Yeah, you're right. Art is subjective. Case in point: Modern Art. I swear some of that stuff looks like it could be done by a monkey in five minutes, but apparently people think it's good stuff and therefore good art.
Goodbye, I guess.
@Lord_Nightblade in Champions/Star Trek Online
nightblade7295@gmail.com if you want to stay in touch
Just because you don't have the same kind of skill as another artist, or even in their style, doesn't mean you can't judge their work. Could Picasso judge Monet? Could Rembrandt judge Dali? Could anyone judge Michaelangelo or Da Vinci? Who is to say "you are skilled enough, now, so you may now judge the work of others?"
I look at a piece and I either love it, hate it, or think it's the same as the last twelve I've looked at. I know what *I* like, so, I can judge for myself what I like. That doesn't make anyone else's opinion any less valid.
There is a lot of interpretation in art. It's like someone telling a friend of mine that her painting miniatures is not art. When you're blending, layering, and applying 2-D techniques such as Sky-Earth Non-Metallic Metal to 28 mm pewter figurines, and winning prestigious international awards for these figures, then it certainly is art. Even if you're not winning awards, it is an art form.
Some people are just arrogant in their linear thinking. I don't mean to be intentionally unkind, but statements like the above really irritate me.
"If I fail, they write me off as another statistic. If I succeed, they pay me a million bucks to fly out to Hollywood and fart." --- George A. Romero
"If I had any dignity, that would have been humiliating" --- Adam Savage
Virtue Server: Kheprera, Malefic Elf, Lady Omen, Night Rune, La Muerte Roja, Scarab Lafayette, Serena Ravensong, Kyrse, and Arachnavoodoo among others.
Subjectivity is personal, if we're basing on skills, subject falls by the way side, and Skill is the only basis of critique. Notice I didn't say personal taste... Personal taste is all about what turns you on, bla, bla, bla... Some like art to be shocking, or mind blowing, I think many of those people should be put to sleep.
There are those of us who find both those former adjectives in a simple comic book cover. That's what we like, it almost doesn't matter about the subject, but the "coolness" of it, the skill yes adds to it, but we require a low level playing field.
Some good anatomy, some cool coloring, a nice bold inking that pops off the page. These are not the terms "art critics" use, they're all concerned about how the piece makes us feel.
How do you feel when you look at the cover of Spiderman#1?
Ummm, I feel supercalifragilisticexpealidotious (sp)...
I don't feel like the paint is dripping.
Surrealism, abstract art, these are interpretations of subjectivity that have little to no recognizable features. Some say it's apples and oranges... again put these people to sleep.
I like what I like.
Tough argument since both can be true, depending on the individual.
Art is subjective based on the general idea of how you can't actually "define" what is or is not "art"...however, tell that to someone who's trying to get into a profession (comics, games, modeling, etc)...then it becomes "objective" as heck since then only specific skills are required.
Since she's a girl, it's nicer to let her win. 
[ QUOTE ]
Subjectivity is personal, if we're basing on skills, subject falls by the way side, and Skill is the only basis of critique. Notice I didn't say personal taste... Personal taste is all about what turns you on, bla, bla, bla... Some like art to be shocking, or mind blowing, I think many of those people should be put to sleep.
There are those of us who find both those former adjectives in a simple comic book cover. That's what we like, it almost doesn't matter about the subject, but the "coolness" of it, the skill yes adds to it, but we require a low level playing field.
Some good anatomy, some cool coloring, a nice bold inking that pops off the page. These are not the terms "art critics" use, they're all concerned about how the piece makes us feel.
How do you feel when you look at the cover of Spiderman#1?
Ummm, I feel supercalifragilisticexpealidotious (sp)...
I don't feel like the paint is dripping.
Surrealism, abstract art, these are interpretations of subjectivity that have little to no recognizable features. Some say it's apples and oranges... again put these people to sleep.
I like what I like.
[/ QUOTE ]
QFT
But as for the OP, your friend was right. Judging another persons work as good or bad just because you do or don't like it personally is wrong. It's the main reason why judges of all types are supposed to be impartial .
Rikti Inquistition: Unexpected. Chief Weapon: Fear and Surprise. Chief WeaponS: Fear and Surprise and Uniforms: Snappy Red. Exclamation: Profanity! Declaration: Restarting.
