Well, now I am mostly interested in the point of view of the artist.
And from that point of view there are a multitude of objective, measurable criteria: cost and profit being relevant in some cases, effort, material, exposure in others. But one important objective criterium would be: is this piece in any way a development from the ones before? I once saw a deeply fascinating video piece by Rosemarie Trockel which was basically a visual discussion of a 15th century painting in the Accademia of Venice. One could easily enjoy the modern piece without knowing it's forebearer, because it was fascinating in itself, but understanding the connection added several other layers of perception. Which for me leads to another objective criterium: complexity of visual and other content.
The artworks which are ranked highest throughout history are more complex than the cheap posters you can buy at Ikea. And yes, this certainly includes 4'33".

However, great complexity is not enough. Ingenuity is not enough. Symmetry between a whole and its parts are not enough. But these objective elements are always somehow adressed in good art.
Craft isn't always relevant, beauty isn't always relevant, but in both cases, you can explain why it is or isn't; etc. etc.
The thing is, this is as complex as the biology of the brain, but with neuro-biology we do not expect everyone to be able to discuss the finer points. With art, most people are offended if they can't.

I read somewhere that for most western children, the ability to see stops developing at 7, when the ability to read takes over (that these two skills have different areas in the brain is in itself interesting). That we cannot see or comprehend something does not mean it is not there. I cannot for my life understand quantum mechanics, but that doesn't make me claim it is not a valid theory.

I think it is wonderful that people can appreciate art without understanding it, and I think it's great that some people appreciate bad art so the bad artists can make a living. But it's self-evident that there is a method for discussing quality in art, and that this method has both objective and subjective elements to it, as does art itself.

quote:

Originally posted by Psychophant:
Only a few people have people made art deliberately, till recent times. Most of the time they just made something useful that they could enjoy making, and probably look back fondly. Art and artistic labels were applied after the fact, by those that found themselves sufficiently moved.

I don't know when people have not made art? I am aware they did not call it art, but certainly the cave paintings were art, and till the mid 15th century (or later in some cultures), art was extremely regulated by complex rules, which could be objectively measured by those in charge. "No blue cape on the virgin Mary? Can you get back to the studio already!" - or "this is a seal-hunting spear, it needs seals on it, not bears, you idiot!" It's the loss of these rules that has confused the lay-people, and some artists. The confused concept of the free artist has everyone going in little circles instead of looking.

Maybe it is because I come from a hard science background (the kind that strives to measure single atom spins at a few millikelvins over absolute zero), but what you call objective is not what I call objective.

I get a similar reaction with many of the "soft sciences", where people are doing statistics, but they seldom are doing Science (capitalized).

Complexity, for instance, is a good one, because for instance in a novel you have three layers of complexity. The one applied by the author, the one generated by the language used (which may well differ from the current or geographycal one) and the one implicit in the culture that hosts it, that will be more or less invisible to anyone outside that culture.

Even if a word structure analysis could be made (and it will be challenged by any other literary critic, so its objectivity is disputed) for a particular language to check author complexity, and you manage to take away the language contribution you would still have an unknown cultural correction factor. Even if you determine one, you would get a number that would not tell you much about the work, as I disagree that complexity is so important. In some media yes, but in some media the raw direct sensorial assault grabs you by the throat.

To get a perspective of the debate, do you consider any of these two photographs a piece of Art?





Maybe I should make a poll. If you say both, we are in the same ballpark. If you say the second, I see where you are, I still disagree on objectivity, but we have a serious semiotic obstacle to keep discussing art.
If you say the first or none, then your culture is alien to mine, so I am not sure we are really communicating.

As for the Art in the past, it was a response to Limbojim, who if I have understood his point correctly, wrote that Art requires intent on the part of the artist. As I consider Art as the subjective part that surrounds our reason while it blindly gropes for objectivity, of course there has been art since the beginning of self-consciousness.

quote:

Originally posted by Boogerhead:
it's a series of animations. From a game, I believe.

My fave:

Amazingly, I have some vague recollection of this! Must've seen my kids dinking with it.

My goal is to go to my grave having never played any video games (except some early arcade versions that my best friend of the time begged me to play and, of course, the inimitable Pajama Sam) or owning a cellphone.

Someone must remember the Old Ways.

quote:

Maybe you should reread the definition of subjective, as I do not see anything objective when you talk about art.

Well, most art is in the form of some kind of object.

Everyone can look at the cypress trees in Starry Night and agree they're primarily green and black.

One's subjective impressions of art are certainly subjective, yes.

Interesting that what we're arguing here, in this specific matter of subjective/objective, is the noumena of what we think and feel art to be.

Noumena is linguistically related to numinous.

Note that the shit in the can of artist's shit is noumenal. We believe it's in there. SUbjective. Why? Because a word, shit, whose semantic value is objectively agreed upon by a billion or so people, is printed on the can in a designating way.

Art is a word with an enormously wide range of meanings, most of them disagreed upon in a manner that nonetheless allows most people to roughly distinguish art from nonart.

It's like pornography:

you know it when you see it, and you know what you like.

Both - absolutely.

