Art is subjective

>art is subjective
>almost everyone can recognise something good

so what is it?

Attached: 1557348852062.jpg (960x960, 229K)

Art is the largest money laundry scam that ever existed.

Not great, but not terrible

An approximate consensus of subjective opinions is the closest you can ever get to objectivity.

from many cultures, languages, backgrounds, and times? all these factors do not get in the way of something just being 'great'. you know it when you see it; it's instinctual. that doesn't sound approximate or complicated, that's simple and clean. some things are actually superior

False. Most people are retards. If you made everyone in the world read The Divine Comedy most would lose interest, many would become hostile. Appreciating art requires an open mind, an understanding of the medium, experience in the medium, the ability to formulate and defend your opinions, etc. Most people don't have these.

the medium has nothing to do with it
but being a free-thinking person does
which is basically the same as saying 'a person', because if you can't think freely, you're an animal

If you took everyone's opinions to discover the best musicians you'd come out with The Beatles and Radiohead above Bach and Mozart. The taste of normalfags does not point to high art.

i don't think so
if you did a broader poll

in any case, this is more an argument about accessibility. some art is more accessible than others, but can almost everyone recognise something that's better than something else? taste excluded

who the fuck says the second one? i feel like a pretty well established consensus that 90% of popular media is shit, and that 90% of the population consume whatever is popular at the time, they don't really think about it too much, they just want to feel connected to their friends/influencers whatever, so they watch the latest edition of GoT or capeshit.
the first topic is way more broad and subjective, i hate faggots like who feel more superior than the rest because they consume art that is deemed "good" and "smart", but i also dislike 90% of the population who only consume media to belong to the tribe. i do understand that it takes effort to dig deeper, so i don't blame them too much

but do those same people have the ability to recognise something is superior? that's the point

a) are some things actually better than others
b) can people innately recognise this?

the virgin cares about this argument

the chad realizes art is subjective, but that such subjectivity is so irrelevant when discussing quality things that it might as well be objectivity anyway because nobody in their right mind actually believes niggers smearing shit on the walls is better than caravaggio, so why worry

when you say people do you mean the vast populace? or humankind in general, you know plato or whatever who wrote about the standards of beauty, renowned film critics, the elite who choose what's considered good and bad?

by recognising something good you mean being entertained by a form primarily for entertainment
a lot of modern art is good but not many would be able to regonise it

the vast population of people (excluding Africa), throughout time, and throughout cultural difference

do people have the capacity to recognise something is better than something else? what people currently like isn't really an argument, because they may not have been exposed to better things. if they were, could they then recognise that some things are superior?

not really. it's a really simple question about whether people actually have the ability to recognise one thing is superior to another. even if it were taken slowly as a process. at the root of it, it's that

it's a pretty good question. first thought that comes to mind is that people are way too varied for a clear answer. there's probably a kid running around in a poverty stricken suburb somewhere in turkey who, if he had the chance to consume some of this ""art"", would get enraptured by it and would explore all kinds of really good stuff.

on the other hand i think majority of the population, wether they have access to it or not, will still prefer the usual stuff they've been fed all their life. they're not dumb per se, but just less open minded i think. i mean these movies nowadays, they're made to be the perfect lowest common denonimator. they're made perfectly to appeal to the average person. in my opinion, yes i think some people definitely could learn to see that some stuff is better than other stuff, but there's definitely a big chunk of people who will always prefer more basic stuff, because the "art" they're consuming is perfectly catered to exactly those types of people.

that's fair
but i think desire and ability are not the same. since that is targeting outcomes. if most people can, even if they choose not to, then it begs the question of 'why'. which is what is about

i think objective standards exist, but that people get confused by trying to take it too quickly. we don't live in environments that encourage that journey properly. but if we did, i think most people would be able to follow it

gayest thread on this board right now.

i'd agree that desire and ability are not the same, but when you talk about a journey of discovering more/better art. in this case desire and ability must absolutely go hand in hand. let's take the average Joe for example. let's say he watches about 5 movies a year (all of which have mainstream success), listens exclusively to the radio for his music needs, hasn't read a book in his life expect harry potter when he was young, and doesn't go to museums. now Joe might have the ability to discern good art from bad, and might enjoy it too, but he's too busy with his 9 to 5 job, watching television, family, browsing facebook, whatever. if Joe doesn't have any real desire to go looking into the vast cultural landscape of human accomplishments, he's not gonna spend any time on it. and yeah i agree with you that if we make that journey easier or more fulfilling a couple more average Joes will make take that first step.

but that's where you and i disagree, i think the big chunk i was talking about earlier simply doesn't have the ability, they will always prefer the more basic stuff, no matter how many steps there are in your journey. i also don't believe in objective standards, but that's a whole other fucking topic

>brainlet

yeah where are all the captain marvel threads wtf

the answer is that art is both objective and subjective. The medium of the art comes with defined parameters, that can be objectively analyzed (ie I cant call my film a sculpture), but the audiences experience with the art is subjective. If everything was subjective then opinions would be irrelevant because you wouldnt be able to categorize the quality of anything (ie nothing can be said to be better or worse than the other because better or worse are undefinable).

All art is objectively shit