Censorship and Art

Sentagur said:

Rain, wind chimes, waterfalls and other natural wonders can all be very inspiring and beautiful but I personally would not call them art. Art requires a human touch i would say.
for example this is art:

while just a recording of a rainstorm while it can also be relaxing and inspire some art, itself isnt art.
In regards to artists saying nature is art i attribute that to attempts at false modesty. We all do it from time to time and artists do it too.

Of course i never studied arts and believe would be very bad if i attempted it so my opinion are worth exactly jack shit.(now you get to call me out at blatant attempt at false modesty to make my point weigh more in this discussion)

Click to expand...

Is taste ultimately personal?

Click to expand...

Sentagur said:

while just a recording of a rainstorm while it can also be relaxing and inspire some art, itself isnt art.
In regards to artists saying nature is art i attribute that to attempts at false modesty. We all do it from time to time and artists do it too.

Click to expand...

Feanor said:

Lithose won't answer cos he's a fake ass IOOTI anti-sjw (basement dwelling knight) who can't deal with being wrong.

Click to expand...

Lithose said:

It's ironic that with this post you literally just made the point that beauty is actually objective. Classical art actually had objective standards (Or an "agreed" truth) based on natural phenomenon your brain finds interesting. When you break many classic pieces down, symmetry and other geometric qualities are evident. Post modernism, which began in the 1880's, right when Picasso was coming up? Was an ideology meant to destroy these 'restrictive' beliefs, because they believed all reality was subjective, that human views are crafted and that by admitting anything was objective that you are 'privileging' logic, and thus certain people who are logical.

That's not true though, not entirely. There is subjectivity in beauty, for sure. But there can easily be objective standards we can agree upon for beauty. Ranking a Figure Skating match might be subjective, but anyone who scores well in an Olympic match will appear very pleasing to most people. Because there are AGREED upon standards--and standards which promote things that are pleasing to the majority of people who see them. (And when you dig down into why certain things seem to have these universal qualities of being pleasing? You often find its because, as said above, humans are really just meat machines and a certain part of your brain evolved to find certain things in nature pleasing because those things correlate to something that used to help previous versions of meat machines survive.)

In any case, again, just pointing out the irony that you enjoy art that relied upon objective (Agreed upon) standards for beauty, many of which actually began to develop fairly complex geometry to map why people enjoyed the art. This is why MOST people can see a classical painting and say "that does look interesting/pretty", even if its not their cup of tea (IE not mind blowing, which is where the subjectivity comes in.)....But only a small subset of people who understand the history of Pollock can look at it and even tell its not literal garbage, some mat that painters left their brushes on. (Because Pollock's 'beauty' is based on knowledge of the person and history--ergo, essentially the problem that always arises when people attempt to destroy objectively agreed upon truths, 2+2=5, and what not. Once objectivity is gone, then what's good simply becomes a matter of what the most influential people say is good.)

Click to expand...

Lithose said:

Again, you're confusing the subjectivity of details (A small range), with larger standards that can be agreed upon.

Your entire evolution dictates you find certain specific elements appealing. Yes, there is variation in there, but the underlying reasoning is constant. It's why even babies have the ability to recognize certain things. You literally found tits pleasing from the moment you were born, and were drawn to their shape (Which is a sequence! The nipple is an active color offset center chest). The fact is there are parts of you working that are simply coding in the meat machine--and that's why ANYONE can recognize some work as being something meant to please (Like the statue), while only a small handful can find the garbage black and white idiocy above valuable. The former relies on principles in nature to draw people in (And then their subjectivity takes over) the latter is totally subjective and meant to appeal to people in a special community by specifically making it avoid those natural elements of 'objective' beauty so a bunch of douche bags can sniff each others farts and talk about how enlightened they are for recognizing how amazing it is.

Click to expand...

Lithose said:

Strange, and yet it would be instantly recognizable as music to anyone. Just like some tribal chants sound strange, but I can tell they are music. In fact, because Metallica and Chopin both used AGREED upon, universal measurements for pitch? Even the patterns in their music would be recognizable, even if Chopin's were a lot more complex. There is room for subjectivity, sure. But there are objective broad strokes here that we've come to enjoy due to nature. A lot of modern art believes art is 100% totally subjective and any standards are bad.

Obviously there is some objectivity in art in general.....There should be no real issue in saying "there are limits, it's not completely subjective".

Click to expand...

Lithose said:

Understand? But making up measurements, and structures? Already makes an objective quality to art. Meaning beauty isn't totally subjective. It obviously has rules. People who work IN art used to delve into those rules, classical artists actually began codifying them before post modernists shit on everything. Artists should once again start doing that, start really digging into what people enjoy, what speaks to the broadest group and begin isolating variables so they can develop measurements. This won't mean some niche won't have separate measurements, but it will mean artists might create something coherent that might be able to predict enjoyment within a ballpark (Still subject to subjectivity, but certainly a strong starting foundation, like our three act structure.)

Click to expand...

Lithose said:

There will still be some subjectivity, just like medicine, whenever you're working with something as complex as the human brain? We're simply not going to know enough, and the fact is, there are too many permutations to get it down to an exact science. But we can certainly figure out standards to make "big distinctions" (IE we can find those natural inclinations that are almost universal, and use those to say "this is X kind of art" and "this is X not X kind of art"). And from there it simply depends on how you agree to continue making those standards.

Take figure skating, for example...The standards are all made up. I could go out there and fall on my ass a bunch and say "this is my new expression of figure skating". I'd goose egg at the Olympics though. A world class figure skater, if he goes out and does a great routine, you may have some subjective disagreement on the EXACT numbers (Like our 70% medication)...But in general the scores will all be decently high. And guess what? Any figure skating routine that gets high scores, for even a layman watching? Will look pretty good, even if you don't understand figure skating at all.

