Censorship and Art

Feanor said:

Blah blah blah.

Is art subjective?

Click to expand...

Can anything be art?

Lithose said:

You're responding to me, though. You need to view all of my actions in any given argument and then apply it to the objective paradigms we're arguing under. If you only ever read half, or nothing at all, then you've already set yourself out to make up your own reality.

Objective "truth", for human beings? Is really just an agreed upon view of reality--which hopefully had predictive qualities. Those standards can be as loose or as rigid as needed to at least categorize things. Art may have a ton of variation in it, for example, but there are broad standards we can agree on. If I throw a kettle against the wall, it will make a noise--is that noise music? If it is, then is music really a thing if ANY sound can make it? Why not just fucking call it sound then?

So in order to arrive at any truth, you have to understand what you're debating--which if you're debating ONE other person? Means you have to read what they are writing and then judge it against the standards applicable. If you don't read, then again, I can totally see why this belief that whatever truth you desire is the truth is appealing.

Click to expand...

Sigh. You are one subjective ass motherfucker. You don't see an external truth, only your own. Hence you thrust it on me. I see how people fall into this endless hole with you.

You made a very good point here:

Lithose said:

if music and art could not be engaged and followed by people with NO experience. But they clearly can. Which is what makes them different. They don't convey specific meaning that requires history to understand. Language does.

Click to expand...

That stood out because I agree. I know what you're saying here. But objectivity is not a consensus, it is fact. That is why art today is different from what it was before. Don't use easy examples like a canvas painted blue or brown. Use modern art that is skillful, clearly modern and only possible in this century, for example something digital.

How is art factual?

Lithose said:

Can anything be art?

Click to expand...

I've my own limits, as I'm sure you do as well. Our limits are probably plenty similar. None of this has anything to do with politics or any of that stuff you like to talk about. How is art supposed to evolve if it stays stuck in the past?

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...

I guess where we don't agree is in that art itself is not objective. There are certain things that make art pleasing, I'll give you that. We all know that. The reaction to art is completely subjective, though. I might like a song while you might hate it.

The quickest example is we are accustomed to 20th century music. If someone from the 19th century heard Metallica it would sound very strange.

Titan_Atlas said:

Beauty is a manifestation of things going right. A bodybuilder is beautiful for the Objective truth that they invested 1000's of hours sculpting. A model is beautiful for the Objective reality of good healthy genetics. Subjectivity steals that greatness, that greatness of character and hard work. That greatness of the right combination of DNA to produce a Objectively defined beauty to the most possible people. You are a thief, a thief of what defines humanity in greatness.

Click to expand...

Bodybuilding is more like sports than music. The skill in sports is an objective thing, you're either good or you're bad. Music/art isn't like that because it can and must change over time.

Feanor said:

Sigh. You are one subjective ass motherfucker. You don't see an external truth, only your own. Hence you thrust it on me. I see how people fall into this endless hole with you.

Click to expand...

Incorrect. I only go by external truth, I enjoy standards by which to judge things against. For example, in art--I want to know the reason why certain elements draw people in, even if there are variations. I want to know the objective standards of 'truth' in that field, even if they are looser than say, raw mathematics. I know nature has something to do with it, Fibonacci's sequence is called God's fingerprint for a reason.

I'm "thrusting" it on you because you're making an impossible claim--that its purely subjective, when as you can see, its not true. Even in the odd linguistic standard of art for artists only? There is a degree of objectivity. You've segregated something as art and something as not--you simply do not wish to answer the question of "why", and I can't answer that for you, so the ball is really in your court, right?

Feanor said:

You made a very good point here:

That stood out because I agree. I know what you're saying here. But objectivity is not a consensus, it is fact. That is why art today is different from what it was before. Don't use easy examples like a canvas painted blue or brown. Use modern art that is skillful, clearly modern and only possible in this century, for example something digital.

How is art factual?

Click to expand...

