Students left a pineapple in the middle of an exhibition and people mistook it for art - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;52208513]You don't need to be objective to make meaningful critique. Critics disagree all the time[/QUOTE] You really can't. The entire basis of any sort of persuasive critique is appealing to common facts, some objective standard that people agree on. If it were totally subjective, then it would be like critiquing the color blue because it isn't a color you like.

man if you really want to split hairs like that then yeah, art critics refer back to techniques and established norms of genres as part of their critique. But those things are just generally agreed upon facts, they're not objective truths, and anyway the critic is still going to be using their own subjective judgement to evaluate these things anyway.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52209013]You really can't. The entire basis of any sort of persuasive critique is appealing to common facts, some objective standard that people agree on. If it were totally subjective, then it would be like critiquing the color blue because it isn't a color you like.[/QUOTE] You really can. When I see a movie reviewer's take on a film, I'm not looking for a measurable, objective indicator of enjoyment. I'm just looking for someone else's perspective.

[QUOTE=153x;52206661] Also as a sidenote you totally could take a picture of the coca-cola logo and sell it. That's literally the entire career of Andy Warhol. The reason [i]why[/i] you do it is the key to defending it as a valid work of art, in Warhol's case it was about pop culture, capitalism and the ownership of intellectual property in the public sphere[/QUOTE] So if I can take a picture of someone else's logo and sell it as my own, why then can you not make the same case for recording someone else's music and selling it as my own. If the whole point of a work of art (such as with this pineapple) is context and not content, then I should be able to do the same with other medium.

[QUOTE=Thlis;52204040]Sometimes I wonder how many people that claim "they can feel the emotion in the strokes" have ever held an actual paint brush. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tMtV5p0s4E[/media][/QUOTE] You're delusional if you think anyone here is going to watch an hour long video so why are you using it as your argument? [QUOTE=Govna;52204304]This. Goya's "Third of May" came to mind for his use of color. [t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fd/El_Tres_de_Mayo%2C_by_Francisco_de_Goya%2C_from_Prado_thin_black_margin.jpg/1280px-El_Tres_de_Mayo%2C_by_Francisco_de_Goya%2C_from_Prado_thin_black_margin.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] I perfer Goya's later stuff tbh. [t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/Mujeres_riendo.jpg[/t]

[QUOTE=bigbadbarron;52210261]So if I can take a picture of someone else's logo and sell it as my own, why then can you not make the same case for recording someone else's music and selling it as my own. If the whole point of a work of art (such as with this pineapple) is context and not content, then I should be able to do the same with other medium.[/QUOTE] I mean people use samples in music all the time.

The modern art world is bullshit. That's all. If I drove a nail into a piece of wood and it bent so I couldn't hammer it the rest of the way in, and said it's art even though I just fucked up hammering a dumb nail, some pretentious moron would walk by and say it represents the struggle of fitting in within a conformist society

and thats a problem because why exactly?

[QUOTE=bdd458;52210815]and thats a problem because why exactly?[/QUOTE] It really isn't. The weirdest thing about this is that people here aren't even taking the time to single out the art folk who are really obnoxious about it and push it onto everyone - no, it's always [I]the entire[/I] art/modern art community. Why are people so adamant to dictate what others should enjoy in their own time?

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;52210901]It really isn't. The weirdest thing about this is that people here aren't even taking the time to single out the art folk who are really obnoxious about it and push it onto everyone - no, it's always [I]the entire[/I] art/modern art community. Why are people so adamant to dictate what others should enjoy in their own time?[/QUOTE] "I don't understand/ enjoy, therefore no one does and they're all faking!!!!" [editline]10th May 2017[/editline] Or "I went to art school and worked really hard, why aren't I famous yet!?!?!?!"