Just for the record: I don't think I've ever, ever, called a piece bad. If it's something I personally don't like, I just say it's not my cup of tea, or don't comment at all.
When she said "judge," I believe she was referring my commenting on both her art and the art of one of her friends (who happened to be a famous retro comic book artist, and for the life of me I can't recall the name). This isn't as though I was bluntly saying "Oh, that work is horrible." just for the sake of my not liking it; I was merely commenting on the fact that I preferred the work of other's to the retro's--apparently she took offense to that. Like I said--I judge that which is based in subjectivity; not skill.
Edit: But if my friend is right, "Subjectivity has no place in art"? Something in that just sticks out sourly to me.
[ QUOTE ]
Judging another persons work as good or bad just because you do or don't like it personally is wrong. It's the main reason why judges of all types are supposed to be impartial .
[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed.
But I was judging on what I like, not what I considered merely artistic or skillful. I happen to love both surreal and abstract art, but not as much as I like realism and classical art and neither as much as comic book art.
Ack, these are apples and oranges.... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz ,nvm. 
[ QUOTE ]
I just had a conversation with a friend of mine, and she accuses me of judging art from artists when I haven't even reached the level of those artists. I then tell her I judge that which is based in subjectivity; not skill.
Then she tells me "Subjectivity has no place in art, nor credibility."
Now, I'm just looking dumbfoundedly at that statement. How in the world can art not be subjective? Of course there are basic objective elements to art, such as composition, colors and such, but it's my belief that all art means different things to each of us and touches us all in different ways. If art were purely objective, what would even become of surreal art? Skill surely doesn't mean all--I think an artist's interpretation is just as important.
I just wanted to know from you, my friends, your opinions on the matter. Am I wrong? Am I right? Am I left?
[/ QUOTE ]
Your friend is stupid.
But seriously, art is both subjective and not. What it depends on is what the artist wants to convey. If the artist in question is trying to draw a photo-realistic tree and it ends up looking like a sloppy crayon drawing, that's bad art. On the other hand, if he wants it to look like a sloppy crayon drawing, than it's good but no one is going to like it. (i shouldn't say that, some people have crazy tastes)
Retro Comic Art vs Modern CG Comic Art?
That's a tough sell, there's some great retro art and there's even more great modern art after all we learn from the past, though unfortunately we don't have a comic book museum ie hall of fame somewhere to bring grandkids to and say,
"Now that's art you rapscallion! You whipper snapper! You illegitimate love child of Captain Marvel!"
I love the silver/golden age of CA (comic art), and I love a lot of what I see today, it's like asking me which of my children I love more! Okay you forced me to answer, I like the one that's moved out and sends me cash...
But Lady, you can agree with me that I can surely decide whether I like or dislike an artist's piece, and that that art which some people may like, others may not? Or have I been misreading your earlier posts?
oooOOooo, sticky.
Well, Aaron, you can definitely decide whether you like or do not like a piece of art. Hell, in my book you can decide what is and is not art, though unless your real good at changing minds, you can only decide what is and is not art for you. However, when you're talking about art with others, unless they see the world exactly as you do, then you do need to be a touch objective.
There has to be certain points and measures that all parties in the conversation know, understand, and agree upon to have any kind of meaningful discussion about the artwork. Else, all involved might as well just be talking about their favorite colors. This is usually done based on the works formal elements, though artists intent and underlying philosophy (and success of communicating said philosophy) can play a big role as well. By looking at and discussing works of art from an objective viewpoint (critiquing) you can come to appreciate that artwork and it's place in the world (or come to realize it's just bad art) without having to change your subjective view of it (though that might change a touch anyway).
In short, you hate works of art all you want for any reason you want and still appreciate those same works. I personally hate impressionistic works.. never liked them and my reasoning is truly lame (it's fuzzy blobs of pastel paint kind of depicting lazy French afternoons, whoopty-fricken' doo) but I can still truly appreciate the paintings for what they are and what the artists were struggling with and attempting to do. I can also then understand why others truly love the works and have meaningful conversations with them about the works merits and flaws. There's a lot of good art out there that I really just do not like because it's just not my cup of tea (like a good country and western song with great soulful lyrics sung by man with a golden voice and melody that would make angels cry, great song, but not my cup of tea). There's also a lot of really bad art that I love. Oh, i can look at it and a part of me cringes and slinks away from it's hideous mockery of art that it is, but damn it, it's just so freakin' cool!
