Easily My Album Of The Year

8 minutes ago, Jud said:

Well of course there *is* nothing objective about art. (Yes, the last chord of the Beatles’ “She Loves You” hadn’t been heard in popular music before, and there are other examples of their innovations. But lots of artists tried innovations over the years that weren’t accepted.)

 

Art is simply what inspires. It can be joy, like rock ‘n’ roll; it can be anger and tears, like Picasso’s “Guernica.” So the only measure of art is people’s subjective reactions. Looking for some objective, unemotional measure is not only fruitless, it’s wrongheaded because objective unemotional measures can’t tell us whether what we’re seeing, hearing or reading is art, let alone good art.

+1000

38 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I certainly hear you but I think judging art based on what other people think is a bit preposterous. 
 

We can say a lot of people subjectively liked it then and subjectively like it now. This has nothing to do with being objective about the art. 

 I think I was trying to say that one can objectively say that a work of art is considered of merit if it becomes a component of a society's culture.  Of course that's formed by the aggregation of subjective opinions, but so is the objective outcome of an election.

I disagree that just because you can't quantify something you can't rate it. 

If somebody decides to record a chainsaw while somebody else beats on a trash can and farts that is not music, it is not art, it is noise no matter how high you want to get on your intellectual horse. Just because you say over and over that we can't apply objective criteria to it does not mean it is music.

14 minutes ago, Iving said:

Well I thought I was done for the night. Let me tell you about my pitiful existence. Snuggling down with my wife, I remembered she has a degree in Art History. I regaled the "spread of the thread", asking her what she had been taught, and what she thought herself if any different.

 

"Well of course you can have objective ways of appreciating art", she said.

 

What I gleaned as overview:

 

- ways of valuing art within an era or genre e.g. Baroque - which she says most people don't like now as it's out of fashion, but you could have, say, a Rubens painting and stand it next to a Baroque painting in a 17th Century church - and the Rubens painting is far superior in terms of form, colour and application of paint. Experts agree that Rubens is the ultimate Baroque painter.

 

- use of light and shade

 

- mathematical patterns within some good art depending on era and genre - related to movement of objects and shapes and also focus within the work and the invitations these give to the eye.

 

- modern art deliberately painted to evoke emotion and the extent to which it does that - she even mentioned that urinal we came across earlier - small world!

 

etc

 

She says she's rusty! 40 years ago.

 

What she is saying chimes with an intuition that I have - which is that objectivity in art appreciation may be found in relational aspects of our experiences. This is more than saying "what we agree about", but I can't put my finger on it tonight before my eyes shut.

 

Goodnight from both of us! xx

Great post. You guys are so great. 
 

Objectively appreciating art is different from saying that painting is objectively better than that song :~)

Goodnight 😴 

14 minutes ago, bbosler said:

 

I disagree that just because you can't quantify something you can't rate it. 

 

If somebody decides to record a chainsaw while somebody else beats on a trash can and farts that is not music, it is not art, it is noise no matter how high you want to get on your intellectual horse. Just because you say over and over that we can't apply objective criteria to it does not mean it is music.

 

 

 

 

You certainly can subjectively rate art, or the best guitarists of all time, etc… But, there’s nothing objective about the ratings or art. 

Visual art is very subjective, if you asked non arty people what they prefer, a grand master or an average modern painting, you'd get a 50/50 split. On the other hand if you asked non music lovers to compare a classic original song to an average cover version, most would go for the original. So if there is concensus something is better, it is better. 

8 minutes ago, Rexp said:

Visual art is very subjective, if you asked non arty people what they prefer, a grand master or an average modern painting, you'd get a 50/50 split. On the other hand if you asked non music lovers to compare a classic original song to an average cover version, most would go for the original. So if there is concensus something is better, it is better. 

That would mean Britney Spears is better than say, Nina Simone...

14 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

 

That would mean Britney Spears is better than say, Nina Simone...

To some people, absolutely. 

2 hours ago, Jud said:

Well of course there *is* nothing objective about art. (Yes, the last chord of the Beatles’ “She Loves You” hadn’t been heard in popular music before, and there are other examples of their innovations. But lots of artists tried innovations over the years that weren’t accepted.)

 

Art is simply what inspires. It can be joy, like rock ‘n’ roll; it can be anger and tears, like Picasso’s “Guernica.” So the only measure of art is people’s subjective reactions. Looking for some objective, unemotional measure is not only fruitless, it’s wrongheaded because objective unemotional measures can’t tell us whether what we’re seeing, hearing or reading is art, let alone good art.

I agree with what you've written, but you've kind of straw-manned me twice.

First, if The Beatles had stopped at "She Loves You", I would not have used them as models of innovation.  I'm pretty sure that's obvious.

Second, I did not propose that we could measure art or emotional reactions.  But as others have noted above, I believe we can rank art, at least in broad strokes, from better to worse.

I also notice that you use the phrase "good art".  If some art is "good", I hope you'll agree that some other art is better, and some is best.

5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

To some people, absolutely. 

A little ironic from a person who makes his living in part by opining on the relative beauty of sound.

If someone told you at a cocktail party that Bose speakers are awesome, my guess is that you'd smile politely, but tell yourself that they do not understand what awesome really is, or even what hifi is in 2021.  If you liked them, maybe you'd invite them over for a listen.

I have a similar reaction when someone lauds Britney as a great singer

Just now, PeterG said:

A little ironic from a person who makes his living in part by opining on the relative beauty of sound.

 

If someone told you at a cocktail party that Bose speakers are awesome, my guess is that you'd smile politely, but tell yourself that they do not understand what awesome really is, or even what hifi is in 2021.  If you liked them, maybe you'd invite them over for a listen.