First, that painting sold for 90 million dollars bro. I didn't low ball and find some shit that's obscure--that's one of the most valuable pieces of "modern art" ON EARTH. How do you want me to find something more "skillful'? What....standards...are you willing to apply so I can....measure...skillfulness? (See what I did there? See?)

Also, as for the rest, this is why I said if you reduce to absurdity, then yes, everything is subjective. Because your very perception of reality is subjective. 2+2=4, for example, is just a bunch of symbols on a screen. Without defined meaning, 2+2=5 can be a thing, 5, the actual symbol of 5, can just mean what 4 means for us now. (I'm not trying to confuse you, I'm just showing where post modernists derive). Objectivity is an AGREED upon set of measurements, that ANYONE can use to dictate whether something is DEFINED as something. But the basis for it is AGREEMENT with others, a consensus for MEASUREMENT. How precise that measurement is on predicting reality, is generally how "objective" a field is.

But the basis for all "facts" are agreeing by which to measure something by. If I say that its a fact that a football field is 100 yards? Then we all need to agree what 100 yards is, first. At a certain level this does break down, mostly because you're a meat machine interpreting the universe through carrier particles and no reality actually exists, you've just come to interpret information certain ways--which is why to do ANYTHING objective you must first create measurements "external to the mind" (Literally the definition of objectivity).

So...objectivity is agreed upon measurements that can be used to arrive at universal predictions when in use.

Feanor said:

I've my own limits, as I'm sure you do as well. Our limits are probably plenty similar. None of this has anything to do with politics or any of that stuff you like to talk about. How is art supposed to evolve if it stays stuck in the past?

Click to expand...

So your limits naturally show there are objective standards. If some things are not art, and some things are--then there are standards by which you are judging reality. As for evolution...

You like music right? Do you and all your music buddies agree the note C in X range is a certain pitch? So you have an OBJECTIVE measurement of sound, that if someone produces you have the means of measuring. Has this objective measurement harmed the evolution of music? Or have some of the greatest, and most moving works been built off of codifying musical pitch.

Or, you can have someone that eschews those evil anti-evolving "standards" of things.....

Lithose said:

Click to expand...

Again you use the easiest example of bad music. Try harder, man.

Incorrect. I only go by external truth, I enjoy standards by which to judge things against. For example, in art--I want to know the reason why certain elements draw people in, even if there are variations. I want to know the objective standards of 'truth' in that field, even if they are looser than say, raw mathematics. I know nature has something to do with it, Fibonacci's sequence is called God's fingerprint for a reason.

Click to expand...

I didn't bother defending myself when you made some weak ass bullshit comments like you always do because I don't have to explain myself when shit ain't true.

I'm done with you, bro. Next.

Feanor said:

I guess where we don't agree is in that art itself is not objective. There are certain things that make art pleasing, I'll give you that. We all know that. The reaction to art is completely subjective, though. I might like a song while you might hate it.

The quickest example is we are accustomed to 20th century music. If someone from the 19th century heard Metallica it would sound very strange.

Click to expand...

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. This is ridiculous and leads to this.



Obviously there is some objectivity in art in general, but the broad strokes of beauty? That's a gift of nature. Your love of symmetry, the association of certain tones (Major) with happiness and minor tones with sadness? Those general qualities are probably all from what kept your ancestors alive millions of years ago. There should be no real issue in saying "there are limits, it's not completely subjective". Again, the fact that there are is why we have people paying to watch someone open spaghettio cans and Yoko Ono being allowed to scream in an art museum.

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. This is ridiculous and leads to this.



Obviously there is some objectivity in art in general, but the broad strokes of beauty? That's a gift of nature. Your love of symmetry, the association of certain tones (Major) with happiness and minor tones with sadness? Those general qualities are probably all from what kept your ancestors alive millions of years ago. There should be no real issue in saying "there are limits, it's not completely subjective". Again, the fact that there are is why we have people paying to watch someone open spaghettio cans and Yoko Ono being allowed to scream in an art museum.

Click to expand...