Um... I'm rambling now. Shutting up in
3
2
1
[ QUOTE ]
I just had a conversation with a friend of mine, and she accuses me of judging art from artists when I haven't even reached the level of those artists. I then tell her I judge that which is based in subjectivity; not skill.
Then she tells me "Subjectivity has no place in art, nor credibility."
Now, I'm just looking dumbfoundedly at that statement. How in the world can art not be subjective? Of course there are basic objective elements to art, such as composition, colors and such, but it's my belief that all art means different things to each of us and touches us all in different ways. If art were purely objective, what would even become of surreal art? Skill surely doesn't mean all--I think an artist's interpretation is just as important.
I just wanted to know from you, my friends, your opinions on the matter. Am I wrong? Am I right? Am I left?
[/ QUOTE ]
First, it does sound like your friend might've taken offense at your comment, and perhaps you should address THAT with them before anything else.
After that - re: Art & subjectivity vs. objectivity - Really, both are involved. Art is a form of expression, of communication, of feelings as well as literal ideas. (almost sounds like I'm doing the Twilight Zone intro...) A piece of art can be examined in a critical, intellectual way -or- it can be experienced in an intuitive, emotional sense.
Different people will "get" something different - what *I* get from a piece may be quite different from what *you* get, or it may be similar. That doesn't necessarily mean that *my* view is more or less valid that *yours* or someone else's.
Also, we may experience it on many different levels - both simultaneously, and changing over time - due to changes in us, or the environment.
certainly as I grow in skill as an artist myself, if affects how I experience art. but so, too, do any other changes in me (age, stress, that awful relationship with girl who painted butterflys 
) affect what I "get" from a piece.
I can certainly be moved by a piece that evidences sloppy technique - and I could be left completely cold by a piece that I can see was executed with immaculate technique. I can certainly respect the skill of the latter, even if I don't "enjoy" it.
And there can be a very specific message the artist was trying to get across. But, did *I* "get" that message? and whether I did or not - I can still decide whether I "like" the piece.
There are certainly aspects of technical skill, and things like composition, ability to render a likeness - artistic skills that you can learn from an instructor and dissect from a piece and discuss. Those things have worth and meaning - but they aren't ALL there is to art - but they art part of it. How much is different from person to person and moment to moment.
I had a music teacher - way, way back in college - who felt that the only "proper" way to appreciate music was if you understood all the rules and underlying mechanics of harmony, composition, and such. You had to be able to deconstruct it and understand the harmonic relationships of the notes and rhythms. To just listen and enjoy the way it made you fell without understanding all that was "barbaric." I tho0ught he was utterly bonkers.
...but, I do feel that an understanding of the "mechanics" (what little I do - greater now than I did back then) does, indeed improve my enjoyment of the music I listen to today. The same with Art.
Okay - thats a whole lot of words to say this: Objectivity and subjectivity are BOTH applicable and appropriate when applied to "ART" - as are personal ignorance of and/or intimate knowledge of the creation "mechanics" of said art - in varying degrees depending on the person, the situation, the environment, and the price of tea in China.
[ QUOTE ]
But Lady, you can agree with me that I can surely decide whether I like or dislike an artist's piece, and that that art which some people may like, others may not? Or have I been misreading your earlier posts?
[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely, I think your friend's point was she didn't want to have to be told what to like based on another person's taste of what is "acceptable".
Yes bad art exists, in droves... if we didn't have it, we wouldn't know what good art is, or the kind of art we choose to own, imitate, emulate, or "whoore" over... it isn't what makes good art good, only a means to say, "today I like that".
Take Graver's argument, obviously he has issues with the French, I don't know maybe he was chased by a pack of wild poodles through the wine country... But he doesn't care for that subject matter no matter the skill it took to make it.
That is personal taste.
We can argue over the intent of the artist involved, but it still boils down to making Graver eat his baguette and brie while the rest of us do the can can around him in mocking french accents!
Now would you subject your friend to that? Or expect her to do the same to you?