 

I have a similar reaction when someone lauds Britney as a great singer

 

 

Britney is a great entertainer. I've seen her live. That said, I don't get the irony. Because art is subjective, some people think Britney is great while others don't. Some thing Nina Simone is great while others don't. I like both entertainers. 

27 minutes ago, PeterG said:

I agree with what you've written, but you've kind of straw-manned me twice.

 

First, if The Beatles had stopped at "She Loves You", I would not have used them as models of innovation.  I'm pretty sure that's obvious.

 

Second, I did not propose that we could measure art or emotional reactions.  But as others have noted above, I believe we can rank art, at least in broad strokes, from better to worse.

 

I also notice that you use the phrase "good art".  If some art is "good", I hope you'll agree that some other art is better, and some is best.

I wrote after looking at something @The Computer Audiophile said, so it wasn’t intended as a response to any of your postings. It’s just what I think.

 I did use the phrase “good art,” but that was in a sentence saying we can’t objectively determine what either art or good art is. That’s just what I think, and if others think differently, well that’s the stuff of which conversations are made. 🙂

1 hour ago, AudioDoctor said:

 

That would mean Britney Spears is better than say, Nina Simone...

A Britney cover of a Nina original judged better by the majority? I dont think so. But I take your point. How about 'its better within its genre, if the majority prefer it'?

4 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Dylan, one of my favorites, and not only because he is from Minnesota :~)

 

I agree he did all of those things and many of us think his lyrics are fantastic. However, we haven't established objective criteria that makes his lyrics better than any other lyrics. Or at least I didn't see that in your post. I am a bit slow sometimes :~)

 

If we take some of your items like 1) they have spoken to millions, did it in a way nobody else did, etc... I see these as facts describing what he did, not objective criteria with which to judge art. 

 

Dang he is good :~)

It is those "facts describing what he did"--the ability to speak to millions...deeply...emotionally... intellectually...for an extended period of time--that make Dylan, The Beatles, Nina Simone, Picasso, Hemingway... great artists.  Britney Spears may speak to millions, but she does not speak deeply or intellectually.

These are objective criteria.  We may debate how each "scores" on each of them, but we do have a general consensus on who's at the top, middle and bottom of the rankings.  

2 hours ago, Rexp said:

A Britney cover of a Nina original judged better by the majority? I dont think so. But I take your point. How about 'its better within its genre, if the majority prefer it'?

A majority doesn't make a thing right or better... I can come up with more examples if you want? 

3 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Britney is a great entertainer. I've seen her live. That said, I don't get the irony. Because art is subjective, some people think Britney is great while others don't. Some thing Nina Simone is great while others don't. I like both entertainers. 

Thats not my point. More people liking Britney would make her "better" according to the majority criteria. My point was to make clear that's not a very good metric to use because this is subjective. I bet most here don't think Britney is better than Nina. I chose Britney on purpose.

5 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

 

Thats not my point. More people liking Britney would make her "better" according to the majority criteria. My point was to make clear that's not a very good metric to use because this is subjective. I bet most here don't think Britney is better than Nina. I chose Britney on purpose.

I totally got your point. Perhaps I didn’t articulate my own point. 
 

A majority or crowd size or number of people metric makes zero sense. I’m with you. 
 

If art is objective, then we can compare The Beatles music to Vincent Van Gogh’s paintings to Michelangelo’s sculptures. 

There's a very interesting radio show here in France called "La tribune des critiques de disques" (music reviewers forum):

https://www.francemusique.fr/emissions/la-tribune-des-critiques-de-disques

Each show has 3 music critics discussing several interpretations of the same work, and rating them. 

The discussions are fascinating, and the critics generally tend to agree.  Listening to a show can help you appreciate the qualities of the composer as well as the musicians/conductors (the latter playing a significant role in our appreciation of the former). 

Music appreciation is a process, and there is a lot we can learn from reading about music or listening to what "experts" have to say, even if we don't always agree with them. 

Just wanted to add that aside for those "intellectual" considerations, we should not forget that one metric for great music is the emotional response it generates. 

Here is a fine example with this performance of a Beatles medley for the Kennedy Center Honors to Paul McCartney. I love watching how people in the audience react in these settings. 

There's another good one where you can see Yo-Yo Ma shaking his head to Heart's performance of "Stairway to Heaven".

This is of course not limited to any "genre". You can cry while listening to Chopin or Bach or Led Zeppelin, or Lady Blackbird :)

"a representative from Tiffany said: “The beauty of art is that it can be interpreted in a number of ways. All important works provoke thought and create a dialogue. "

https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2021/sep/07/beyonce-and-jay-zs-tiffany-advert-criticised-by-friends-of-basquiat

Today's Guardian article about a controversy using Basquiat's art for a Tiffany ad with Jz&B.

Looks like when you are at the top of the food chain "street artist"s art may provide some authenticity, even Basquiat had some perspective for his different art forms, as he was doing not only visual arts, but music, DJing and such.

"Basquiat's art focused on recurrent "suggestive dichotomies", such as wealth versus poverty, integration versus segregation, and inner versus outer experience."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Michel_Basquiat

I'd interpret the setting as favoring it's recent value more then the artist, because the wider acknowledgement of Basquiat's expressive art form came especially after his death, and still today his ouevre does not speak to everyone. But it happens to be quite expensive right now.

And it's is shown together with one of the world's most famous diamonds and a pair of billionaires.

edit: clearified some phrasing

Fantastic! And yes, you’re right; I’m thanking you later. Downloading from Bandcamp now.