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;52210227]You really can. When I see a movie reviewer's take on a film, I'm not looking for a measurable, objective indicator of enjoyment. I'm just looking for someone else's perspective.[/QUOTE] Art critique isn't just one person giving their personal opinion. It's a supposed professional evaluation of the quality and value of a piece of art. I highly doubt a New York Times art revewer thinks the average Joe at home's opinion is just as valid as his.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52211581]Art critique isn't just one person giving their personal opinion. It's a supposed professional evaluation of the quality and value of a piece of art. I highly doubt a New York Times art revewer thinks the average Joe at home's opinion is just as valid as his.[/QUOTE] Art critique comes from a number of perspectives. If you've ever had a critique in class over a piece of art, there are multiple opinions and viewpoints that can be agreed with or disagreed with. Yes, there are some technical aspects that can be taken into account in certain types of art (i.e., the anatomy in an attempt at realism), but when you consider abstract art, there are no "rules" to abide by. One critic can feel entirely different from another in the way two food critics can feel differently about a restaurant, in the way two movie critics can feel differently about a film, etc. Unless you have a list of "must-haves" that an artist had to abide by to create that piece of art - say, the point is to submit a piece for the theme of "death" but the art has nothing to do with death and instead is just a painting of a flower, in which case, it would be valid to say that it doesn't fit the theme - then yes, the critique can be subjective. Art critique also doesn't have to be professional. Anyone can critique a piece of art because, surprise, not everyone will receive the same message from a piece of art. This includes food, movies, music, etc. Any creative field.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52211581]I highly doubt a New York Times art revewer thinks the average Joe at home's opinion is just as valid as his.[/QUOTE] Is it? One has decades of professional experience with this and the other likely doesn't. It's important to consider others' perspectives but maybe I'd be quicker to side with the professional

[QUOTE=sgman91;52211581]Art critique isn't just one person giving their personal opinion. It's a supposed professional evaluation of the quality and value of a piece of art. I highly doubt a New York Times art revewer thinks the average Joe at home's opinion is just as valid as his.[/QUOTE] Art being subjective doesn't mean there's not a skill to critiquing. The NYT reviewer was probably hired because of how well he can frame his opinion, rather than how much better it is than average people's. Most of the objectivity there is in how aware he is of his own biases and how well he weighs them against other people's perspectives. Of course, there's also a degree of objectivity in knowing whether a specific paint is hard to work with, or how difficult a certain shot is to film. But what if you got to a piece that was visually impressive, but intellectually lazy and painfully easy to make? How do you think critics weigh these things in a way that's not entirely up to their individual opinions? Imagine you see a flat shot of a field. One critic with years of filmmaking experience looks at how visually unimpressive it is, and decides there would be better ways to shoot it. Another critic with years of filmmaking experience looks at how it nails the desolate, monotone vibe that the film is going for. These are two perfectly valid opinions, and one of them throws that small degree of objectivity in the craft out the window... but it's no less valid.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;52211768]Art being subjective doesn't mean there's not a skill to critiquing. The NYT reviewer was probably hired because of how well he can frame his opinion, rather than how much better it is than average people's. Most of the objectivity there is in how aware he is of his own biases and how well he weighs them against other people's perspectives. Of course, there's also a degree of objectivity in knowing whether a specific paint is hard to work with, or how difficult a certain shot is to film. But what if you got to a piece that was visually impressive, but intellectually lazy and painfully easy to make? How do you think critics weigh these things in a way that's not entirely up to their individual opinions? Imagine you see a flat shot of a field. One critic with years of filmmaking experience looks at how visually unimpressive it is, and decides there would be better ways to shoot it. Another critic with years of filmmaking experience looks at how it nails the desolate, monotone vibe that the film is going for. These are two perfectly valid opinions, and one of them throws that small degree of objectivity in the craft out the window... but it's no less valid.[/QUOTE] Let me try to clarify my problem with your argument: Take something that is truly subjective, like people's favorite color. This is a truly subjective thing that has no objective criteria. There would be no point for me to critique your favorite color because there is no standard to which I can appeal to. Our liking of our respective colors is only applicable to us, individually. Now let's say someone came along and said that they were going to be a favorite color critiquer. They're going to look at people's favorite color and say what is good or bad about that color. Everyone would, rightly, mock them for it. There would be no point because the subject is entirely subjective. That person's opinion is meaningless to anyone else. It doesn't matter how much experience the person has in critiquing favorite colors, the entire idea is stupid. In the same way, it makes no sense at all to say that someone can have any meaningful critique of art if the subject is entirely subjective. The filmmaker who says that the scene nails the desolate, monotone vibe that the film is going for isn't simply offering their personal, subjective, opinion. They are saying that the film nails a recognizable standard that other people will recognize. They are appealing to something outside of themselves. It's not at all a totally subjective claim. They are either right or wrong.

The [I]content[/I] of art is subjective. The [I]technique[/I] is mostly objective, depending on the medium and genre.

