe
I've got nothing to add, just loving yalls banter 😂
Ahhh thank you!
This episode was objectively great.
Truth
One of the ideas in my novel was that subjectivity only arises where we lack the skill to observe what's really going on, when we refuse to set up boundaries. I.e. the uncritical eye is a skill issue lol
Yep. People can easily be critical if you give the most extreme examples for good and bad art. But then they think those definitions cease to matter when that divide is less obvious. No, you just don't want to put the effort in to break this stuff down.
Oo thats a great topic
Just about the white canvas with the blue line in the middel. I cannot believe that its purpose was any other than evoking and stimulating the discussion on the boundaries of art (at least until I read the essay, which might serve the same purpose to be honest). In that case, it has really served its artistic purpose yet another day! ;) Fun discussion! thanks guys!
I know this episode is a bit old, but would love to hear y'alls take on Finnegan's Wake by James Joyce. Intentionally designed to be near indecipherable. Would take much more than an essay to make heads or tails of it, lol.
My idea of art is that it is expression in a skillful way. The problem with modern art is that in a lot of cases it doesn't actually require skill at all or everybody could learn it in a short amount of time. Having a line of paper doesn't require any kind of skill so it doesnt count
This is one of those hills I'm prepared to die on. We can absolutely objectively critique writing based on craft and technique. For example, setup and payoff. All payoffs require setup otherwise it's just shit happening for no reason. When Captain America picks up Thor's hammer in Endgame, that's a payoff to his arc and also to a small moment back in Age of Ultron where each character tried to lift the hammer and no one could budge it.... except Cap. If Cap had just picked up the hammer in Endgame without this setup, it would have felt like it came out of nowhere. Without the setup in Ultron the moment in Endgame would have been objectively poorer as it lacked sufficient setup/foreshadowing. Someone can claim it 'doens't bother them' but that's just their subjective feely weely's. A thing works or it does not work regardless of how you feel about it.
If there was no objective way to handle craft, authors would never edit their work. Why would you bother? But of course we do. We make improvements knowing they are improvements because we realize how we can make the sentence or scene better.
Love the thoughts, what do you think anout objective standards vs subjectively universal standards?
@@2ToRamble erm I may not be understanding what you guys are asking precisely so correct me if I'm wrong here. I think it is very hard to objectively compare one story to another other than outside of some simple examples by way of comparing how two things have been done. I think we can take a story in and of itself (and a series if that's the case) and treat it as a self contained unit which we can examine how well it told its story, and how well it achieved what it set out to do etc. So we can examine LOTR as a unit and we can examine ASOIAF as a unit, but trying to determine which is objectively better is like comparing genres of music or cuisines of food. Too different.
Once we start making big sweeping statements such as a top 10 list and what not we're immediately into subjectivity and vibe checking. Once we get away from critical analysis of a contained body of text/series I think we quickly get into subjectivity.
So all Star Wars films can be judged individually and also compared to all other star wars films (possibly games if we're going by pure story) but trying to decide if star wars is objectively better or worse than star trek is a fools errand.
Songs of Chaos is compared to Inheritnace Cycle a lot (for obvious reasons). Let's say someone said 'I think the dragon bonds are done better in SoC', well even if they appeal to specifics and examples that's still a preference. The dragon bond systems are not the same thing and were set up with different goals in mind, so it's hard to be objective about that. It's a subjective preference which one you like better. But in SoC if I'm inconsistent or break my own rules, that's an objective error.
Mémoires by Guy Debord and Asger Jorn is a collaborative art book published in the fifties whose cover was made of sandpaper with the intention of damaging the books next to it on the shelves. I value that one bit of conceptual art higher than a lot of fantasy books I've read. Art isn't always entertaining.
As the mother of a 9yo boy who loves minecraft, I just have to throw in that I have read a ridiculous number of chapter books and graphic novels based on minecraft, and there is a HUGE range of quality. The better ones were very good, as far as books aimed at that age group that aren't going to end up classics go.
There are so many directions to go with this topic it's great.
One, that subjectivity/beauty is in the eye of the beholder thing is missing a part.
"Beauty is in the interpretation + 'rather than' X"
If saying beauty is 'somewhere' (like specifying a 'beholder' is the source of it/a necessity) then that's implying a zero-sum perspective. A zero-sum like that implies a form of 'win/loss' (in this case, between subjective and objective)
In other words, the idea that art is purely subjective is already approaching the topic of art WITH a conclusion (that 'objective is defeated, subjective is victorious' in a zero-sum game) which is, by a technicality, self-defeating.
It's a funny complex ball only if you go into the topic WITH that conclusion to begin with.
If you ignore the idea of subjective/objective when going into art/creative expression/etc, then it makes way more sense on every level from the intellectual to the intuitive, because the creation of something and the thing created are intrinsically tied.
