Censorship and Art

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Feanor

Feanor

Karazhan Raider
7,766
35,304
Lithose said:
Yep, you guys certainly finished...in 5 pages. I think I'm done with you as well, I mean we both know you've been trolling and obviously the last couple comments with the 'kick me in my teeth' and having to talk about how you're laughing, and not reading because you're raging with embarrassment? I can tell the butt hurt is going into that awkward, very real territory. So you have fun talking in circles. Later!
Click to expand...
That's a yes then.

You're like a woman. You get mad at nothing and manipulate words. You have your reasonable days but when you argue I tune you out. Learn to ignore a slight.

Let's try again. Goes along with what I had said earlier about the republicans winning. The good is that different ideas still matter whether you hate the current president or not. You shouldn't need dogmatic explanations for all human experience. Not referencing you directly but this.
Titan_Atlas said:
To kill the cancer you must attack it at the source. Post Modernism has been most successful in the arts. That is why so much of those communities are so virulently Subjective. That is what makes the first axiom what it is. If you can accept without question that Art and Beauty are Objective you can build a philosophy on the logic that follows. Which incidentally is what we are doing currently, we are just attacking disciplines piecemeal.
Click to expand...
We finished here.
Titan_Atlas said:
Sorry didn't mean that as an insult. Like I say, I believe art is very Objective and it's the finer details that are Subjective. Art for me is the attempt to capture beauty. Because why would you enshrine ugliness or weakness or failure. Art has a duty to reflect the Philosophy of the people who create it. When you enshrine ugliness, wimsy, depression, and generally a highly negative and uncaring view of the natural order of your world. That then becomes a representation of the world you lived in throughout history. Is Jackson Pollack, Warhol, and Matress girl what we wish to be remembered by?
Click to expand...
It is mostly subjective not based on belief but on emotional stimulation being inherent.

Much of this thread appeared to distinguish Art from art little a. Let's call art what fits the typical standards which have constantly changed. Art little a is this.
Sentagur said:
Would you consider a trio banging on beer kegs with random implements off tempo, Music?
Click to expand...
Yes that is music, bad music perhaps. Photography is an art form although mentally I don't rank it the same as drawing. The simplest definition is human activity. For me that includes organization, imagination or skill.

There is good and bad avant garde like any school. You can always criticize any work of art anytime.
 
Feanor

Feanor

Karazhan Raider
7,766
35,304
Your point btw had already been made. Been saying the same shit since before you.
Palum said:
Not shitty by what standards?

The problem is that art has a subjective component (an individual's emotional reaction to it) and an objective one (the technical mastery or competency with the medium). People can like or dislike different art that is objectively good or bad. In the same way, art can have historical significance yet be utterly dogshit by modern standards. It could have personal significance like that derpy firetruck your 4 year old drew that looks like a red turd. None of that emotional resonance means that we cannot objectively compare to other works of art and conclude your four year old is a terrible artist with no skill.

Some of the most technically proficient musicians produce some of the worst songs to listen to because they lack human character and subjective reach with a wide audience. So when you ask for good music you need to differentiate between asking for music I like vs actually good music with excellent production values, mastery of the instruments, good songwriting, etc.
Click to expand...
Feanor said:
I completely agree that skill is not at all subjective
Click to expand...
Art is objective within the purview of standards and competency which I know well. Art is not objective in the much wider scope that falls outside of those standards, which are variable, hence art is mostly and necessarily subjective.
 
Araysar

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.
<Gold Donor>
81,581
163,139
Lendarios said:
@Tanoomba
If you have to explain context and effort, then some of the intrinsic elements of the art are lost.

If i see this

View attachment 125445

then i would think that is one ugly drawing.


But then if someone tells me it is Michael J Fox self portrait, I cant go and say "omg so brave and beautiful". That will be disingenuous.
Click to expand...

hahaha, literally laughing out loud hhaha
 
Palum

Palum

what Suineg set it to
27,486
43,744
Feanor said:
Your point btw had already been made. Been saying the same shit since before you.


Art is objective within the purview of standards and competency which I know well. Art is not objective in the much wider scope that falls outside of those standards, which are variable, hence art is mostly and necessarily subjective.
Click to expand...

You're confusing assessing the myriad technical masteries involved in creating art (skill with a medium, ability to create a cohesive form out of vision/inspiration, ability to create human emotional response, etc.) with whether you like it or not. The latter follows the former, statistically. There's a reason for that.
 