[QUOTE=Pascall;52212467]The [I]content[/I] of art is subjective. The [I]technique[/I] is mostly objective, depending on the medium and genre.[/QUOTE] How does what I say not also apply to the content? Why can't a piece of art be better or worse at conveying a meaning or emotion?

Because not everyone is capable of reading emotion or meaning the same way?

[QUOTE=Pascall;52212991]Because not everyone is capable of reading emotion or meaning the same way?[/QUOTE] A lack of perfect agreement doesn't mean that no standards exist. For example, if a person were to try and communicate a scene of love, they aren't going to show two people in a fist fight killing each other. If a person wants to communicate happiness, they aren't going to show a woman weeping. Etc. There are specific ways in which to express certain meanings and certain emotions. On the flip side, the piece that consisted of an erased piece of completed art shows nothing. It has no meaning on it's own. It seem to me that it fails on every possible standard.

Two people in a fist fight could absolutely constitute love under the right context/circumstance. You can't just make the assumption that "two people kissing/looking at each other/being intimate" = love. Love can be represented in tons of different ways. There's also different kinds of love. Platonic, familial, long distance, longing, unrequited, etc. You're trying to apply stringent standards to a medium that has very very little. A blank canvas can represent a void. Can represent absence. Unfullfilment, dissatisfaction, protest, death, rebirth, beginnings and ends, famine and emptiness. It wouldn't be something [B]I[/B] like, personally, and it doesn't have to even be something that ANYONE likes. Art can exist just to make people mad or to make people question why it exists or to make people really really hate it because of how it was created. If you don't enjoy the piece, you don't have to enjoy it! But hey, some people might. And they might place their own expectation, perspective, and experience on it. And that's totally fine. Because that's what art is for. You don't have to do that and no one is saying you do. Look for stuff that fits your interests better.

[QUOTE=Pascall;52213062]Two people in a fist fight could absolutely constitute love under the right context/circumstance. You can't just make the assumption that "two people kissing/looking at each other/being intimate" = love. Love can be represented in tons of different ways. There's also different kinds of love. Platonic, familial, long distance, longing, unrequited, etc.[/QUOTE] Yes, but I think you know what I meant. The type of fight scene that would represent love would look very different than the kind that would represent hatred. The fact that we can tell which is which goes to show that it's not totally subjective. [QUOTE]You're trying to apply stringent standards to a medium that has very very little. A blank canvas can represent a void. Can represent absence. Unfullfilment, dissatisfaction, protest, death, rebirth, beginnings and ends, famine and emptiness. It wouldn't be something [B]I[/B] like, personally, and it doesn't have to even be something that ANYONE likes. Art can exist just to make people mad or to make people question why it exists or to make people really really hate it because of how it was created. If you don't enjoy the piece, you don't have to enjoy it! But hey, some people might. And they might place their own expectation, perspective, and experience on it. And that's totally fine. Because that's what art is for. You don't have to do that and no one is saying you do. Look for stuff that fits your interests better.[/QUOTE] It can TRY to represent those things, but if only a tiny portion of people who look at it actually get that out of it, then it's doing a bad job of representation. That's my point. A piece of art can be effective or not effective, and that means there is some standard by which to judge it by.

