I'll try and explain this the best I can.
Subjective - things depend on your own ideas and opinions: there isn't any universal truth
Objective - not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. (both taken from dictionary.com)
Now I hope you know the difference between these two, but those are there for any clarification.
- So I know that the general consensus is that, yes art is subjective, but I've been doing some thinking. It came up recently when reading an art review, the reviewer said that there is such a thing as good and bad art. I'll have to find the quote (I believe it was a Jerry Saltz article) but basically it was nothing more than a minor point in the article. What I've struggled with rationalizing over the past few weeks is that there is some art that is good (makes you think, offers new perspective) and some that is bad (cliche, bland). The best explanation I can come up with is that while art is subjective to each viewer it is objective in the consensus of the culture.
Let me give an example to clarify what I'm trying to get at. Take a listen to Kendrick Lamar's recent album, To Pimp a Butterfly. When it first came out it received universal praise, that is to say critics from all over thought it was good. In fact if you go on metacritic, there is not a single negative or mixed review for the album from the critics. At this point could we not say that the album is objectively good? Everyone agreed that this album is good, does it not become a universal fact? Well, there are some users (non-critics) on metacritic who did not agree and disliked the album. Does the opinion of a few people overthrow the general consensus of what is good or bad?
So in this example, the subjective opinion of each individual is valid in their own appreciation. However, our culture objectively agrees that To Pimp a Butterfly is good. Or maybe, the consensus of the masses is still subjective? I'm not really sure, I could still be using the definitions of subjective and objective wrong, that's why I'm asking you Hubski.
We can expand this from music to any art form though. It gets especially tricky when we get lots of mixed reviews. This happens a lot in visual art and that's what I'm struggling with. Can we actually say, "yes this artwork is good/bad." So to summarize my questions: Can art be good or bad? If it is good or bad, is that a subjective or objective fact? Is objective/subjective a spectrum and where along the spectrum do individual opinion vs consensus fall?
quoted because it made it clearer
I'm 200 pages into a book on the economics of contemporary art and while I've learned scads of things and have had my perspective on "art" revised almost completely, the greatest impact it has had, as far as this discussion goes, is why do we keep asking this fucking question? What do we get out of it? There will never be a time where someone will make a thing, someone else will love it, and still someone else will hate it. No amount of arguing over the objectivity or subjectivity of art will change that. Brilliant technicians will continue to go ignored, opportunistic hacks will continue to get rich and the glitterati will continue to pay millions of dollars for mundane objects of special provenance to annoy their friends. So what do we really get out of this discussion, considering it is truly the pseudointellectual sound of one hand clapping?
It's a perfectly valid question. I got a lot out of reading the different opinions below. I think what you mean is this: "I kleinbl00, now 200 pages into a book on the economics of contemporary art, get nothing out of this discussion. Since I am not interested in this discussion, the question must be a "fucking question" and any subsequent discussion is "the pseudointellectual sound of one hand clapping?" My honest answer-seeking question is this: What do you get out of dismissing the question (and to some extent, the questioner). If you think the questioner is being disingenuous or just wants attention, then ignore, but cco did some work preparing this question and seems to care. My guess is cco is half your age and is exploring questions like this for the first time. Others will do the same and will be referred to this discussion. I love you kb, as you know, even more than _refugee_ -- and I am here to STAND UP for questions and questioners. ok, I put on my bicycle helmet: Come at me.why do we keep asking this fucking question?
So what do we really get out of this discussion, considering it is truly the pseudointellectual sound of one hand clapping?
It's not, though. It's the same opinions that always come up, none of which have any basis in anything but "here's how I feel about this" which gets answered with "but here's how I feel about this so you're wrong" when the very nature of the discussion is "what is art?" I mean, this was two weeks ago: That "I read a book" quip is my way of saying "rather than staring into my navel like usual and shouting for the echo, I've actually dug a little deeper into the discussion and now not only do I no longer have any patience for this discussion, I'm beginning to recognize it's mostly asked and answered by people who have zero interest in reading a book." Why does it piss me off? because it's the ONLY question we ask about art. HUBSKI: Let's argue what is or isn't art for the nth time.
In two weeks, I will be seeing three Shakespeare plays over two days. I want to be totally immersed in the play. I want it to take me unquestioningly into the stage world, and ideally for me also Shakespeare's world and also the shared experience with my fellow play-goers. What I do not want to do is suddenly be asking, "What the fuck?" What's the director thinking? Why did they do that? Isn't there a better way to deliver those lines? If I start asking questions during the play - that's a bad thing. I would like to ask some questions after the play: How many layers of meaning are in those beautiful lines? What happened there that made me cry - how did they do it? Why is the villain the most charismatic character in this play... and questions like that. What I am describing above is transferable to other art experiences like film, but perhaps not visual art.
Excellent points. So let me get this straight. You are saying, let's not ask: "Am I being objective or subjective? Is this bad art or good art?" Let's say what's good and not so good, back up our opinions with thoughtful information about literature or art, and invite a response. Is that it?