What would you say comes first, turning on a tap or the water pouring out?
They happen at the same time, technically, yet there's still a practical order to it. You wouldn't say 'water came out, THEN the tap opened' but you could say 'I opened the tap, THEN water came out.'
Even when they're happening 'identically.'
The subjective/objective topic falls apart in the face of reality-as-it-is rather than as-we-see-it-to-be.
'Conclusionism' is a great descriptor on many levels. haha
Here's a funny way your prof's 'argument' falls apart.
Any time someone does a documentary, or films during auctions/exhibits/etc for art, there's a funny thing that happens.
When someone spends 3+million on an art-piece, and the film-makers will ask questions.
"WHY did you buy that for so much?"
What's the most common answer (by a LOT) when asked this?
"Because it will/might be worth a lot of money some day."
The purchases from art galleries for high 'monetary' value are rarely (if ever) for the actual art piece itself. It's just people who (and admit it even themselves) don't know what to do with excessive financial wealth so find ways to dump it. They basically just get sucked into buying things via marketing (putting things up in galleries is effectively that when it comes down to it) because they don't know any different and don't care or consider to learn. Not because they wouldn't want to, but because they either have things to do or have no incentive to, the same way readers will purchase a 5-star-rated book rather than things that fit their tastes, or how marketing via tropes has become so prevalent in the swings of social-media readership.
So there goes the idea that the outcome of art is worth more than any other part of art... haha
You mentioned MJ... there's a funny segment I saw of him walking around an art gallery once. He just pointed at everything and said 'and that, and that, and that' buying it all. One of his butlers interrupted at some point. "We already have a chess board in the lobby sir, would you like this one to replace it?" MJ basically shrugged it off and said yeah find another place for the old one.
What even is art? :P
Regarding AI, the same thing happened with WAY more complex systems than chess with the same results too. When OpenAI was implemented into a 5-player game called Dota (it's like League of Legends but infinitely more dynamic) most of the player-base was baffled and it completely changed the way people played the game.
One of the most common things you'll hear stated in chess/dota/other communities after AI shows up is similar. "Why haven't we been doing this the whole time?"
With art, AI will do the same. It may not 'filter' good/bad art as much as you were thinking about there, but tools can change the landscape of 'how' people do what they do, and what they think is possible, expanding the capacity and range of skill-sets into new areas.
Likewise, you might have noticed that there's an undercurrent around AI talk that is very much along the lines of people realizing how much they DO care about art, the process, the creators of it, and finding (or rediscovering) value in the... I wouldn't say words like 'craft' or 'soul' here as they imply a lot, but they are accurate... it's more the 'act itself' that people care about, that the products don't 'have no value' without the artist, but that the products 'have WAY MORE value' because of an artist.
Likewise again, with your last chunk about a perciever necessary for beauty...
Maybe we're all expressions from the universe limited down so we can observe 'itself' from all points within it, allowing the universe to see its own beauty.
Sunsets are beautiful without someone witnessing them, but someone has to witness them for their beauty to be?
Light and illumination are the same? If you take away one, the other goes.
Principle and attribute are the same? If you have one, you'll have the other.
Subjective and objective are the same? Dun dun dunnnnn
But I'm just a 6 million year old potato from a vibrational dimension several frequencies above humanity's current paradigm, so what do I know?
Honored that this video sparked you to share so many thoughts - love these kinda comments. You and Rich can one day team up against his art professor 🤌
Love the podcast! I just wanted to offer a counterpoint to the idea that modern art does not require technical skill to produce in the same way as classical oil paintings and the like. As someone who used to share a similar opinion to Rich on modern art, and have done a U-turn in the past couple years, I find the topic fascinating.
Anyway the point I want to make is twofold. First off, a lot of modern art requires that you experience it firsthand. For example, the medium is often layered on the canvas, or is gigantic in scale, things that cannot be conveyed in a photograph.
Secondly, creating these works takes a lot more skill than you would think. Take the example ‘who’s afraid of red, yellow and blue’ by Barnett Newman. This is a series of paintings displaying large blocks of flat colours. Someone defaced one of these artworks by cutting it with a knife, and restorations failed, even though the cut was just through a flat colour. So why did the restoration fail? Because nobody could recreate the medium with which Newman painted the canvas. It’s crazy to think that this entire painting which was displayed for years was unable to be restored when it was just red. I think this highlights that making these works is not as simple as just painting a wall.
And really quick point in the end, art is usually a reflection of the self. You have to enter a conversation with the piece to get something from it. Realism paintings of portraits and landscapes are easier for us to interface with as we encounter them every day. Really entering a conversation with a black square on a white canvas might seem insane. But imagine you are walking round a gallery for hours, you see that there is a prayer corner which you enter not expecting anything and you are confronted with a gargantuan, overbearing canvas above you. The white of the canvas reflecting light so intensely that you can barely see, but the centre a black hole devoid of light. I’m not sure the exact art you are referencing, but I can imagine this situation where I feel like it would invoke emotion and would be accessible without reading literary review.