Now had your question been, what is bad art and how can I tell if it's bad. Here are two of three very obvious signs:
1) It's wrapped around a large piece of halibut.
2) It's sole purpose is to charge you the public a small fortune for the glory of viewing it in your lifetime.
3) Some quack in some rag said some very long words about it, and made me want to cry.
I really don't think I'm gonna worry about trying to explain what I meant to her--I believe I've done so in the past and she's made rather sharp and snide comments to me about it. It's not much fun conversing to those who twist your words.
Anyway, it's not as though I told her what or what not to like. Ah... I believe I said I liked Gill's art more and could reach the retro artist's level if I worked at it and applied myself, to which she vehemently disagreed because the artist had been at it for decades. That conversation ended well. Also in question, is an incident in which I told her I liked her inking technique, as she uses thin lines, to which she again disagreed in that she uses thick lines. It may have been a delusion on my part, but looking through her pieces only revealed maybe one piece that used thick weights. For gawd's sake, you try to make a compliment and see where it gets you? 
It's to this kind of "judging" she is referring to, and apparently takes offense at. When I said I only judged based on subjectivity, I was referring to whether I liked it or not.
In any case, I pretty much agree with what's been said above. It's good to know I'm not completely out of it.
Quickly climb into a time machine, and before you open your mouth again, apply several large wallops to your forehead with a hammer... that's what I do when I argue with my wife.
Btw, does your friend ink traditionally with a brush or croquill ink pen?
Hehe. If only I could distort space-time (don't get all scientific on me!). Some arguments are just hopeless, and my utter stubbornness surely doesn't help.
On the inks, actually, I don't know. Whenever I asked her what she inks with she just says India Ink. Now I know what India Ink is, but can't you use both a brush and a pen for that?
Yes, but you have to either fill rapidograph pens with it, or dip it like in olden times... It's monk's work if you ask me, the kind that comes with cold stone floors, and Gregorian Chanting!
I have some lying around here somewhere... I'll post it tomorrow.
I love how certain folks go on about certain movements in art and how wonderful their work was... example: Fauvism and Cubism
I dislike both movements. I understand where they were coming from, and yes they have their place in art history, but egads, no thank you.
Unlike Graver, I love impressionism. Why? Color theory. Those guys were masters at it. Do I get sick of it? Yes, from time to time.
I'm more of a Golden Age of Illustration lover. It's not a true movement, but those that belonged to it steal my heart every time: Leyendecker, Rackham, Neilsen, Dulac, Wyeth, Pyle, Cornwell...
Art is and isn't subjective and it's really up to the viewer alone to find the merit behind a piece of work they do or do not like.
Your views will CHANGE, guaranteed, with time, like everyone else. Back in high school there were certain comic book artists I worshipped. Today? I look at them and while I enjoy some of them still (Humberto Ramos, Chris Weiringo, Chris Bachalo)... there are others that I almost barf over. I look at their work and think "dear god, they have no sense of anatomy or composition and... WHY are their feet and hands drawn like that!"
So don't worry, you're fine... your friend is fine, it's all a matter of opinion anyway :3
If *Sub*jectivity has no place, the only thing is *ob*jectivity. Now, unless you're grading the piece or some such - you're an art teacher, or the person commissioning a work - objectivity has a far lesser place.
Subjectivity has little place in, say, blueprints. If I'm having someone create an office building for me, I don't really give a rat's rear if they're in a "blue" period or not. I need certain amounts of space, I need to fit in this many people in this many offices with this much stuff, no funky shapes if they can help it, has to bear this much of a load, etc.
But art? OK, there's a place for it - if I asked Alex to do that Therra piece, and he came out with a black woman in an oversize afro, oversize Disco-style gold jewelry, juggling swords, I could *ob*jectively say "No, that's not the character," whether I liked the drawing or not (which would be *sub*jective, after all.)
... or you could have told him to lose the swords and send the pic my way. 
But yeah. art appreciation will be both subjective and objective.
Because the viewer is going to inject their preferences and aesthetic sense into the artwork.. and judge it according to how it all matches up.
We can't avoid doing that. So objectively... you'd have to be aware of your own 'preferences' and not judge by those criteria. Which probably wouldn't leave you much to judge on.