Excidium

Excidium

Trakanon Raider
852
1,324
Lendarios said:
Judging on the Gymnastics is subjective, same as on figure skating. I don't think this is up for debate. Not all sports are graded on an objective scale.
Click to expand...
I'm late to the thread but you are fucking retarded if you think gymnastics is subjectively judged. Every routine has a set scoring value. Most routines are not 10 in difficulty. Then execution of the routine without mistakes nets you that score. I was raised by my uncle who is a Canadian Gold medal gymnastics coach and he explained to me how scoring works and why you as a coach can refute scores if the judges didn't properly setup the initial routine baseline score. Fuck you are stupid. Same goes for figure skating.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
Lendarios

Lendarios

Trump's Staff
<Gold Donor>
19,360
-17,424
How many judges are there? If it were objective, you'll only need ONE judge.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
Lendarios

Lendarios

Trump's Staff
<Gold Donor>
19,360
-17,424
Look, my argument is this. If two or more individuals, acting in good faith can come up with opposite results, then the metric used is subjective.

For example boxing. If there is a knockout, the outcome is objective. If the desicion goes to points, then it is subjective, since each judge has to interpret the blow by blow and determine if a point was scored.

This subjectivity of the point system leads to rampant speculation and sometimes paradoxical outcomes. The history of boxing is plagued with such bad desicions, when the scoring done by points is subjective.

Synchronized diving, gymnastics all suffer from the same. That the judges are consistent on their grading does not mean is it objective, as it is very common to have outliers in judging, and that is why an average is used.

And let's not get started and pretend that Nadia comanechi perfect 10 is the same as Mary Lou (I'm not sure if that is her name) Nadia balance beam was true perfection since she didn't wabble a single time, and she looked like she was walking on the ground.

edited: Corrected Mary Lou name.
 
Last edited:
Feanor

Feanor

Karazhan Raider
7,766
35,304
Lendarios said:
State your argument. Look at the post above you for an example.
Click to expand...
Athletic ability is pretty durn solid you dolt.
Phazael said:
I would like to add that music is actually governed entirely by objective mathematics. Chords exist entirely because of the physics of how overtones work, which also differentiate how individual noises sound (why A440 on a trombone sounds different from A440 on an oboe, for example). Even atonal bullshit peddled by post modernists is governed by the interactions of these overtones. The way we interpret the overtone dissonances of minor cord structures vs major ones, the nature of tempo's association with human pulse rates, and the impact of dynamics (changes in volume) are a factor of our subjective minds interpreting the noise, of course. But the base core concepts of all music is a function of mathematical properties of sound waves, which means tonal scales are likely universal and definitely not subjective.

In my opinion, this is probably why post modernism has had the least amount of success trying to poison music as a medium. On an instinctual level, even average people (and in some cases animals) recognize that something has to have a rhythmic pattern and obey certain tonal structures to be considered music, as opposed to just random noise. Unlike painting, writing, or sculpture, a reductive approach does not change the objective core of the medium, so there is no bullshit wiggle room for art snobs to exploit to make these ridiculous arguments of relativism. Its why music is probably the single purest form of art to ever exist.
Click to expand...
Did not see any mention of this rather good comment on math and acoustics, which goes beyond Western tonal music and music in general to frequencies and the science of sound.

The contemporary chromatic scale is not very old. Microtones are not readily available on tempered instruments but were used in ancient Greece and can still be found in several Eastern musical traditions. The twelve tone equal temperament tuning system is one out of many.
 
Phazael

Phazael

Confirmed Beta Shitlord, Fat Bastard
<Aristocrat╭ರ_•́>
14,800
32,018
Ok now I know you are trolling. Just because the circle of fifths had not been codified yet does not mean all music was atonal noise prior to Bach. And name one piece of any renown that even uses half tones. Physics sets the rules for everything that is not pretentious bullshit for a handful of self masturbating head cases trying to be edgy. The craziest thing to be recognized is Rite of Spring, which STILL follows the fundamentals.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
Excidium

Excidium

Trakanon Raider
852
1,324
Lendarios said:
How many judges are there? If it were objective, you'll only need ONE judge.
Click to expand...
Because in competitive sports, gambling and other unsportsmanlike conduct happens when trying to judge the event. By adding more judges then removing the high and low scores, you get a a more accurate score. People aren't perfect. Look at umpiring in baseball. There is a set of rules for what designates a strike. Does that mean all pitches that are considered as strikes the them umpire are objectively strikes by baseball rules? No and it's only recently with slow motion replays can we analyze and train professionals to be more consistent with their judging. Fuck you are a retard.
 
Feanor

Feanor

Karazhan Raider
7,766
35,304
Phazael said:
Ok now I know you are trolling. Just because the circle of fifths had not been codified yet does not mean all music was atonal noise prior to Bach. And name one piece of any renown that even uses half tones. Physics sets the rules for everything that is not pretentious bullshit for a handful of self masturbating head cases trying to be edgy. The craziest thing to be recognized is Rite of Spring, which STILL follows the fundamentals.
Click to expand...
Your post subjective. Mine objective.

I made no judgment while providing cold, hard information. Sorry you and Lithose Lithose get sore from my dick sliding up inside your irritable vaginas.
 