For fuck's sake, I was going to write about the twelve tone tempered scale when I said this

There are certain things that make art pleasing, I'll give you that. We all know that

Click to expand...

but decided not to because I have better shit to do.

Lithose do you believe in God?

Feanor said:

Again you use the easiest example of bad music. Try harder, man.


I didn't bother defending myself when you made some weak ass bullshit comments like you always do because I don't have to explain myself when shit ain't true.

I'm done with you, bro. Next.

Click to expand...

First, that painting sold for 90 million dollars bro. I didn't low ball and find some shit that's obscure--that's one of the most valuable pieces of "modern art" ON EARTH. How do you want me to find something more "skillful'? What....standards...are you willing to apply so I can....measure...skillfulness? (See what I did there? See?)

Oh fuck off, I use a 90 million dollar painting, and you reject that as being "bad", so then I use someone who is fucking features in The Museum of Modern Art, LITERALLY the epitome of the shit you're trying to defend, your god damn Carnegie fucking hall.

What are the RULES for finding "good" examples you dip shit. Because the only way you can fucking debate me is by agreeing with me and saying there are rules, because obviously me selecting some of the most popular and valuable pieces of modern art doesn't fit your reality.

Lithose said:

First, that painting sold for 90 million dollars bro. I didn't low ball and find some shit that's obscure--that's one of the most valuable pieces of "modern art" ON EARTH. How do you want me to find something more "skillful'? What....standards...are you willing to apply so I can....measure...skillfulness? (See what I did there? See?)

Oh fuck off, I use a 90 million dollar painting, and you reject that as being "bad", so then I use someone who is fucking features in The Museum of Modern Art, LITERALLY the epitome of the shit you're trying to defend, your god damn Carnegie fucking hall.

What are the RULES for finding "good" examples you dip shit. Because the only way you can fucking debate me is by agreeing with me and saying there are rules, because obviously me selecting some of the most popular and valuable pieces of modern art doesn't fit your reality.

Click to expand...

Not defending anything. Saying art is subjective.

Feanor said:

For fuck's sake, I was going to write about the twelve tone tempered scale when I said this

but decided not to because I have better shit to do.

Lithose do you believe in God?

Click to expand...

Yeah, I wouldn't stick around after I tried to defend something and then rejected major exhibits of it being "not good". Have you ever sold work for 90 million? You ever performed in the premier platform for you 'art", the The Museum of Modern Art? No? Then who the fuck are you to make these calls.

Do you have some STANDARDS I can use bro? Maybe now you're seeing why standards are needed...Because, fucking shocker, without them you literally don't have an argument to reject anything I put up. I can go take a fucking shit on a plate and snap a photo of it and call it art and YOU need to defend it as art because your ideology is retarded.

Lithose said:

Yeah, I wouldn't stick around after I tried to defend something and then rejected major exhibits of it being "not good". Have you ever sold work for 90 million? You ever performed in the premier platform for you 'art", the The Museum of Modern Art? No? Then who the fuck are you to make these calls.

Do you have some STANDARDS I can use bro? Maybe now you're seeing why standards are needed...Because, fucking shocker, without them you literally don't have an argument to reject anything I put up. I can go take a fucking shit on a plate and snap a photo of it and call it art and YOU need to defend it as art because your ideology is retarded.

Click to expand...

Do you believe in God?

Feanor said:

Not defending anything. Saying art is subjective.

Click to expand...

Okay, then that painting and Ono screaming are art, right? Me shitting on a plate is also art, right?

Lithose said:

Okay, then that painting and Ono screaming are art, right? Me shitting on a plate is also art, right?

Click to expand...

No they are not. Are you saying they are?

Do you believe in God?

Feanor said:

Do you believe in God?

Click to expand...

No.

Feanor said:

No they are not. Are you saying they are?

Do you believe in God?

Click to expand...

I thought art was subjective. How can you say they aren't bro?

ZyyzYzzy said:

This is a far worse thread than the atheism vs theism thread now

Completely objective statement

Click to expand...

This is the best post in five pages.