I'm saying "let's not take a vital discussion and back it up to meaningless abstractions to the point where it can contain both '50Shades is objectively crap' and 'I suspect that even objectivity is to an extent subjective - but the scientists might disagree.'" "What is art and why?" is broad. "Is contemporary art 'art'?" is broad. Any framing of the discussion that allows someone to strawman up a harlequin romance into making a point that encompasses Picasso and Renoir isn't raising the tenor of the discussion, it's lowering it.
Agreed While I still maintain that the OP has a right to ask his original question, there are much better questions like, "Whose opinion of art, film, whatever, is worth paying attention to?" The NYT Book Review article posted here addresses that. I ignore a lot of #askhubski questions for many reasons: time, do I want to engage?, etc. But probably mostly because it might not be the best question for the situation under discussion. Thanks for that insight. Every question contains several underlying assumptions that turn the question one way or another. I think what you've pointed out is that the "fucking question" you referred to is one of those - and there are better questions. Thanks kb.
It makes people feel safer if they can rank things, klein. It makes us think that the world is quantifiable, measurable, cut-out-and-sew-up-neatly-able. If we can say what makes good art we can effectively say "This is right" and "this is wrong" and nothing makes a person feel better than being right. Emotions are gooey and ooey and so we try to negate them, with discussions like "Can art be objective? What is good art?" Instead I guess we could all go around looking at things and reading things and then feeling the things those things make us feel, but that...that would be like acknowledging there is no universal truth. Maybe like Kim Davis admitting that other peoples' happiness and marriages don't impact hers. Maybe that's why.
But we can't. We never do. It goes like this: A: "I have an opinion!" B: "I also have an opinion." C: "I like art." D: "Fuck art." A: "You are not contributing to the discussion." D: "The discussion is facile." E: "What does facile mean?" D: "It means this whole discussion is the infinite loop of discussion boards." CALL ME D
I had such trouble with this ideal growing up in a really strict religious home. There is such a severe amount of security in knowing there is an order of things. When I grew up I became so confused and honestly terrified by the idea that it is EXTREMELY possible that life makes no sense, that no matter what I did everything still wouldn't amount to much universally speaking. It was honestly the toughest thing to unlearn and honestly I have to keep working at it from time to time. Although even now I still hold some things to be universally true.
There is honestly only one I really consider universal and that is the respect for life. Even then I question that. I think my belief stems from the idea that if it wasn't some universal principle then I'm saying in some circumstance killing, and the ruining of peoples lives could be completely acceptable. My view on it now is that although we may not be able to protect life in every circumstance there is still some weight, some moral imperative to protect life no matter the circumstance.
My parents have a Norland apple tree in their back yard. The apples are falling now. Once they fall off that tree, they get soft real quick. About a week ago I took one that was on the ground, rotting partially on one side, and threw it off into the woods in our backyard. It happened to fall on a small wire fence, really quite a long shot looking at the 5 in. gaps in between the 1/4 in. wire. It fell directly on a cross piece of the wire. It's still there, brilliant red in a sea of green trees, suspended in the air. I'm looking at it while writing this. If I had the money, I would hire a professional photographer to capture a photo, blow it up, and then frame it and put it in a glorious spot somewhere for all my guests to see. To me, behind the picture is the memory of picking the apples with my father. That is a pleasant memory of myself with him, which is a rarity to me. In music school, a mentor shared his opinion that, "the most important thing about music is what it means to you." If you chose to objectify your valuation of art. Great. If you want to share why it is valuable to you, fantastic. If you want to keep your valuation to yourself, whatever works for you. It is a free country (lulz). Kanye 2020
I was discussing poems with a very educated, very talented and insightful poet friend of mine (who I actually became internet friends with via Reddit - I should thank Reddit for him more often, if nothing else) yesterday. I commented that some of the poems we were discussing seemed to incite polarizing responses from readers, and the polarization didn't seem impacted at all by level of education, interest/familiarity with poetry, or other similar quantifiable levels of "People Who Should Know" and "People Who Clearly Wouldn't." That is to say, the same poem read by 2 different MFA graduates garnered almost contradicting responses just as much as the same poem read by two laypeople, or the same person read by one MFA graduate and one casual poetry reader. My brilliant friend said, "Yes, the writer reading the poems will absolutely make a difference. Remember: there is no such thing as an objectively good work of art. What I like, someone at...er...wherever...might hate. It's inevitable, in fact." I think one of the primary purposes of all forms of art is to connect, convey, and elicit emotion from its audience. As a result, I think I generally agree with my friend, although I am not inclined to be quite so emphatic. Something which by nature is designed to evoke and communicate on an emotional level cannot not be subjective on some level. And I think if something is at least partially subjective, then it cannot be objective at all, really - right? I think that if you replace the word "objectively" good with "universally" or "popularly" good in your quoted paragraphs, you will get closer to something more true. Just because a lot of people agree something is good does not mean that agreement or conclusion is objective, just that it is nearer to universal. I told OftenBen not too long ago that I actually thought that any art that created discussion, conversation, and yes, even dissent among its audience as to whether it was good or not - that piece of art was probably more likely to be "significant" than not. I think one of the vital purposes and uses of art is to create discussion; to make people think; to make people talk. The most boring Book Club novels were the ones where everyone walked in, sat down, and said "Yeah, I liked it." Those are awful books. They lead to awful discussion. Beware something that is generally well-liked, but without much passion.