Sorry that was way too long, I love the podcast! Hopefully I got some point across in that mess
Thanks for all the thoughts! Interesting points - Curious what Rich would think about this, too.
Richard is so wise.
Praying he doesnt see this
I sort of get where you're coming from with some modern art (painting/drawing) but I do think it is some. A lot of people would say that Picasso paintings aren't good art because of the way those look, but it really is a subjective thing.
I think it's easier to critique written art and grade it, because the working is there in front of you, but even then, it's not objective fact.
Popular doesn't mean good, but also, simplistic doesn't mean bad.
Harry Potter is popular, I don't think it's good, but does that make it bad?
Gormenghast isn't very well known, but I think it's a masterpiece, that doesn't mean it's necessarily good.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who doesn't think Harry Potter is good. Question though. Do you think the movies are better than the books? I do.
@@BuddhaMelffyQueen in a lot of ways yes. Outside of book 1 & 3, I think they're all pretty average. The movies deliver the world and add a really good soundtrack, and effects. Acting is awful though.
@@masoninho8 I agree with you completely 💯.
Which makes me wonder what this Gormenghast is if we're pretty in tune with our Harry Potter opinions I wonder if I'd like it as well.
@@BuddhaMelffyQueen it's a really old trilogy. Written after WWII.
First 2 books are excellent, 3rd one is ok but loses track as the author had early onset dementia by that time sadly. Well worth a try for sure if you like purple prose and atmospheric settings. A lot of folks including myself think Mervyn Peake should be known alongside Tolkein. Very different style, but both excellent.
As co-founder of the Bloodsworn Swap Alliance, I call for allies of our cause to rally! If you want to support my and Mathias Petersen's great mission of resisting fascist oppression and getting these two guys to swap the Bloodsworn books, then please show your support!
Writing to you from the streets of Tokyo, Japan, I come once again with a simple plea. Fix the order of The Bloodsworn Saga. I do not know if you enjoy torturing me, but it sure seems like it. Even on vacation the thought won’t leave me brain
Be careful for what you wish. The solution may come at a cost.
@@2ToRambleit’s a chance I’m willing to take
Do not worry, my friend! I have already begun spreading the Bloodsworn Swap Alliance's message! We'll get more followers soon!
@@2ToRambleIs that implying that you would be willing to make a deal?
Oh, a deal has been struck. Pray I don't alter it further.
Yeah Richard is 100% right with this ngl
Would you considered the shredded paintings as art? You can’t understand their beauty from just looking at them but clearly in that their message is all the more clear.
If Austin was a real friend he’d shave his head for richard 👏
I think “art” is used too often and too broadly. There is a difference between art and “craft.”
Everything from writing, painting, drawing, filmmaking, woodworking and more can be art. But they are at first crafts. Crafts that you learn and fine tune your skills. Eventually something can transcend craft and become art and the enjoyment or lack thereof is subjective. However learning and practicing a craft, whatever craft that may be, has objective standards.
It’s why you can teach writing and filmmaking and painting and drawing etc.
It is also why someone can watch a poorly made film or look at a sloppy painting, or read a choppy book and say that was “bad.” Because it’s poor craftsmanship.
Interesting!!
This episode was objectively worth my time. Was it good? Well, subje-
The whole time I was watching the part about art I just wanted to ask if he believed the explanations for the modern art were beautiful. Like even if the art isn’t visibly beautiful can it be narratively beautiful?
When you guys talked about the sexual tension I immediately thought kiss! Kiss! 🤣
Art and communication are two completely different tasks. The author has no obligation to be understandable.
Oo interesting point, curious what Richard thinks
A standard can be objective if applied fairly, the subjective part is which standards you apply.
I think one mistake made here is assuming that the some of those pieces were only meant to be a piece of art atomized within one particular medium. Music within a movie shouldn't be judged solely as great if it works on it's own, but if it enhances the movie bad (as judged on it's merits outside the movie) music may be excellent as part of the broader whole. The piece of visual art with the black box was in conversation with where it was placed in the gallery and the history of that gallery. It may be "bad" when removed of the context, but that piece was clearly placed within that context and robbing it of that removes the merit. The same way books are often (particularly satire) in conversation with their time and place in history/culture and removing that is a disservice to the art. e.g. Gulliver's Travels, A Modest Proposal or Catch-22.
