Easily My Album Of The Year

“Our opinions become fixed at the point where we stop thinking”  Renan

   It would seem that there is not a lot of thinking going on in this thread- just my humbled opinion😁

    In the post modern world that is a washed in relativity, “objective truth” is hard to come by.  You remove object truth from reality, then all you have is ones experience - his or her truth (opinion) there is no more effective way to shut down thoughtful, meaningful debate than to claim - “dude it’s my truth” you can’t argue against someone’s experience or taste! Thus we have elevated experience over objective truth, hence we have a lot of non thinking people - just a lot of opinions that can’t be challenged or fact checked.  
     There are objective standards that goes into writing, composing and delivering music. As there is in painting, producing movies and etc.

     The dictionary defines opinion: 

This Rothko sold for $86.9 million. Art is all subjective. Rothko is no better than any other artist. Many people like Rothko's work and are willing to pay for it, but that has nothing to do with being better or worse. 

22 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

This Rothko sold for $86.9 million. Art is all subjective. Rothko is no better than any other artist. Many people like Rothko's work and are willing to pay for it, but that has nothing to do with being better or worse. 

 

Will you admit that you posted that example exactly because you knew that many/most of us would find it preposterous? [not or questionable Art / not worth $87m]

... in which case we are leaning towards (but haven't arrived at) objectivity?

7 minutes ago, Iving said:

 

Will you admit that you posted that example exactly because you knew that many/most of us would find it preposterous? [not or questionable Art / not worth $87m]

 

... in which case we are leaning towards (but haven't arrived at) objectivity?

No, I posted it as illustrative of my point that art is 100% subjective. Some person(s) believe that piece if art is worth that much money. It could be an investment based on historical increases in the price of art, it could the person thinks Rothko is a great painter, it could be endless …

21 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

No, I posted it as illustrative of my point that art is 100% subjective. Some person(s) believe that piece if art is worth that much money. It could be an investment based on historical increases in the price of art, it could the person thinks Rothko is a great painter, it could be endless …

I do understand what you're driving at. And in the end you can't argue with the subjective (or with a sick mind as Joe Walsh would say - musical reference not a personal one!)

But objective can and probably does mean a common reference point for humans - not an idiosyncratic one.

I think you invited a common reference by posting that particular example.

And by doing it yourself - defending the subjective position - I thought it even more worth pointing out!

No?

5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

No, I posted it as illustrative of my point that art is 100% subjective. Some person(s) believe that piece if art is worth that much money. It could be an investment based on historical increases in the price of art, it could the person thinks Rothko is a great painter, it could be endless …

Appreciation of art can require some effort, especially when confronted with art forms we are not familiar with. If you were to sit down with a modern art specialist passionate about Rothko you may end up changing your mind. If art  can be explained then it is not entirely subjective. 

45 minutes ago, Iving said:

But objective can and probably does mean a common reference point for humans

Honestly, no offense intended, really...but this is a very Western/intellectual position.
 

I have no axe to grind with either group, or with the estate of Mr. Rothko, but would it be a reach to think it would be easy to find "humans" from various cultures and backgrounds that wouldn't think any particular piece of art (including music here since we're in this thread) was...artful, beautiful, exciting, etc.? 
 

Art and culture and intelligence and emotion are a real jumble to decipher.

1 hour ago, Iving said:

I do understand what you're driving at. And in the end you can't argue with the subjective (or with a sick mind as Joe Walsh would say - musical reference not a personal one!)

 

But objective can and probably does mean a common reference point for humans - not an idiosyncratic one.

 

I think you invited a common reference by posting that particular example.

 

And by doing it yourself - defending the subjective position - I thought it even more worth pointing out!

 

No?

13 minutes ago, MarkusBarkus said:

Honestly, no offense intended, really...but this is a very Western/intellectual position.
 

I have no axe to grind with either group, or with the estate of Mr. Rothko, but would it be a reach to think it would be easy to find "humans" from various cultures and backgrounds that wouldn't think any particular piece of art (including music here since we're in this thread) was...artful, beautiful, exciting, etc.? 
 

Art and culture and intelligence and emotion are a real jumble to decipher.

Perhaps you misread me. I answer since you quoted me.

1. When I say "objective can and probably does mean a common reference point for humans", I am stating something ordinary. Neither Eastern nor Western nor anything in between. The dictionary would do just as well. It would be different if I were cleaving to an objective (or subjective) position. I am not.