A majority of people don't have to "get it" for it to accomplish something though. If a person finds a meaning in a piece of art, whatever that might be, the art has had an effect, regardless if that's what the artist intended or not. A piece of art is not only worth the understanding of the intended meaning. Sometimes, too, art isn't even done for a true purpose. I've done sculptures and paintings that don't mean anything. They've just been aesthetically pleasing. But not everyone is going to find them as such. Any standards that get put in place are put in place by the specific person looking at it. Not by the audience as a whole.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52212448]Let me try to clarify my problem with your argument: Take something that is truly subjective, like people's favorite color. This is a truly subjective thing that has no objective criteria. There would be no point for me to critique your favorite color because there is no standard to which I can appeal to. Our liking of our respective colors is only applicable to us, individually. Now let's say someone came along and said that they were going to be a favorite color critiquer. They're going to look at people's favorite color and say what is good or bad about that color. Everyone would, rightly, mock them for it. There would be no point because the subject is entirely subjective. That person's opinion is meaningless to anyone else. It doesn't matter how much experience the person has in critiquing favorite colors, the entire idea is stupid. In the same way, it makes no sense at all to say that someone can have any meaningful critique of art if the subject is entirely subjective. The filmmaker who says that the scene nails the desolate, monotone vibe that the film is going for isn't simply offering their personal, subjective, opinion. They are saying that the film nails a recognizable standard that other people will recognize. They are appealing to something outside of themselves. It's not at all a totally subjective claim. They are either right or wrong.[/QUOTE] Yes, a favorite color reviewer would be really silly. But then again, that's an inherently flawed comparison, because colors are simplistic, one-dimensional things, so there's not much to review in the first place. I wouldn't be so quick to blame it on the fact that they're subjective. But a whole mural? Or a novel? There's a lot to deconstruct there. Other people's opinions aren't meaningless to me here, not because of their objectivity, but because they show an outlook that's not mine. It might add a new angle to the work I hadn't thought of, or reinforce my feelings on a particular aspect of it. That's why they're intriguing, not because they show the "right" opinion to have. As for the example, I phrased it poorly. The idea was that both have the capacity to understand what the other means, but only one enjoys the shot. Critic A realizes the filmmaker's intention, but still feels it's lazy. Critic B realizes it shows very little technical know-how, but feels that it achieves what it's trying to do. Both of their opinions are valid, both come from an experienced background, but they're still set apart by the fact A places technical skill above raw visual appeal, and vice-versa for B. How on earth would you find the "right" opinion in here, in a way that's not ultimately subjective? [editline]11th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;52213075]Yes, but I think you know what I meant. The type of fight scene that would represent love would look very different than the kind that would represent hatred. The fact that we can tell which is which goes to show that it's not totally subjective. It can TRY to represent those things, but if only a tiny portion of people who look at it actually get that out of it, then it's doing a bad job of representation. That's my point. A piece of art can be effective or not effective, and that means there is some standard by which to judge it by.[/QUOTE] By the way, I agree that there's commonly agreed upon standards, I just don't agree that they're truly objective in any way

[QUOTE=Pascall;52213084]A majority of people don't have to "get it" for it to accomplish something though. If a person finds a meaning in a piece of art, whatever that might be, the art has had an effect, regardless if that's what the artist intended or not. A piece of art is not only worth the understanding of the intended meaning. Sometimes, too, art isn't even done for a true purpose. I've done sculptures and paintings that don't mean anything. They've just been aesthetically pleasing. But not everyone is going to find them as such.[/QUOTE] Aesthetics are still a goal, a purpose. Beauty, awe, etc. in themselves can be very moving and uplifting. Sure, a majority don't have to "get it" for it to accomplish something, but is that really the standard? I mean, a 2 year old's drawings can accomplish [I]something[/I], like the happiness of their parent. Accomplishing [I]something [/I] isn't really valuable on it's own. There's a big difference between accomplishing [I]something[/I] and effectively accomplishing one's goal. On the other side, [I]everyone [/I] not seeing the intended purpose or goal is a hugely exaggerated standard. We don't use that standard for anything else in life. So why would we use it here? [QUOTE]Any standards that get put in place are put in place by the specific person looking at it. Not by the audience as a whole.[/QUOTE] Is there not a common human experience that leads to societal, or even human-wide, standards? If you have 100 people look at a painting, you will not get 100 totally dissimilar views. You will almost certainly get a bell curve with a clear peak. If this peak lies near the intended goal, then the piece was successful. If not, then it is unsuccessful.

I feel like you're just trying to apply a mathematical/logical approach to something that is not contingent on logic or mathematical curvature. I'm not really sure how to explain it any further to you lol.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52213129]Is there not a common human experience that leads to societal, or even human-wide, standards? If you have 100 people look at a painting, you will not get 100 totally dissimilar views. You will almost certainly get a bell curve with a clear peak. If this peak lies near the intended goal, then the piece was successful. If not, then it is unsuccessful.[/QUOTE] Sure. But a standard being common doesn't mean it's inherently better, just that it connects with the average human more often. It's only objectively better if all you're looking for is a profit

[QUOTE=Pascall;52213142]I feel like you're just trying to apply a mathematical/logical approach to something that is not contingent on logic or mathematical curvature. I'm not really sure how to explain it any further to you lol.[/QUOTE] Yes, I'm trying to present a coherent argument to why there are real existent standards and that it makes sense to say that some art is more effective, and therefore better, than other art.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;52213161]Sure. But a standard being common doesn't mean it's inherently better, just that it connects with the average human more often. It's only objectively better if all you're looking for is a profit[/QUOTE] If the goal is to express something through the art, then what other people think of it is inherently important.