This is how you end up with spectacular "artful" Olympics, that don't just have people running out onto the ice and pissing on it and calling it an expression of their art. Because people had the balls to say "no, that sucks, fuck off".

Click to expand...

Lithose said:

No, it's just I don't often re-answer questions for retards after literally explaining what they want to know for 2 days straight often expounding on it and explaining in detail only to come back to being asked again, with a side of "I have potato". Lets count the times I said there is still a subjective range (IE what you define here as "taste")--its the CLASSIFICATION and standards which can be objective.

Lets count, you know like they do on Sesame street, since I think that's the level I need to go to in order to communicate with you.



My first post actually dealt with this and my premise in detail.

So one, one time Feanor got BTFO.




Two, two times Feanor got BTFO.



Three, three times Feanor got BTFO.



Four, four times feanor got BTFO



Five, five times Feanor got BTFO.



Yeah...this got boring because I've realized I spent literally this whole thread consistently explaining a premise you only just now go to (There are more too, I just stopped because it I was going to roll my eyes out of my skull). The fact that you still don't know my opinion illustrates that you must be high, dumb or trolling. Have fun agreeing with Tan though, it's really helping prove you have a concrete and reasonable ability to logically analyze an issue!

Click to expand...

Lithose said:

No, it's just I don't often re-answer questions for retards after literally explaining what they want to know for 2 days straight often expounding on it and explaining in detail only to come back to being asked again, with a side of "I have potato". Lets count the times I said there is still a subjective range (IE what you define here as "taste")--its the CLASSIFICATION and standards which can be objective.

Lets count, you know like they do on Sesame street, since I think that's the level I need to go to in order to communicate with you.



My first post actually dealt with this and my premise in detail.

So one, one time Feanor got BTFO.




Two, two times Feanor got BTFO.



Three, three times Feanor got BTFO.



Four, four times feanor got BTFO



Five, five times Feanor got BTFO.



Yeah...this got boring because I've realized I spent literally this whole thread consistently explaining a premise you only just now go to (There are more too, I just stopped because it I was going to roll my eyes out of my skull). The fact that you still don't know my opinion illustrates that you must be high, dumb or trolling. Have fun agreeing with Tan though, it's really helping prove you have a concrete and reasonable ability to logically analyze an issue!

Click to expand...

Phazael said:

I love how all of the examples cited to dispute my music claims are the most objectively math intensive forms of music. Even an improv jazz musician has to completely grasp scales and beat patterns or they get laughed out of the room. Even poorly tuned garage band shit follows the basics of tonality and beat patterns. A guy beating a plastic bucket is creating music if the buckets pitch and rhythm is part of the key and time signature being used.

You retards are so smug thinking you are somehow dunking on Lithose that you don't even grasp that you are debunking your own bullshit. Seriously, if you do not grasp the math behind music, stick to trying to convince everyone that blank monotone canvases are high art, because you won't win with music. It is literally built on mathematics at every level.

Click to expand...

Feanor said:

I'll admit if you hadn't reposted all of that I wouldn't have read it. I didn't the first time around. *Tbh I still have only read the first two or three sentences of each response without opening the quotes. Were those all my replies? Me and someone else were laughing about it right now. I don't mean to be a dick, just saying that I was talking about this right now* I don't read what you write, bro. I find it unbeliveably tedious. I'm glad you're not an author.

Your problem is framing the issue as "sure, subjectivity is part of art but" when it's the other way around. It's "sure. objectivity is part of art, but" etc. You're clever at wording things, which is my first indication most everyone here will believe what you say. If you yelled at a show "boo, you are not music" you would get laughed, actually not laughed, you would probably get violenty kicked out of the venue. Because most people, especially the ones that go outside, are not nerds.

I'm being very friendly with you, Lithose. In real life I probably would have kicked your teeth in by now.

EDIT also did not mean to say people here are nerds. Meant to say that people that go shows are the type of audience i was referring to. I'm sure many people here go outside all of the time and have wonderful lives.

Click to expand...

Phazael said:

I love how all of the examples cited to dispute my music claims are the most objectively math intensive forms of music. Even an improv jazz musician has to completely grasp scales and beat patterns or they get laughed out of the room. Even poorly tuned garage band shit follows the basics of tonality and beat patterns. A guy beating a plastic bucket is creating music if the buckets pitch and rhythm is part of the key and time signature being used.

You retards are so smug thinking you are somehow dunking on Lithose that you don't even grasp that you are debunking your own bullshit. Seriously, if you do not grasp the math behind music, stick to trying to convince everyone that blank monotone canvases are high art, because you won't win with music. It is literally built on mathematics at every level.

Click to expand...

Lithose said:

Well, at least you admitted it. Your sentence flip? Doesn't change anything in the sentence you ignorant twat (Literally, it changes nothing.) I put subjectivity first because I knew getting through 2 sentences for you was difficult--I mean christ by the end I was doing Sesame Street bits to communicate (And hey, that actually seemed to work. I guess you and your friend were laughing because it reminded you of your favorite program.)

Also, son, in real life you would have paid me to shine my shoes just so you could ask me a few questions.

Click to expand...

Feanor said:

. Me and Titan were able to finish in less than one page? I'm won't bother checking.

Click to expand...

Titan_Atlas said:

No, but the reason intelligent people stop arguing with you is. You can't argue with someone who refused to define things. You don't even take the time to think, let alone question the negative effects of what you try to champion. Be a man make a decision then be willing to adapt as more information comes. Don't be a wishy washy child who floats in a void of subjective.

Click to expand...

Heriotze said:

I think that you did explicitly with your shitting on a plate counter to what can be considered modern art or, even, defined as art. You shit on a plate in the right way I'll buy a picture of that shit (lol, double entendre)

Click to expand...