The Box of Chocolates Thread (You never know what you're going to get!)

I think they mean "different person to person with no anchor value", Ie random across time and space.

ie if beauty is truly subjective, if you know nothing about a culture they could like literally anything and you have no a priori information about their aesthetic preferences.

if being humans sufficies to give you ANY a priori information about the structure of their preferences, then those aren't fully subjective.

so under full subjectivism, the a priori probability that a culture you know nothing off that had no contact with others for centuries could consider dead mutilated bodies of children beautiful, is the same as that of them considering tall muscular men beautiful.

in that sense, random

If art is ENTIRELY subjective, then it is random. How can you say that any one book/film/painting/sculpture is better than any other if there is absolutely nothing to measure?

Only Sublime is arguing that is entirely subjective, but I probably misspoke some saying that it can't be measured. Obviously we could have people rate how they feel about it and that sort of qualitative analysis is done all the time.

I agree of course that humans prefer symmetry in other humans, that is because of evolution.

I don't see how that applies to tastes in art. There is plenty of modern art that is very acclaimed but looks to me like the random color smears of a three year old. But then there is music I love which some think sounds like noise.

Taste in Art is subjective of course, but there are many times when one example of Art is clearly better than another. That doesn't mean we aren't free to enjoy the crappier one.

Clearly better how?

Clearly better when we compare a story written by a 5 year old with Shakespeare, for instance.

5 year olds are original. Shakespeare is full of clichés.

I feel like this discussion is above all of our pay grades. I'm sure there has been plenty of philosophical work done here but I'm not familiar with any of it and it doesn't look like anyone else is either.

I don't know about you guys, but it feels like it would be much more exciting if we were having this discussion in the mod thread. 😀

i am and basically all bases have been touched, Ie the whole range from radical obj. to radical subj. in aesthetics has at least some proponents, and that's about it, anyone can claim whatever he wants with the proper assumptions.

so as per Wittgenstein, that field of inquiry is useless.

Now that's funny as hell. Pity anyone who does that, but still funny.

Well played.

Bianca Bosker is a best selling author and just published a book, Get The Picture, somewhat related to this issue. She was recently interviewed on a podcast called The Art Angle, and is worth a listen if you're interested in getting an idea about how the art world works.

That's more about the meaning of "great" than anything.

You can make it more objective going with measurable success, staying power in later decades and so on.

And you would certainly be able to make objective claims about Nirvana superiority as a band compared to many bands from the same years. Not all of course.

Going greater still, the Gioconda itself is objectively incredible art just for the conversations about it, it generated through time.

Gender queer as a piece of literature is already relevant btw. Which might have been the intention of the author since the beginning. Relevant because of societal reaction (positive and negative) to it.

But the drawings? Lol

To go full subjective you need to make all value subjective.

Not only tastes, but you need to also claim that inspiring millions of people has 0 inherent value for example.

Or that changing the social mores of a generation (the Beatles) has 0 inherent value.

Basically you need a model of humanity where there is no objectivity in judging any outcome at all. Nothing is inherently good or bad for human beings in that model.

Then art can be fully subjective in value

Why do you suppose that Nirvana was such a huge hit in the 90s? There were dozens of "grunge" bands in the late 80s to early 90s. The song I linked below came out over a decade before "Nevermind." Nirvana's technical musicianship was below average for the time. So what was it about Nirvana specifically that made them so popular?

The answer to that question is honesty. It is one of many reasons that Seinfeld, Taxi Driver, and The Catcher in the Rye are all acclaimed works of art. It is so universal that genuineness is an important part of the quality of art, that I would go as far as to say that it is can be considered one of several objective measures of art.

I am not trying to suggest that you are wrong that there is subjectivity in art, but I do think you are wrong in your position that it is completely subjective. In fact, I think there is more "science" involved in the quality of art than most people think.

Interesting discussion!

This guy ^^^ He gets it.

first, thanks for that song. never heard it and i like very much.

second, i think we agree on a basic level. we probably are near linear in opinion on what is great "art" and what is terrible. i just tend to stick to actual definitions of words.

otoh i openly admit to perhaps being bright enough to start a debate like this but not bright enough to actually be right about what i am saying. there is a non zero chance that i am wrong.

circling back to "jack and jill" vs the "the godfather."

if one says JJ is superior film, i basically decide to never discuss film with them again, or probably anything of note.

otoh i can't definitely say with 100% certainty that they are wrong as opposed to if they told me the earth is flat.

we live in a time where word definitions are being warped to suit agendas. i think its important to not let that happen.

"Nirvana were a better band than my tone deaf three year old twins trying to play the piano and drums""

Subjective opinion and objective truth.

I don't think "entirely subjective" is a thing-- maybe one's own personal experience of the world sure but little else.

okay, drop the adverb used for emphasis. my point still remains.

art, in all its forms, is subjective to the individual.

Maybe except for literature where there is such a thing as good writing.

Define good writing.

There's also such a thing as being able to play a musical instrument, though it's not always a pre-requisite for good music.