At least in Philosophy, where a lot of debates evolved around subjectivity and objectivity (art, rights, moral, mathematics etc.), if some culture is involved in a judgement, it is a subjective. To roughly get an idea what objectivity (in Philosophy) is all about: imagine, there are no living things in this universe. Would be To Pimp a Butterfly still be good music?
"our culture objectively agrees" No. Our culture inter subjectively agrees. Objective is independent of our attitudes and feeling. Subjective is dependent on your attitude and feeling. Inter subjective arises from our attitudes and feeling. So the answer is it is subjective but crucially that is not the end of the story and it does not mean it is arbitrary or weightless.
Damn. I'm late to the party. I have something really interesting to share. Jenny McMahon describes art as units of social calibration. Which is a pretty tersely straightforward way of describing it. But essentially, the power in art it for it to calibrate its audience. I'm not as good at explaining it as she is, so check out this audio interview. It's really eye-opening. http://newbooksinphilosophy.com/2013/12/15/jennifer-a-mcmahon-art-and-ethics-in-a-material-world-kants-pragmatist-legacy-routledge-2013/ So I think the part where we decide if the art is good or bad is a bit of a misnomer, because it has more to do with whether or not the art should be accepted by us or shouldn't be. That function in itself is a subjective one.
Personally, I hate a lot of modern and post modern art. Some of it, like the silent composition, or a completely blank canvas, intended to make a statement, are purely stupid to me. Picassos guernica to me, is nothing special, it looks like a childs attempt. The concept I get, but II feel I only enjoy art I can appreciate on a technical and aesthetic level. Yet there are technically brilliant pieces of art that I don't even get a reaction to, I find them boring. Your own personal life experience will shape what you consider to be "good art". Which sounds like I'm arguing in favor of subjectivity, yet you can still make bad art, in my opinion. It's just not binary, things can have redeeming features, ita a rare piece of art that doesn't even have one.
I'm gonna go against the grain and say it's objective. If you don't admit that then E.L. James' subliterate use of the phrase "Dick attack" can be made to stand alongside Shakespeare. The thing is it's not objective in the sense that 2+2 is always four, it's a consensus objectivity that allows for dissent. Good art stands on firm emotional or intellectual ground. Lesser art does not. Kazimir Malevich painted a black square, that's all it is, and I can tell you why it's fine art, but I don't agree that it's good art even if it's part of the narrative of higher level baccalaureate art history. That doesn't make it bad, it just means I disagree that it's good. Liking 50 Shades of Grey or The Room (with no ironic appreciation) doesn't make you wrong, it just means you have bad taste. We need a third linguistic option for things like art. I feel like Asian languages excel in this kind of nuanced, complex definition whereas English words have the subtlety of a twenty pound sack of flour hitting the floor.
Subjective, even taking into account cultural context. Some art may not be created with the intent of aligning with current cultural consensus (even if such a thing can be agreed upon), and cultural consensus is just one measure of value and achievement. Can you define a cultural sphere in which a piece of art can be judged as good or bad? Yes. But the objectivity attained is bounded by a subjective process. IMO what trips people up, and the reason why we keep having this discussion, is that people assume that because the value process is subjective, it somehow puts all art on equal footing. It doesn't. Objective value is not the opposite of 'no value' or 'equal value'.
To consider the majority as objective is pretty dangerous and I don't consider it to be objective. There were a few political philosophies that tried to follow that idea, but they usually didn't work in practice. When you say the word "objective" I think of something that is absolute, and I believe there aren't many absolute things if any at all in our world. All I can really say is I don't think art can be objective.
I would say that all art is subjective. And I would say there are two separate questions to ask when asking if a piece of art is 'bad.' Is it 'bad' because it fails to evoke any emotion or feeling in it's audience? Or is it 'bad' because it's offensive?
Here's another one for you though - Is it bad because it fails to execute/convey its intent? I think it is slightly different than your first. I think it's possible to elicit emotions from your audience by accident, especially if you are not an experienced craftsman. But those emotions are like hitting a target you shot at in the dark. You can get something out of people if you try hard enough, but a truly good artist should be able to say, "I am going to make a sad piece," and make a piece that has that effect on people. So a) I think good art has intent behind it; and b) I think good art is able to convey that intent.
Subjectively Good Art: Art I like because I like it. It speaks to me in a way that only I can understand because of all my summed up experiences and understandings of Art. Objectively Good Art: Someone important had the same experience and told people about it.