2. My post in response to the first Rothko post was to politely point to an anomaly. Well - a double one actually I think - as I made clear. I am not cleaving to an objective or subjective position.

It's just conversation.

@The Computer Audiophile is holding the fort on "Art is all subjective." If anything is a very strong (philosophical) position, that is!

We can see only the first page here, and unfortunately I don't have the full article. We can get the gist readily enough. What I find interesting is Best's position as stated:

Now we have a fascinating crossover of the present conversation and our hackneyed Subjective-Objective tension - in which Art-Subjectivism and [ASR-style] Scientism are on the same side of the road. Now there's a conundrum!

Best is saying (I take what I hope are inconsequential liberties):

a)   Scientific methods are the only route to objectivity = False

b)   Art subjective appreciation cannot be be proven scientifically = True

c)   It follows from b) that Art appreciation cannot be objective = False

and intends to depict Art-Subjectivism and Scientism [Science as religion] as linked distortions.

44 minutes ago, MarkusBarkus said:

Honestly, no offense intended, really...but this is a very Western/intellectual position.
 

I have no axe to grind with either group, or with the estate of Mr. Rothko, but would it be a reach to think it would be easy to find "humans" from various cultures and backgrounds that wouldn't think any particular piece of art (including music here since we're in this thread) was...artful, beautiful, exciting, etc.? 
 

Art and culture and intelligence and emotion are a real jumble to decipher.

 

 

No offense here either, but this is wrong in a Western-centric sort of way.

One of my caveats in one of the first posts on this theme was that a person had to have an understanding and appreciation of modern music--anyone who had this understanding would concede The Beatles were among the very best.  So I agree that a person from another culture might not find Western art great. 

But it is not the case that non-Westerners cannot differentiate or rank art--they would have their own culture, art, and history behind them.  They would be able to differentiate and rank their own culture's art. 

1 hour ago, bbosler said:

if nobody is any better or worse then all art is equal, all music is equal, everything is equal

 

you may not be able to quantify it, but saying everything equal is just a cop out

I'll say it, all art is equal in an of itself. Some people like some art more than other art. 

If we can truly judge art and art is objective, then someone should have a handy list of data points / specifications / etc... that need to be met by all artists partaking in whatever art is being judged. 

3 minutes ago, PeterG said:

The Beatles were among the very best.

Hi Peter, this is a good place to dig in. If The Beatles were among the best, what were they best at and what are the judging criteria?

Serious. It's an interesting thing to look at. 

 Would it be fair to say that all forms of art is rooted in “objective truth of reality? In other words, all of creation, in its beauty, order, function serves a purpose- and a big part of that purpose is for humans to recreate, by way of our senses. We do not create out of nothing- hence all of art is a reflection that is rooted in objected truth about our selves and the world we live in. 
   That’s the amazing thing about art, we enjoy it for the art in itself, because we all have a common reference point in the world in which we have our being. 

3 minutes ago, shum3s said:

we all have a common reference point in the world in which we have our being

Sadly, human beings have much more in common than they care to admit.

Yes I agree! This debate we are having should not be about one or the other, subjective versus objective. When both have equal value. They do not need to be opposing; the artist reflect objective truth from the world he lives in through his or her Unique artistic expression. I the beholder form a opinion, reflection or experience a emotional response to what I am seeing or hearing. 
 Sam 

26 minutes ago, PeterG said:

But it is not the case that non-Westerners cannot differentiate or rank art--they would have their own culture, art, and history behind them.  They would be able to differentiate and rank their own culture's art. 

...yeah, I was writing about the cross-cultural aspects, NOT that other cultures lack ability to determine beauty in a way that makes sense/is codified to them.  

Loading up your neck with rings, poking holes in yourself...list goes on...is beautiful to some.

Putting a crucifix in a tank of piss is high-art to some. I saw a person nailed to a car. Art? Sure, if you have an open mind.
 

But not my cup of fur.

I ran a race in the 70s and the prize was Born to Run. I was crushed. I put it in my mom's oven on a cookie sheet and melted it. And I never really liked the Beatles either, since I'm sharing.
 

Fire at will...