Great point!
all things are objective they are all real whether good or bad and those things are objective then you as a person have a emotional reactions to it. most of the times 9 out of 10 if its objectively good people like it and vice versa there will always be people who dislike great things and like bad things it doesn't change reality
I've had this exact conversation so many times. Specifically with your Mona Lisa and 2 year old scribbles analogy. I find it controversial every time I bring it up. Which is odd.
A lot of artists weren't fully appreciated within their lifeitimem though... that happens with a lot of musicians, writers and poets ... During their lives, people thought their works were weirdo crap ... hence why so many died in poverty
what was the book mentioned @ 15.48?
ACOTAR (A Court of Thorns and Roses) in the thumbnail!
You guys are awesome, but as someone who wasted my undergrad years studying philosophy, I was just dying to clarify so many things during this discussion. The Critique of Judgment was done dirty. 😂
Fair - hope we can correct that in the future 😂. What points could we have made better/more accurate?
@2ToRamble Honestly, I was probably being overly critical. I might as well have left a comment on one of your Stormlight videos saying, "Actually, according to Realmatic theory, the shards of Adolnasium..." Keep making cool videos. I love your dynamic.
Sphere by Michael Crichton is better than Jurassic Park.
Have ya read any abercrombie yet? If not please read the first law trilogy
We will be reviewing them for sure 👊
Hello, guys! Love your videos. Have you read "The Passing of the Dragon", by Ken Liu? It's a short story about 50 pages long, you can read it in 45 minutes and it talks about art and its perspective! I think you'll love it!
We havent yet - thank you for this!!
What about the Mona Lisa compared to the Prado Mona Lisa??
I (austin) didnt know about this until now - super interesting
There's a Kandra on your bush!
I dont get if this is a reference or what 😂
@@2ToRamble (You put TenSoon on that little fake bush between you)
@@2ToRambleWow. Seriously Austin, you need to read Mistborn 😂. I think you'll love it!
12:28 so Dune 2 is a bad movie cuz you need to watch dune 1 in order to understand?
Thoughts on the song 4’33”?
We havent heard that song, what is it?
Agreed. If a piece doesn’t stand on its own, then it fails. But then you can also look at a piece accompanied by a presentation/backstory, then at that point, the piece and the explanation become one piece of art combined. So the medium then becomes a combination of the piece and presentation. I’m not a fan of the presentation. And I love art. And I agree with you. If a piece can’t stand on its own….
Ahh, I (austin) see your point - because presenting in and of itself can be an artform
I walked in this video expecting some laughs, two friends arguing with each other. I walked out with a PhD in philosophy
😂😂
I’d contend with your definition of art . You propose
Art is trying to express a feeling through the medium itself
However the language you used here already implies that there is a singular or set of feelings that are trying to be expressed. I would argue that the purpose and beauty of art is that it invokes feeling, not that it expresses feeling. People love and interpret art for wildly different meanings than authorial intent. In your definition, it failed as art because it did not express the desired feeling. However that ambiguity in interpretation is unique to art, and not a flaw, but a feature
Basically I’d disagree with the definitin
Gonna have to disagree with Rich a bit here. Needing to have an explanation doesn't necessarily mean a piece of art has failed. Context is always important when dealing with creative mediums. Like in your example about the exhibit that always has the one corner dedicated to religious arts.
Sure taken simply by itself, a single black point surrounded by white doesn't convey that. But that same piece placed in a position usually used for religious art certainly has a different implication. An art exhibit isn't just a room full of artwork, it itself is a piece of art and I feel like that is also an important thing to consider when talking about the merit of art.
Art is objectively bad only if it doesn’t fulfill the criteria of the medium it is said to be a part of. For example, a 300 page book which was entirely blank would not fulfill the criteria of being a book, and is therefore objectively bad.
I now realise this is basically what Richard said lmao
Iv seen your red rising video Austin. This might not be the topic for you 😂
Lol
22:10 I believe Richard was looking for the word “deontology.”
So are bad guys really just good guys with different opinions??
That thumbnail is objectively cancer.
So, Richard, is democracy subjectively cringe or objectively?
In my objective opinion, cringe can be defined as democracy
Nice haircut
👊
Our world is a dichotomy. One side elevates, the other denigrates. Everyone and everything is on one side or the other…no in between. If you can be convinced a pile of dog crap is “art”, you have chosen the wrong side.
Postmodernism is a hell of a thing. Getting rid of all standards allows anyone to logically deduce any kind of conclusion from anything they want. Simply put, it's not good.
Do you seriously think that's what postmodernism is?
@@adamcosper3308 More or less. It's complicated to say the least.
You can come to me and say you enjoy a Katy Perry song more than a Pink Floyd song, but don't try to convince me the Katy Perry song is actually better than the Pink Floyd song. There is objectively more talent and influence in that Pink Floyd song. There are more layers to it.
Totally disagree on the painting you discussed. Religion is absurd, and pointless, much like the image