Censorship and Art

Lendarios

Lendarios

Trump's Staff
<Gold Donor>
19,360
-17,424
Lithose said:
Fuck, Lend. Do you even read what I write?

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.

Understand how something like art in the Olympics came to look good even to laymen. Even to people who do not know shit about how to "judge" the sport. A bunch of early figure skaters found out X and Y and Z things were appealing (people clapped when they did them!). So they made rules to judge the art based on those things. The artists know those rules too, and developed routines to exploit them and getting better scores by doing those appealing things BETTER. Now, how 'good' someone does it? That's subjective, yes. But the basics of WHAT figure skating is? That's not, a judge can objectively say "no, fuck off, that's not figure skating".

Understand? There is a subjective RANGE of APPLICATION of objective rules. Those objective rules are what makes figure skating, figure skating. And on the subjective end? Because the rules offer restrictions on HOW judges can judge (Like you can't watch someone do a triple jump and say 'that was shit' without giving a reason, your judgement can be judged because the rules are there)? You can be assured that if someone gets a high score in figure skating, then even someone who doesn't know shit about the 'sport' will find the routine pretty pleasing, because its ALL based off of those universal things that the community realized were pleasing to everyone.

Which is what you said, its the predictability (Reproducability) of engaging the audience. If I make rules to judge a triple jump really high, and more people add triple jumps, the audience likes it more--I know how to add rules now that have a HIGH correlation to engagement. Why? Because at the start of my 'art' I found patterns that were pretty elemental in nature and that nearly everyone enjoyed (So we can assume those patterns have some deeper structure, not saying biological, but something fundamental that if we encourage them, it will produce good work most of the time. Again, this is like medicine, we experiment with a variety of variables to find the pattern.)
Click to expand...

So you are saying that this is not figure skating?



Because it is figure skating, just a horrible one and gets a score of 0.1 for not falling.

this is also figure skating, just the bad kind.

SG_BladesOfGlory_001_web-600x315.jpg


we can have a broad agreement about what something is good, and that agreement still be subjective one.

It is just the sum of our collective opinions on a topic. Something does NOT become objective, simply because we all poll out personal opinions into the sum of something. That is the point of my argument.
 
  • 1Salty
Reactions: 1 user
Lithose

Lithose

Buzzfeed Editor
25,946
113,035
mkopec said:
This man gets it
Click to expand...

Yes, that's eloquently stated. Humans are attracted to certain things thanks to our biology, certain patterns, noises, tastes are pleasing. Then we find certain things attractive on top of that thanks to culture--which can vary but in general you can develop big correlations here between predictive outcomes if you do X people think Y. But then we have unique tastes based off of family, experience ect. And that becomes harder. As you go up that chain? Things become more subjective, but the BASE of the chain--that's the goal we dig to in order to create standards.

Like you can make a dessert cake without sugar. Probably going to be a shitty cake though, because sugar is an element that's closer to that biological center. Meanwhile, the cakes shape and appearance? That's closer to that individual uniqueness.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
Lithose

Lithose

Buzzfeed Editor
25,946
113,035
Lendarios said:
It is just the sum of our collective opinions on a topic. Something does NOT become objective, simply because we all poll out personal opinions into the sum of something. That is the point of my argument.
Click to expand...

That is literally what being objective means. All measurements are agreed up, Lend. Even if we base it off nature, we still agree on its name. A gram is is a gram because we all agree that should be our unit of mass. Yet the gram would be a near universal measurement in society, very objective.

Subjective agreement is how we arrive at objective truth. If I see the color red? I have no fucking idea if its really red. Because my brain operates on electrical inputs from photon stimulation. Red really doesn't exist, only MY view of red based on photon information, and there are a BILLION things that could go wrong with my sensory input. The only way I can know what Red is? Is if you, and everyone else all say "that's red" without discussing it before hand. Then we know that said wavelength? Is an OBJECTIVE truth.(And as technology has grown we've now got other instruments to measure this, instruments that agree with 'that's red' at a very high degree, proving red is a wave length.)

