AudioBanter.com - View Single Post

From: The Artist
Date: 6/25/2004 1:01 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" emitted :

I'm not evading. It would help me to answer your question if you really
truly
don't know of any objective standards in any genre of art. So do you or
don't
you?

Wouldn't you have to simplify your definitions of "art" -- as well as
the standards for judging -- to a ridiculous degree? For example, to
judge whether a painting is "good" or "bad", you would have to rate its
use of color as one component. But the artist might be using horrible
colors, or appalling smearing, to make a point, no? So you couldn't pull
out a single aspect like color as a benchmark. You'd have to consider
the work as a whole before judging individual aspects. And since art's
effectiveness, if there is such a thing, depends on the individual, is
there any point in defining "objective" standards thereof?

Well you ask a good question. Maybe people are not understanding what I am
saying here. I am not saying all aspects and of art are purely objective to
every degree. Of course much of art is subjective. I am saying that there
are
objective standards in art. I am not saying one can objectively say DaVinci
was
a better artist than Picasso or visa versa. I would say that they are both
excellent artists by objective standards in art.

Please outline the objective standards you are referring to.

That would take quite some time and space. I'll look for some good books for
you to check out for a more in depth look at some of the objective standards in
art. I have already cited some examples in music. you don't really need a list
and description of every standard I know of do you?

To take it to the extreme just
to illustrate my point, I would say that Miles Davis was an objectively
better
musical artist than myself. I can get any number of instruments to make
noise.
It ain't art.

That's one opinion.

Opinions often turn out to be representative of fact.

--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t