Cyberpunk 2077

[Kathandira]

David Yow, Iggy Pop, Glen Branca, ATDI, MBV, Spacemen 3, DEP, Black Fast, Weekend Nachos- these performers had total meltdowns on stage and have had those meltdowns judged to be some of the best performances of their careers.

Objectively terrible. They were torn apart of this by critics and fans.

[Endus]

Isn't that why we have different genres of art though? Because their are objective things designated for each of those types?

Not even a little bit, really. They're incredibly vague and overlapping descriptions.

Take a book for example. If it is sold as a Sci-Fi novel but contains nothing of that genre is it something that can't be judged because it is art? Or can it be objectively judged for not having elements of that genre?

1> That's an argument regarding the marketing, not the work itself.
2> Even then, it's hard to say what "nothing of the genre" even means. Take the Shannara series. It's usually pegged as fantasy, but it's also explicitly described as a post-post-apocalyptic setting, set on our actual Earth; a future history from our own timeline, magic and all. That's pretty sci-fi. Or how about The Time Traveler's Wife? Even experts can't agree if it's more of a romance novel, or sci-fi. The distinction largely doesn't matter, and trying to draw firm lines ends up being a waste of everyone's time.

Wouldn't the type of paint/material be an objective item of the work of art? Oil versus Water. Glass vs Stone. Bronze vs Marble. Those things impart different things to art that can be objectively judged.

They can be objectively defined, in the sense of "the artist used oil paints", but that doesn't speak to the quality of the work itself, or any element that can be "judged". Material composition is not an artistic quality. Use of material is.

Things that are not open to interpretation. Even your explanation of caricatures fails to meet your goal as you make a distinction between intentional and non-intentional judgements. Intent is an objective quality.

I seriously do not understand how you can think "intent" is an objective quality, when it's clearly entirely predicated on the subjective outlook of the artist.

An objective quality is one that would be agreed upon by all observers. An artist, like Van Gogh, might subjectively see themselves and their work as a colossal failure (as he famously did), but that has no bearing whatsoever on how those works are experienced and beloved by people today.

[Fencers]

Artistic style can be very subjective. But flat out skill can be judged.

Subjectively. The measure of such is subjective. Mo Tucker, Norman Connors, Matt Cameron. Look them up.

- - - Updated - - -

Objectively terrible. They were torn apart of this by critics and fans.

That's not objective.

[rhorle]

This is still wrong. No such thing exists. No publication, platform or outlet does so. No school or scholarly work I know of practices under this belief.

So if I submit a statue as a painting no one will judge it objectively not be a painting? That everyone in "the industry" will call it a painting simply because I have? We know there are objective things because Art Schools exist and do have pass/fail requirements. Otherwise everyone would get a degree automatically, right?

- - - Updated - - -

Subjectively. The measure of such is subjective. Mo Tucker, Norman Connors, Matt Cameron. Look them up.

So you would say an average kindergartner objectively has the same skill as a Vincent Van Goh? Skill is only subjective when with in the same bracket.

[Endus]

You can also judge a person's skills. Line work, Color Theory, Perspective, Gray Scaling, Usage of Negative Space. So on and So on.

Artistic style can be very subjective. But flat out skill can be judged.

You can descibe those components. You can't judge them in any objective sense. Line work, gray scaling, perspective? How do those apply to Jackson Pollock's Convergence? How do those play into its current estimated value of around $300m?

- - - Updated - - -

So you would say an average kindergartner objectively has the same skill as a Vincent Van Goh? Skill is only subjective when with in the same bracket.

You're already inherently talking about the artist, rather than the work, and trying to determine value by your subjective assumptions as to the skill and talent of that artist, rather than any objective assessment of the work itself, here.

[rhorle]

You're already inherently talking about the artist, rather than the work, and trying to determine value by your subjective assumptions as to the skill and talent of that artist, rather than any objective assessment of the work itself, here.

No. Because the work is a caricature instead photo-realistic. If it is entered into a competition for photo-realism it should receive low marks, right? Because the work objectively is a caricature regardless of assumptions of skill of the artist. If you can't objectively assess if something is or is not photo-realistic then you aren't being objective. Instead you are giving into subjective interpretations of the work to avoid the objective reality.

This is after all why genre-bending, fusion, etc exist as terms. Because it takes objective qualities of different art and mixes them. What meaning you assign to the result is entirely subjective but there are objective qualities that won't change.

[Endus]

No. Because the work is a caricature instead photo-realistic. If it is entered into a competition for photo-realism it should receive low marks, right?

This would be a subjective judgement by the judges based on their aesthetic desires for their specific contest, not an objective assessment of the work itself.

[rhorle]

This would be a subjective judgement by the judges based on their aesthetic desires for their specific contest, not an objective assessment of the work itself.

So you think a caricature can magically change to a photo-realistic work based on the thoughts of the viewer? Lmao.

[Kathandira]

You can descibe those components. You can't judge them in any objective sense. Line work, gray scaling, perspective? How do those apply to Jackson Pollock's Convergence? How do those play into its current estimated value of around $300m?.

Jackson Pollock is an abstract artist. His art is based on emotion and reflection. He basically created his own style, so only he was able to dictate any level of skill involved.

That is where things get muddy, but it is due to the intent. His intent was to experiment and break the rules of traditional art of the time. Applying paint to the canvas in new ways to create new ideas. Basically, he set his own rules. He was as punk rock as it comes.