Understand? All objective truths are us agreeing on how to MEASURE something so ANYONE can measure it and arrive at the same amount. That is objective truth, the ability to parse reality through measurement. All of those measurements though are through subjective agreement. (Which is why I said earlier, if you reduce this to absurdity it gets silly, but that's exactly what post modernists do--they make the argument that because all standards are agreed upon measurements? That there is no objectivity. But in reality, objectivity IS agreed upon standards.)
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
Lendarios

Lendarios

Trump's Staff
<Gold Donor>
19,360
-17,424
Lithose said:
That is literally what being objective means. All measurements are agreed up, Lend. Even if we base it off nature, we still agree on its name. A gram is is a gram because we all agree that should be our unit of mass. Yet the gram would be a near universal measurement in society, very objective.

Subjective agreement is how we arrive at objective truth. If I see the color red? I have no fucking idea if its really red. Because my brain operates on electrical inputs from photon stimulation. Red really doesn't exist, only MY view of red based on photon information, and there are a BILLION things that could go wrong with my sensory input. The only way I can know what Red is? Is if you, and everyone else all say "that's red" without discussing it before hand. Then we know that said wavelength? Is an OBJECTIVE truth.(And as technology has grown we've now got other instruments to measure this, instruments that agree with 'that's red' at a very high degree, proving red is a wave length.)

Understand? All objective truths are us agreeing on how to MEASURE something so ANYONE can measure it and arrive at the same amount. That is objective truth, the ability to parse reality through measurement. All of those measurements though are through subjective agreement. (Which is why I said earlier, if you reduce this to absurdity it gets silly, but that's exactly what post modernists do--they make the argument that because all standards are agreed upon measurements? That there is no objectivity. But in reality, objectivity IS agreed upon standards.)
Click to expand...

1) Please tell me the agreed upon standards for art.

2) For measurements we have agreed on the base value to use, and this base value is only used in order as to provide a non ambiguous reference to the measurements made

That we defined a gram as the weight of 1cm^3 at 1C degree, is not important. It doesn't matter what we defined it as, if X weights more than Y, it will weight more regardless of what the base value of a gram is.

This disconnect is what you are missing. We define speed to be something, it really doesn't matter what that something is, as long as we use it always to describe the speed of other objects.

Like I ask in the other poll, tell me how many units of beautiful is Maggie Margot.
 
  • 1Salty
Reactions: 1 user
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
AngryGerbil said:
[bcolor=rgb(24, 24, 24)]The Holocaust was performance art.[/bcolor]
Click to expand...

It was a good show until Germany attacked Leningrad.

After that it sucks all the way up until America nukes Japan.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: 1 users
Lendarios

Lendarios

Trump's Staff
<Gold Donor>
19,360
-17,424
Lithose Lithose
I really don't understand why are you on this crusade against art appreciation. Art has always been subjective, people have always argued about it, for it.

It has nothing to do with political views or trends. Art is art, sometimes is good, sometimes is literal shit on a plate.

Have you ever hard the phrase, it is a art, not a science?

Guess which one is objective and which one is subjective.
 
  • 1Salty
Reactions: 1 user
Lendarios

Lendarios

Trump's Staff
<Gold Donor>
19,360
-17,424
Arbitrary said:
Post-Modernism does not extend backwards through all of history.
Click to expand...

Then every trend setter artist who died in poverty unappreciated, never did any art. Because at the time when they were alive, they were outside of the what was considered the norm.
 
  • 1Salty
Reactions: 1 user
Lithose

Lithose

Buzzfeed Editor
25,946
113,035
Lendarios said:
1) Please tell me the agreed upon standards for art.
Click to expand...

thatsthejoke.jpg


How are we this far into the debate and you still haven't figured out the basic premise for the problem? Like how is that possible. Zz is right, you can't fucking read, can you?

Lendarios said:
2) For measurements we have agreed on the base value to use, and this base value is only used in order as to provide a non ambiguous reference to the measurements made

That we defined a gram as the weight of 1cm^3 at 1C degree . It doesn't matter what we defined it as, if X weights more than Y, it will weight more regardless of what the base value of a gram is.

This disconnect is what you are missing. We define speed to be something, it really doesn't matter what that something is, as long as we use it always to describe the speed of other objects.
Click to expand...

An agreed upon base value. So the measurement is a subjective that is agreed upon, correct? Objective reality is based on agreed upon systems of measurement that can be observed. Also, your speed thing is wrong, due to reference frames there are numerous cases where we'll disagree. Which is why its important we worked out various equations that describe WHY, and measure it.

