Subjective Vs. Objective: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of the Arts » Subjective Vs. Objective » Subjective Vs. Objective

Page: 1 2

Subjective Vs. Objective

Tafa
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 06, 2009

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 5

Posted 04/06/09 - 04:29 PM: Subject: Subjective Vs. Objective	#1
Aesthetics is a topic that interests me because it is definitely apparent, without being tied down by a permanent definition. My question pertains to whether valuing a perceived object is purely subjective, or if there is a naturally occurring objective Quality to said object. Do aesthetically valued objects only gain their status as high Quality because of individual opinion? And if so, please explain how certain pieces of art, songs, and poems gain popularity.

ManiacJack
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 29, 2008
Location: Statosphere, Earth

Total Topics: 78
Total Posts: 1052

Posted 04/06/09 - 06:47 PM:	#2
Ah, I remember making my first thread on the subject/object dichotomy way back when. The Greeks and later civilizations held fast to the notion of geometric beauty in many instances. Whatever the width of a building, its height would be of a certain proportion having something to do with the golden mean.
Space Oil Peaked. Will Smuggle Priceless Astral Goods for Ultimate Price.

StaticAge
Fearless Vampire Killer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 18, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 298

Posted 04/06/09 - 06:52 PM:	#3
I think the popularity of a work of art is best explained by culture, and not individual taste and opinion. The artist is someone who is sensitive to an aspect of his cultural surroundings, and the work that person creates absorbs and reflects some of those values, and people recognize them as artistically valuable. When enough people in a culture or subculture enjoy the same perspective which recognizes the merit of a piece, the work and/or its creator gains artistic credibility and reputation. I do not think there is a kind of inherent sort of Platonic form which good art measures closely to and that people cannot help but recognize it when they see it. There are too many various kinds of taste and interpretation that disprove any sort of objective view like that. And even when it comes to matters of taste, I also do not think it is always an entirely subjective area, because we learn our taste in art and are socialized by our surroundings to categorize things as art or music. Think of a rap artist going back in time to the time of Mozart- he'd have no mic, no dj, no beats etc to make his music, and even if he did, his music might not be recognized by anybody else- not because it isn't "really" music, but because that culture never learned that music can sound that way. Or imagine a painting like the Mona Lisa somehow finding its way into a land where everyone was born blind and so all they did was sculpture and music- would they ever know that the flat canvas thing they stumbled across was "art?"
"All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol, the place to which you are going." -Ecclesiastes 9:10 "Overpower, overcome." -The Cro-Mags

colordye
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 03, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 22

Posted 04/08/09 - 12:11 PM:	#4
As enlightened as it is for an appreciator of art to admit that art is subjective, and it is... artists don't enter their fields assuming whatever is whatever and so doing whatever they care to will give them the same chance of success as any competitor who tries to study and educate, since quality/appreciation is subjective. Artists have more than just hope to decide whether or not their works will affect people and become popular. I'm a struggling artist (aren't most of us in our own ways?) and I've enjoyed my "field" because I've chosen to see it as something that can be looked at objectively, with rules I can adhere to and measure myself with. If I had nothing to objectively study my field wouldn't be a field at all but a faith. Looking at it from an artist's perspective, of course there are objective aspects. If you're a musician you have to assume the objectiveness of instrumental skills, despite the enlightened admittance that some people might like listening to poorly tweaked and strained guitar strings. So you're gambling your spent time on the assumption that the majority of your audience is relying on an amount of objective professionalism. If you're a painter you have similar areas of objective studies, for example surrealism, which have within them more objective properties that deem whether or not your attempts are worse/better, successful or otherwise. Too often people phrase this question inaccurately. "Can you ultimately know if this painting right here will be successful or not?" Of course not. StaticAge has a good grasp on why art is accepted when it is accepted. Art depends on the society in which it is released, or the public it is released to, and in those cases it's subjective. But that's dismissive. People can devote their lives studying art because there are legitimate parts and portions to objectively study, and objectively criticize. Art is slippery, but not so much so that there's nothing to hold onto.

StaticAge
Fearless Vampire Killer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 18, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 298

Posted 04/08/09 - 12:27 PM:	#5
That he has a good grasp of art, may be because of the fact that StaticAge is himself a struggling artist.
"All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol, the place to which you are going." -Ecclesiastes 9:10 "Overpower, overcome." -The Cro-Mags

randomly_anonymous
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 8

Posted 04/27/09 - 12:50 PM:	#6
Arts is still objective. Even though one may argue that "what appears beautiful to one person may not appear beautiful to another", there is still some sort of a concrete foundation on which these perceptions are based. Like ManiaJack mentioned, if something is constructed or arranged in the golden ratio (phi), it is generally and universally more appealing to the public. Visual arts, music, poetry, physiology, you name it. If it is 'golden' in its proportion, then it will be considered more beautiful. This also brings about our proclivity towards symmetry. Through several studies, it is proven that toddlers prefer symmetrical faces (as in they believe they are more beautiful) over asymmetrical ones.

TempletonEsquire
Irrationally Biased

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 05, 2009
Location: Close To Nil

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 315

Posted 04/27/09 - 02:27 PM:	#7
Art is not universally objective. It is also not singularly subjective. Art is group objective. It is a commonly held subjectively formed belief amongst a group of individuals that creates an objectively held theory. It is not from the essence of all individuals, yet instead from the creation of a commonly held belief set through communication, criticism and distinction amongst the group. Art is essentially group thought communicated. Individuals may include themselves in the group, or exclude themselves based on their own ideology.

randomly_anonymous
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 8

Posted 04/28/09 - 03:01 PM:	#8
Art is not universally objective. It is also not singularly subjective. Art is group objective. It is a commonly held subjectively formed belief amongst a group of individuals that creates an objectively held theory. It is not from the essence of all individuals, yet instead from the creation of a commonly held belief set through communication, criticism and distinction amongst the group. Art is essentially group thought communicated. Individuals may include themselves in the group, or exclude themselves based on their own ideology. By your definition, nothing would be 'universally objective'. Math even wouldn't even be universally objective, since its notation are still relative and subjective to our paradigm. Please do correct me if I am wrong. Edited by randomly_anonymous on 04/29/09 - 04:10 AM. Reason: quotation

TempletonEsquire
Irrationally Biased

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 05, 2009
Location: Close To Nil

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 315

Posted 04/28/09 - 07:21 PM:	#9
To quote wikipedia on objectivity, "While there is no universally accepted articulation of objectivity, a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are "mind-independent"—that is, not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity." If you can prove mind-independence of anything then I'm all for calling it universally objective. Art seems to me, to be very mind-dependent by nature.

randomly_anonymous
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 8

Posted 04/29/09 - 04:10 AM:	#10
Its mind independence lies in that we all find symmetry more aesthetically pleasing. At the same time, objects or 'art' in the golden ratio are more 'beautiful' as well. This is all that I have been trying to say.

Page: 1 2

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.