When judging the quality of art, is everything subjective or is there objective measurement involved...

When judging the quality of art, is everything subjective or is there objective measurement involved? How would I be able to objectively say stuff like
1.) Hamlet is better than something a 4 year old wrote
2.) Hamlet is better than Kafka on the Shore
3.) Hamlet is better than The Magic Mountain

Attached: 1564141353879.jpg (1065x991, 74K)

Objective measurement: Teleology / The Will of God / The Intentionality of Reality

you can't, it's all personal. when montaigne wrote about books he liked & didn't like, he said he was really revealing himself, not the measure of the things themselves.

The only real "objective" metric for judging a work of art is to talk about how its objective qualities (use of colour, shading, texture, line, etc.) serves or neuters its conceptual design/intention. The relationship between form and content is the only way to talk objectively in art.

Dumb frogposter

It's impossible for people to be truly objective.

I agree with this guy - there really isn't anything objective about art whatsoever; it's all interpretation.

hes revealing the relation between himself and the book, not purely himself

Watch Who the Fuck is Jackson Pollock?
It’s a documentary about a woman who has an actual authenticated Jackson Pollock, but the hoity toity art for the rich world wont pay her for what it’s worth. Only because she’s of a lower class/income level and they think she should settle.

Art is playtime, for fun. The appreciation of it is strictly subjective. If you like it, it’s good.

Attached: 38926B48-161F-4784-9910-8447DDA81F87.jpg (250x374, 30K)

When shitting in a museum urinal, is the excrement art or is there objectionable practice involved?

Attached: 98918d167715be51f8945af8846e378c--hang-on-funny-frogs.jpg (735x1104, 61K)

Well I want a reason for this then. I myself hate most people's taste in comedy and think that what they find funny and themselves are absolutely not funny. This could just be me saying that I think I have a better sense of humor BUT I can make these people laugh with ease and they cannot do the same. What gives?

The economy behind the art world is fucking insane, man. You have auctions where artists (Damien Hurst for example) will sell shares of the work to three buyers in which one of them is himself in order to artificially inflate the price and ensure it never loses value. Yet because its not subject to regulation, he can totally get away with it.

You have to separate your stories here:
Art as commodity or capital?
Art as entertainment or business?
Art as an expression that is unique but somehow "resonates" and whether that resonance is timeless or whether we are trained to see it.

Art as capital is simply that the thing has value because we agree it has value and so it can be used to "store capital" as if it were wealth? (Wealth being defined here as "stored consumption.") A lot of art sales are simply because the value will increase because everyone has a tacit agreement that it will. This allows you to story the intermediary to trade - Money - in a way that is outside of the regular monetary economy and so is not subject to the vagaries of said economy.

Art as entertainment is not much different that simple manipulation. I can kill a kitten in a film and get a reaction, but that doesn't make it art. However it does sell. (see any Marvel movie.)


Then, there is what I like to consider Art: the resonance to the stories we have as humans (that we unnecessarily lump into an ideology story of beauty and aesthetics).

Lastly, why place a fake pattern of hierarchy on something? Why bring up fake questions of objectivity or subjectivity at all? Why change the narrator of art from Your Story to Everyone's Story?

Simply appreciate art for what it is to you.

Correction: "to STORE the intermediary to trade"

he said he was revealing the extent of his own vision

his vision as related to a specific exerior thing
fuck i hate the french

I would argue it is not that the company owns the stock (which is illegal), or that Damien Hurst is both manager and shareholder (a common practice in all corporations that should be illegal) but that selling stock is selling production and not product, which fucks up the market by selling a product that is never consumed and therefore is indistinguishable from a chain letter.

Don't blame the artist for the inherent corruption and theft built into Capitalism.

I'm not blaming Hurst, in fact I have a weird admiration for his ability to exploit that corruption to his own gain. He is however a pretty shitty artist.

Well, on that we are certainly in agreement. I wanted to stick our dead cat in a box and sell it but my wife would have none of it.

eh?

Given, I've not seen the doc, but I don't know how you draw that conclusion from that anecdote. The art world doesn't want to pay because of their expectation that sellers belong to a certain economic class and speak a certain PoMo language, not because of an intrinsic quality of the work itself.

Besides, it would be reckless to equal the monetary valuation of contemporary plastic art with the more casual/personal valuation that goes on when you or I experience any work of art, because the first is determined by fraudulent systems of money laundering that go well beyond the art itself. Nobody really thinks that an inflatable, metallic, gray rabbit by Koons is the greatest work of art ever created, yet it has become the most expensive ever sold.