"City of Heroes. April 27, 2004 - August 31, 2012. Obliterated not with a weapon of mass destruction, not by an all-powerful supervillain... but by a cold-hearted and cowardly corporate suck-up."
Art is not subjective.
Art is communication. Communication is by its very nature objective. Just like spoken or written language, nothing can be communicated if the communication is subjective. I can say "Bandangle dondo floo," and while it may mean something to me, it's not communication because nobody else understands it. Likewise for visual art. If nothing is communicated, the piece fails; it is bad art.
For example. Mondrian? Not art.
Now, the whole phenomenon where people treat non-art as if it were art is a different subject entirely. Just remember, most of the time, if someone says, "That is deep art," it's because the art is not communicating anything and they don't understand it. They're just afraid of admitting it, under the mistaken impression that it's their fault rather than the artist's.
"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."
"Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man."
- Thomas Jefferson
Heh, this reminds me of this time when alot of people were getting on Erik Larsen's case when he had some negative comment while he critiqued George Perez's art.
[ QUOTE ]
Art is communication. Communication is by its very nature objective. Just like spoken or written language, nothing can be communicated if the communication is subjective. I can say "Bandangle dondo floo," and while it may mean something to me, it's not communication because nobody else understands it. Likewise for visual art. If nothing is communicated, the piece fails; it is bad art.
For example. Mondrian? Not art.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hilariously simplistic. Especially the part where something is bad art because Joe Shmoe off the street doesn't "get it."
This definition might be ok if we were talking about illustration.
There are many different school's of thought where communication per se is not the goal (eg. surrealism, Brechtian alienation effect, Russian Formalist Art criticism).
There is no single definition of art. There are many different theories spanning different cultures and time periods. The most important thing is context.
Mondrian was a significant artist during his time. And because he was significant then, his art will be preserved in a museum due to it's historical relevance. Someone putting a bunch of lines and squares on a page probably won't be taken seriously now because the moment when that statement was culturally relevant is over. It's not just a question of art/nonart. Time and place are also factors.
Going back to the question of subjectivity, a reaction can be subjective and still be ignorant or just plain stupid. An intelligent, informed opinion is a subjective reaction that takes into account many objective factors.
www.battlewraith.deviantart.com
[ QUOTE ]
I really don't think I'm gonna worry about trying to explain what I meant to her--I believe I've done so in the past and she's made rather sharp and snide comments to me about it. It's not much fun conversing to those who twist your words.
Anyway, it's not as though I told her what or what not to like. Ah... I believe I said I liked Gill's art more and could reach the retro artist's level if I worked at it and applied myself, to which she vehemently disagreed because the artist had been at it for decades. That conversation ended well. Also in question, is an incident in which I told her I liked her inking technique, as she uses thin lines, to which she again disagreed in that she uses thick lines. It may have been a delusion on my part, but looking through her pieces only revealed maybe one piece that used thick weights. For gawd's sake, you try to make a compliment and see where it gets you?
It's to this kind of "judging" she is referring to, and apparently takes offense at. When I said I only judged based on subjectivity, I was referring to whether I liked it or not.
In any case, I pretty much agree with what's been said above. It's good to know I'm not completely out of it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Then don't explain it to her. Challenge her to present you with a list of criteria, approved by 3 outside sources, on what constitutes good art and how all art can be broken down in a such a way as to be judged fairly by every person who views it. Be sure to bring your lunch. It's gonna be a long wait.
your = Belonging to you.
you're = Contraction meaning "You are."
Ur = The name of an ancient Mesopotamian city.
ur = This is not a word.
I just had a conversation with a friend of mine, and she accuses me of judging art from artists when I haven't even reached the level of those artists. I then tell her I judge that which is based in subjectivity; not skill.
Then she tells me "Subjectivity has no place in art, nor credibility."
Now, I'm just looking dumbfoundedly at that statement. How in the world can art not be subjective? Of course there are basic objective elements to art, such as composition, colors and such, but it's my belief that all art means different things to each of us and touches us all in different ways. If art were purely objective, what would even become of surreal art? Skill surely doesn't mean all--I think an artist's interpretation is just as important.
I just wanted to know from you, my friends, your opinions on the matter. Am I wrong? Am I right? Am I left?