The 'disconnect' here is you don't believe making measurements up for anything else isn't done in the same way. It is. And as long as those standards are agreed upon, those are your measurements. If you want to measure shit in meters or yards? You can still produce accurate measurements, even though the standards are different. We humans are what make standards up to measure things. We parse reality and nature through agreed upon standards--that is objectivity, Lend. A standard OUTSIDE of our mind that ANYONE can use to measure nature.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions: 2 users
AngryGerbil

AngryGerbil

Poet Warrior
<Donor>
17,781
25,896
It's not my style, but as an advocate of multiculturalism and freedom of expression I must say, the latest trends in performance art coming from Syria are bold, gripping, provocative, insightful, and important.
 
  • 2Solidarity
Reactions: 1 users
Lendarios

Lendarios

Trump's Staff
<Gold Donor>
19,360
-17,424
Lithose said:
We humans are what make standards up to measure things. We parse reality and nature through agreed upon standards--that is objectivity, Lend. A standard OUTSIDE of our mind that ANYONE can use to measure nature.
Click to expand...

^ I already posted that 3 pages ago.


"An agreed upon base value. So the measurement is a subjective that is agreed upon, correct?"

The measurement is arbitrary, not subjective. A cm^3 of water weighted X, and they decided to call that value 1 Gram. That act was not subjective.
 
  • 1Salty
Reactions: 1 user
Lithose

Lithose

Buzzfeed Editor
25,946
113,035
Lendarios said:
^ I already posted that 3 pages ago.


"An agreed upon base value. So the measurement is a subjective that is agreed upon, correct?"

The measurement is arbitrary, not subjective. A cm^3 of water weighted X, and they decided to call that value 1 Gram. That act was not subjective.
Click to expand...

This one I'll take in good faith because the definition for subjective has pretty broad. I'm using it as dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence. A gram only exists as as a unit of measurement because a human wanted it to be that (Which is really post modernism's main argument).

I'm not going to argue semantics though, arbitrary is fine if you want to use that word. The point is you can make arbitrary units of measurement for anything. You can study the patterns in something, find out the ranges people find appealing, and then begin making arbitrary units of measurement for those things. Then you can construct further rules/standards based on those units, knowing when they reach specific numbers people find them more or less pleasing. Eventually you can begin mapping down art standards. We've literally already done this, and shocker, art was more universally approachable and quantifiable when we did. (
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: 1 users
Lendarios

Lendarios

Trump's Staff
<Gold Donor>
19,360
-17,424
Lithose said:
This one I'll take in good faith because the definition for subjective has pretty broad. I'm using it as dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence. A gram only exists as as a unit of measurement because a human wanted it to be that (Which is really post modernism's main argument).

I'm not going to argue semantics though, arbitrary is fine if you want to use that word. The point is you can make arbitrary units of measurement for anything. You can study the patterns in something, find out the ranges people find appealing, and then begin making arbitrary units of measurement for those things. Then you can construct further rules/standards based on those units, knowing when they reach specific numbers people find them more or less pleasing. Eventually you can begin mapping down art standards. We've literally already done this, and shocker, art was more universally approachable and quantifiable when we did. (
Click to expand...

I'm with you all the way to the last sentence, because time and time again, artist have taken a shit on the established rules and the outcome has been beautiful. In fact following the art rules over and over often leads to mediocrity and staleness. There are only so many background paintings that I can see before been bored to death, or so many Linkin Park or Nickleback songs I can listen to before they get all blurred into one monotonous tone.
 
  • 1Salty
Reactions: 1 user
Feanor

Feanor

Karazhan Raider
7,766
35,304
This has gotten very abstract which is why the "what is art" debate is fucking boring.
Tanoomba said:
Is there such thing as performance art? If not, why not? If so, why doesn't Sulkowicz's work qualify? Sounds like you're offering up a subjective interpretation as objective, something you seemed staunchly against.

(Please don't take this as a challenge, I actually really like your posts in this thread as we share very similar views for the most part.)
Click to expand...
I was aware that I was stating my opinion. To me that is not art, shitting on a plate is not nor should be art. Don't care if the plate shitter got a phd in plate shitting. Not art, full stop.

Objectively it is art because the world has agreed that it is.

Some performance art is good. Something like free jazz has its good and bad as well. The line for me is where no skill is evident, where it's just shitting on a plate or displaying a carcass for a week in a gallery. That shit is absurd and should not be art.

Everyone in this thread is stating their opinions. This entire thread is subjective as fuck.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1Salty
Reactions: 2 users
You must log in or register to reply here.