But wait! There were rules to be broken. Rules that if not followed would be judged. Abstract art gets a pass because it isn't about skill, it is about expression. But not all art categories get that hall pass. In the late 1800's to early 1900's artists were challenging the idea that art is objective and it can be whatever the artist wants it to be. The idea that art is completely subjective is relatively new in the grand scheme.

[Fencers]

This would be a subjective judgement by the judges based on their aesthetic desires for their specific contest, not an objective assessment of the work itself.

Or the qualities of any given work. They would need to have a defined standard too. Often is referred to as Judging Criteria.

If you look at submission guidelines and acceptance of the artists who submit work, the quality of the work is not defined as having to meet x or y standards. Because it doesn't exist universally; objectively. The criteria are up to the interpretation of the judging panel.

[rhorle]

If you look at submission guidelines and acceptance of the artists who submit work, the quality of the work is not defined as having to meet x or y standards. Because it doesn't exist universally; objectively. The criteria are up to the interpretation of the judging panel.

Your argument implies that the word objective has no meaning because its definition was created and not a universal existence. Which means nothing is subjective as well, right? Because there is no universal standard. All you are doing is redefining words to fit your viewpoint. Work once committed to a canvas doesn't change. It can be judged based on objectively qualities. The meaning of that work will always remain subjective as that is something that changes based on the one interpreting it.

[Endus]

So you think a caricature can magically change to a photo-realistic work based on the thoughts of the viewer? Lmao.

Nope. Really don't know how you could have possibly reached that conclusion.

I'm pointing out there's no objective way to determine or judge the inherent value of a caricature against the value of a photo-realistic work. At best, you can compare them to a subjectively-determined set of standards, as Fencers pointed out.

Jackson Pollock is an abstract artist. His art is based on emotion and reflection. He basically created his own style, so only he was able to dictate any level of skill involved.

That is where things get muddy, but it is due to the intent. His intent was to experiment and break the rules of traditional art of the time. Applying paint to the canvas in new ways to create new ideas. Basically, he set his own rules. He was as punk rock as it comes.

I'd argue Duchamp, just for his work Fountain, was significantly more "punk" than Pollock. But regardless, you're just describing the lack of any objective criteria, here, which has been my point this whole time.

But wait! There were rules to be broken. Rules that if not followed would be judged. Abstract art gets a pass because it isn't about skill, it is about expression. But not all art categories get that hall pass. In the late 1800's to early 1900's artists were challenging the idea that art is objective and it can be whatever the artist wants it to be. The idea that art is completely subjective is relatively new in the grand scheme.

If "rules are meant to be broken", it's because those rules are fictions that don't really exist; that they are subjectively encultured viewpoints, not actual objective "rules".

You are, again, making my point for me, and somehow think it's a counterpoint.

[rhorle]

I'm pointing out there's no objective way to determine or judge the inherent value of a caricature against the value of a photo-realistic work. At best, you can compare them to a subjectively-determined set of standards, as Fencers pointed out.

Is it X? No, it is Y. That is not a subjective assessment. The work doesn't change once it put to paper/canvas. So its objective nature can be judged. It is why genre of art, books, films, etc exist. Objective standards that are applied to the work of art.

It doesn't matter of objective things were determined through a subjective manner. Otherwise the term objective would never exist as everything is always first reached through a subjective means. If objective standards exist then art work can be judged by those standards.

[Kathandira]

You are, again, making my point for me, and somehow think it's a counterpoint.

As I mentioned in the later part of my comment, Contemporary art is relatively new. The whole notion of art being subjective is new.

Before that, there were rules. There are classical artists today, just as there are still classical musicians today, and they are judged based on the classic rules/skills/applications

http://www.fineartnewzealand.com/ten_rules.html

Like punk rock of the 70's and 80's. There are pieces of music that are objectively terrible. But yet, subjectively enjoyable. Though the musicianship is awful and can be judged as such, it can invoke emotions in the listener that they enjoy. There are musicians who aim for this duality, and are well aware that they are terrible at playing their instruments.

[Endus]

As I mentioned in the later part of my comment, Contemporary art is relatively new. The whole notion of art being subjective is new.

It really isn't. Like, not new within living memory. Duchamp's Fountain is one of the most-famous examples of this being challenged, and Duchamp exhibited that piece in 1917. More than a century ago. And Duchamp wasn't by any means the first, just a particular famous example because of how shockingly he presented his work as a deliberate challenge.

[Kathandira]

It really isn't. Like, not new within living memory.

I said earlier, New in the grand scheme. Not in the living memory. I didn't place my goal posts there.

[rhorle]

And Duchamp wasn't by any means the first, just a particular famous example because of how shockingly he presented his work as a deliberate challenge.

If all art is subjective how can it be a challenge to anything? Doesn't that require it to be defying objective standards?

[Maljinwo]

I thought this thread was about cyberpunk

[Endus]

If all art is subjective how can it be a challenge to anything? Doesn't that require it to be defying objective standards?

No, it literally involves pointing out how subjective the standards actually are, despite claims of objectivity

[rhorle]

No, it literally involves pointing out how subjective the standards actually are, despite claims of objectivity

That still implies that the world had objective standards of art and not everything pushed those boundaries. So those works of arts had objective traits.