Heriotze

Heriotze

<Gold Donor>
1,049
1,450
Lithose said:
Exclusion that leaves a massive subjective range still doesn't specify anything. If you're saying that it's wrong to believe one can define art? That is not the same as a belief that there is a true form of art. I can exclude shit on a plate, and still have a massive disagreement over what is truly artful.

What you can't do is tell me what is art without excluding something, though. If asking people to categorize reality even at the most broad level somehow makes me as bad as "post modernists" (lol), then I'm afraid your view of what postmodernists are doing is completely fucked.
Click to expand...

You can absolutely tell someone what art is without excluding anything, that's the subjective view and response to what you're looking at. We're having a semantic argument about what we each perceive as art (I think we're confounding art and beuty). There is a true form of aesthetics, from culture to culture, and we share the same culture and your examples of what you enjoy and would categorize as art are things that I have no disagreement with. Spending years honing your skills and methods in order to create your own interpretation of real life objects, or visualized scenes, has been the absolute foundation of how artists are trained and how they venture into the field in the first place but a photo-realistic painting from a Dutch master holds the same stature in a gallery as a Rothko.

Some veer from the path of realism in order to depict emotion or a thought, some combine real life objects with their own experiences and some continue to paint life as we all can see it. All three are viable methods to create art and I can't tell anyone that how they personally view something and have tried to depict it in their medium is wrong never mind the skill level or the years spent attaining that level.

We are still arguing the ills of postmodern political thought on equal ground to someone flinging paint at a canvas and selling it for millions. The end result of both situations is the same, we end up with a class of politician or critic that gets to tell us what is good or bad but the methods that we arrive at each are different. Art is a voluntary venture, as you have said. We choose to let the status quo in the art realm define value to us (usually monetary value but sometimes intrinsic value if we don't actually know how to look at things outside of our normal frames of reference).

We are forced into postmodern thinking from a political standpoint when those people get into power, we have the ability to completely see beyond what they value with art as long as we just don't allow them to dictate to us what we each find appealing. Everything is and can be art, the question of whether it's good or not is the conclusion that we come to ourselves and when I am forced to like a painting like I could be forced to accept postmodern political thoughts that impact my daily life I will agree with you.

It is a very good thing that everyone can be an artist in western culture, it's given us such a talent pool to draw from that it has, basically, permanently eclipsed all other cultures in the quality of what they can produce and how fast they can create new masters.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: 1 users
Lithose

Lithose

Buzzfeed Editor
25,946
113,036
Heriotze said:
You can absolutely tell someone what art is without excluding anything, that's the subjective view and response to what you're looking at.
Click to expand...

No you can't. Because then art is nothing. Humans only define something as existing by segregating and identifying it. This is a core principle of reasoning and observation--it goes well beyond art.

Heriotze said:
It is a very good thing that everyone can be an artist in western culture, it's given us such a talent pool to draw from that it has, basically, permanently eclipsed all other cultures in the quality of what they can produce and how fast they can create new masters.
Click to expand...

In the quality of what they can produce? Do you have some way to measure quality?
 
Heriotze

Heriotze

<Gold Donor>
1,049
1,450
Lithose said:
No you can't. Because then art is nothing. Humans only define something as existing by segregating and identifying it. This is a core principle of reasoning and observation--it goes well beyond art.



In the quality of what they can produce? Do you have some way to measure quality?
Click to expand...

Art is, inherently, nothing. It is a luxury that we can partake in resulting from excess that people draw personal value from, if they so choose to. These things will still exist even if me or you can't segregate or identify them, most of the time they do precisely because we can not do either of those things with them. Finding our own reason to identify with something that we can't identify is what can make them art.

The world assigned value to Western art and its quality and will continue to do so. I guess I don't know what you're shooting for with this second statement?

Do you want to hear about another culture's Citizen Kane?

Another culture's The Night Torn Mad With Footsteps?

Another culture's Vonnegut or Pink Floyd or Buckminster Fuller?

Alea iacta est. This shit was written before we were born and the rest of the world isn't squeamish about it being true. The right circumstances and resources and your culture can make a Stanley Kubrick or a GG Allin or a Gauguin.

I guess, what do you think of all of the artists that I listed?
Would you consider their works art?
What would be your preferred artists in their fields?

We have an absolute disjoint in this one particular area even though our ideals line up almost perpendicular in absolutely every other forum and thread on this board so it's fascinating to see where we actually differ in this area and to be able to pick that apart and figure out how our conclusions line up in all of the others with an almost fundamental disagreement in how I've always understood that art can impact a person's life. Run-on sentence aside, what is art to Lithose?

“An intellectual says a simple thing in a hard way. An artist says a hard thing in a simple way.” - Bukowski
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: 1 users
You must log in or register to reply here.