Censorship and Art

Titan_Atlas

Titan_Atlas

Deus Vult
<Banned>
7,883
19,909
Feanor said:
I have and continue to read tons of old stuff. The Eddas, Chaucer in Middle English, the Decameron (what Canterbury Tales was based on), Anglo Saxon Chronicle, Book of Invasions, Gesta Danorum, geoffery of monmouth, pliny etc.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Lendarios

Lendarios

Trump's Staff
<Gold Donor>
19,360
-17,424
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...
The world is uncaring, ugly and depressive.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1Salty
Reactions: 1 users
Feanor

Feanor

Karazhan Raider
7,766
35,304
I mistyped Geoffrey and that triggers me.

Mattress girl is shit. That is not art, that is utter horseshit. Warhol meh, never gave a shit about him. Pollock is awesome.
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...
I can respect that.
 
  • 1Salty
Reactions: 1 user
Lendarios

Lendarios

Trump's Staff
<Gold Donor>
19,360
-17,424
I'm waiting for you to tell me what is the objective qualification for beauty and art.
Are the ugly ass painting made by caveman, not art, because they were crude?

Is the ugly bizantino painting with the wide eyes not art.

Look at how ugly this is
33ec520fcd281a5b7ee93bb54c8b34cb.jpg

Deformed faces, un natural proportions, and it is also a classic.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1Salty
  • 1Solidarity
Reactions: 3 users
AngryGerbil

AngryGerbil

Poet Warrior
<Donor>
17,781
25,896
If I suddenly walked across the Eads Bridge tomorrow and claimed the Territory of Southern Illinois as henceforth annexed by The People's Republic of Missouri, nobody would take me seriously.

I would be 'price-fixing' the commonly understood boundaries. I would be destroying information. Maiking truth subject to my will. I would be aimed at calamity.
 
Sentagur

Sentagur

Low and to the left
<Silver Donator>
3,825
7,937
Lendarios said:
I'm waiting for you to tell me what is the objective qualification for beauty and art.
Are the ugly ass painting made by caveman, not art, because they were crude?

Is the ugly bizantino painting with the wide eyes not art.

Look at how ugly this is
View attachment 125012
Deformed faces, un natural proportions, and it is also a classic.
Click to expand...
That baby is totally the inspiration behind Kuato in Total Recall.
 
Palum

Palum

what Suineg set it to
23,397
33,527
Lendarios said:
I'm waiting for you to tell me what is the objective qualification for beauty and art.
Are the ugly ass painting made by caveman, not art, because they were crude?

Is the ugly bizantino painting with the wide eyes not art.

Look at how ugly this is
View attachment 125012
Deformed faces, un natural proportions, and it is also a classic.
Click to expand...

Just because something is classic doesn't mean it's not shitty.

This is hipster logic, the same people who think "rustic" means anything other than negligence and lack of maintenance. You don't get that sun or water damaged look without letting your property go.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
Feanor

Feanor

Karazhan Raider
7,766
35,304
Palum said:
Just because something is classic doesn't mean it's not shitty.
Click to expand...
This it true. We can argue all day about what you consider good, Palum.

You're a guitar player, right? List some not shitty music.
 
Last edited:
  • 1Salty
Reactions: 1 user
Palum

Palum

what Suineg set it to
23,397
33,527
Feanor said:
This it true. We can argue all day about what you consider good, Palum.

You're a guitar player, right? List some not shitty music.
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
Feanor

Feanor

Karazhan Raider
7,766
35,304
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...
I completely agree that skill is not at all subjective, but even that in terms of music is actually subjective. You said it, I'll take Bob Dylan over Celine Dion any day.
 
  • 1Salty
Reactions: 1 user
Titan_Atlas

Titan_Atlas

Deus Vult
<Banned>
7,883
19,909
Feanor said:
I completely agree that skill is not at all subjective, but even that in terms of music is actually subjective. You said it, I'll take Bob Dylan over Celine Dion any day.
Click to expand...

What you don't seem to understand is. The utter dogshit Subjective standards produce in society. You must be objective as much as possible all the time or we are in a downward spiral to the bottom tier of effort, hard work, mastery. Subjective is the gutter of human behavior.
 
Feanor

Feanor

Karazhan Raider
7,766
35,304
Titan_Atlas said:
What you don't seem to understand is. The utter dogshit Subjective standards produce in society. You must be objective as much as possible all the time or we are in a downward spiral to the bottom tier of effort, hard work, mastery. Subjective is the gutter of human behavior.
Click to expand...
You have opinions, Titan. You cannot free yourself from them nor would you want to. There is a difference between subjectivity and subjectivism taken to its unnatural extreme, and in that I agree with you.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1Salty
Reactions: 1 users
Feanor

Feanor

Karazhan Raider
7,766
35,304
The more you fight against it the more you sound like a subjectivist, by the way. I don't know when you were red pilled and it was probably here on rerolled during or after Trayvon Martin, but I was 'redpilled' a long, long time ago.
 
  • 1Salty
Reactions: 1 user
Lendarios

Lendarios

Trump's Staff
<Gold Donor>
19,360
-17,424
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...

I agree it is super shitty, by your and our standards. But to pretend that those standard don't vary with time and the individuals is what the heart of this argument is.

Art and beauty is subjective, it varies from person to person, and sometimes even on the same person, it varies depending on how old, and a myriad of other conditions.

To say that beauty in art, or even art itself is objective, because reasons, is what I am against.

If you think is objective give me the definition.

I personally don't like the Mona Lisa, it is too bland. And If people from that time period were doing amazing things such as the Sixteen Chapel, then the Mona Lisa pales in comparison to what their countrymen were doing.
 
  • 1Salty
Reactions: 1 user
mkopec

mkopec

<Gold Donor>
25,396
37,475
Lendarios said:
I personally don't like the Mona Lisa, it is too bland. And If people from that time period were doing amazing things such as the Sixteen Chapel, then the Mona Lisa pales in comparison to what their countrymen were doing.
Click to expand...
Wasnt both the above done by same guy?

Just sayin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.