10 minutes ago, MarkusBarkus said:

I ran a race in the 70s and the prize was Born to Run. I was crushed. I put it in my mom's oven on a cookie sheet and melted it. And I never really liked the Beatles either, since I'm sharing.

Let's say we agree on the cross cultural post.  I would have liked your whole post, but I think Born to Run may be the greatest pure rock record of all time.  It captures the angst and hope, the despair and the dream,  in every one of us

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Hi Peter, this is a good place to dig in. If The Beatles were among the best, what were they best at and what are the judging criteria?

 

Serious. It's an interesting thing to look at. 

OK, I agree.  But they did so much so well, and it may be too complex for me to articulate.  How about I start with an easier, because it's much narrower, example--Bob Dylan's lyrics.

They have spoken to millions about deep important themes, central to us in a wide variety of ways.  They did this in a way that nobody else did before, or has been able to reproduce since.  They resonate both emotionally and intellectually.  It's especially cool that so many are ambiguous and open to interpretation.  Among the people they have inspired are a seemingly endless stream of artists and other experts. 

(Ok, as I write this, maybe I'll apply the previous paragraph as my answer to The Beatles)

A few examples just off the top of my head--you could dive into these and not ponder for hours:

Like a Rolling Stone

Highway 61

Desolation Row

A Hard Rain's A Gonna Fall

Blowin in the Wind

Blood on the Tracks (all of it)

Visions of Johanna

Hurricane

Looking forward to your and others' thoughts

6 minutes ago, PeterG said:

 

OK, I agree.  But they did so much so well, and it may be too complex for me to articulate.  How about I start with an easier, because it's much narrower, example--Bob Dylan's lyrics.

 

They have spoken to millions about deep important themes, central to us in a wide variety of ways.  They did this in a way that nobody else did before, or has been able to reproduce since.  They resonate both emotionally and intellectually.  It's especially cool that so many are ambiguous and open to interpretation.  Among the people they have inspired are a seemingly endless stream of artists and other experts. 

 

(Ok, as I write this, maybe I'll apply the previous paragraph as my answer to The Beatles)

 

A few examples just off the top of my head--you could dive into these and not ponder for hours:

 

Like a Rolling Stone

Highway 61

Desolation Row

A Hard Rain's A Gonna Fall

Blowin in the Wind

Blood on the Tracks (all of it)

Visions of Johanna

Hurricane

 

Looking forward to your and others' thoughts

 

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 :~)

21 minutes ago, PeterG said:

  It captures the angst and hope, the despair and the dream,  in every one of us

   I really like the way you articulated “objective truth” in your conclusion. Hope, despair and dreams are not subjective. We as humans have at one time or another have experience these, and have knowledge what theses three attributes mean. Now I may not like the voice or the genre and perhaps the quality of the recording; this is purely subjective on my part. 
    I could be misguided in working out my thinking on this topic, I sure appreciate all the perspective being share on this forum! 
  Thank you!   Sam
 

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Hi Peter, this is a good place to dig in. If The Beatles were among the best, what were they best at and what are the judging criteria?

 

Serious. It's an interesting thing to look at. 

FWIW, I'd suggest the perspective of history as a criterion - whether the art work is not only popular when created, but is still valued by future generations.  That criterion is the test of time - a series of generational audiences who hadn't been born when the movie, song, book, painting, performance, etc. was created, opining on its merit to them with their attention, their time and their money.  

I think, for example, artists such as Praxiteles, Leonardo da Vinci, Shakespeare, Bach, Chaplin, Beatles, Picasso, Duke Ellington, and Billie Holiday do meet that criterion, and that if there are humans around in 500 years, they will still be familiar with and still appreciating their art.

33 minutes ago, shum3s said:

I sure appreciate all the perspective being share on this forum! 

As do I!

15 minutes ago, Mayfair said:

 

FWIW, I'd suggest the perspective of history as a criterion - whether the art work is not only popular when created, but is still valued by future generations.  That criterion is the test of time - a series of generational audiences who hadn't been born when the movie, song, book, painting, performance, etc. was created opining on its merit to them with their attention, their time and their money.  

 

I think for example, artists such as Praxiteles, Leonardo da Vinci, Shakespeare, Bach, Chaplin, Beatles, Picasso, Duke Elllington, and Billie Holiday do meet that criterion, and that if there are humans around in 500 years, they will still be familiar with and still appreciating their art.

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.