And seeing the pictures reminds me of two different aspects that may be confusing:

#1: In art, there is not the same culture of documentation as in hard science. So here, we are looking at two images, with no knowledge of what considerations went into these; indeed, some art-historians and artists refuse to discuss the process. This runs directly counter to the discipline and spirit of science.
It serves to make art seem hermetic and 'magical', and for some, this magic is essential to their experience of art. So they are shocked! oh but shocked when told that the first image was staged*, with the soldier dying and dying again several times before the right composition was in the box.
In real life, however, artworks are the results of processes of trial and error, as well as analysis and theorizing.
Obviously, the artist internalizes more or less of the knowledge, and doesn't need to revisit theory with every new experiment. As do scientists. I'm sure you can see directly wether a study is working well or not - but you are forced by the scientific tradition to document your intuition, the artist isn't.

#2 Complexity is much more than you imply. Since I feel more comfortable in the visual arts, I will continue discussing the first image:
This picture has an immediate layer, a surface. It is a digital reproduction of a b/w photography. The information in this layer is already very dense and open to question.
There is a layer of representation: a man is falling onto a slope, with a rifle in his outstretched hand. In the background is a hilly landscape. There are strange aspects to this: the man's hair bouncing, the strong light which is not consistent with the cloudy sky in the background (but not impossible either), the blackness of the rifle in this strong light.
There is a layer of composition: the angle of the camera, the framing of the image, and the dynamic achieved with the asymmetric relation between the bright falling figure and the grey static ground.
To this we can add several layers of interpretation through context: the knowledge that this is from the Spanish Civil War, the knowledge that it is a construction, the knowledge that Capa was influenced by contemporary art etc.
And for this particular image there is also the surprisingly multifaceted reference to this image:
Note both the slope, the outstretched arms, the dark background and bright-lit figure, the white shirt, the bent legs.
Now you may complain that Capa was certainly not consciously referencing Goya. No. But that may have a lot more to do with the above-mentioned differences of culture or discipline between art and science, rather than a difference of method.

Anyway, each of these layers may be discussed seperately, but they are only relevant when they are combined in the whole, which is the artwork.
And through his series of takes, Capa is consciously looking for the right one, the image that is densely layered enough to be truly significant.

* I know this is a debated issue. I am on the side of those who believe it is staged, and for me it makes no difference for the quality of the image, either way, there are both decisions made in the field and in the dark-room, and both require a strong artistic knowledge, vision and sensibility.

quote:

Originally posted by Psychophant:As for the Art in the past, it was a response to Limbojim, who if I have understood his point correctly, wrote that Art requires intent on the part of the artist. As I consider Art as the subjective part that surrounds our reason while it blindly gropes for objectivity, of course there has been art since the beginning of self-consciousness.

I don't quite see how you can reconcile your Hard Science bg and tendencies with any sort of objective definition of art. How do you quantify that? How would you define beauty? I don't see how either can stand up to a rigorous, scientific definition. Unless you want to project them along a quantum spectrum of probability in whcih the two above photos have high percentage tendencies to be art.

Remember Broadcast News? Early 80s flick on tv journalism?

The purist woman journalist so attempts to not bias her journalism she renders it sterile. The dude journalist recreates a moment in a piece of video-journalism where he was move to almost tears, this time producing the tears on purpose.

And so, we were asked: Yes, but is it journalism?

I want one of those cans of artist shit. I wanna open one up and and loudly ask: Yes, it's art, but is it shit!????!

Moreover, pure objectivity, in any hard science, would seem to be an improbability as we use a reference group of one-humanity.

Humanity, with are limited five senses and temporally static postion.

Now, while it is not impossible that what we see is what is actually there, we'd need to have an outside reference by which to judge this. Science attempts to impose said structure over what we observe but since we have determined the laws and gadgets by which we measure said perceptions it becomes circumspect. A bit like studies in cognition in which we are using the tool (the brain) to study the self-same subject. like measuriong your ruler with the same ruler....

quote:

Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:
Remember Broadcast News? Early 80s flick on tv journalism?

The purist woman journalist so attempts to not bias her journalism she renders it sterile. The dude journalist recreates a moment in a piece of video-journalism where he was move to almost tears, this time producing the tears on purpose.

And so, we were asked: Yes, but is it journalism?

I want one of those cans of artist shit. I wanna open one up and and loudly ask: Yes, it's art, but is it shit!????!

If it looks like shit and it smells like shit it's probably a duck.

I belong to the "instant" rather than posed, if only because I accept more the argument of the clenched fist as a sign the militiaman (whose name is known and died in that same battle) was already dead (forensics point of view) over the artistic influence and political message.

And I like serendipity.

But I still do not see any objective criterion (as witnessed when philosophers tried to introduce the concept of Ideal Observer, therefore, objective, into Ethics...) in use. I see a systematic, and even repeatable, methodology. But what would tell us a Martian Ideal Observer?

Uberdog, my point is you cannot be objective. In penance you should reread the three last pages, if only for putting me in the wrong camp.

I think he was already dead, and they pushed him down over and over and over until he got it right.

Now THAT'S art.

quote:

A bit like studies in cognition in which we are using the tool (the brain) to study the self-same subject. like measuriong your ruler with the same ruler....

THat is thescientific object all sublime: perfect correspondence.

quote:

Uberdog, my point is you cannot be objective.

A wee gedanken with sensual opportunities. When one touches oneself, what is the difference between that and when someone else touches you.

quote:

Originally posted by Psychophant:
I belong to the "instant" rather than posed, if only because I accept more the argument of the clenched fist as a sign the militiaman (whose name is known and died in that same battle) was already dead (forensics point of view) over the artistic influence and political message.

And I like serendipity.

But I still do not see any objective criterion (as witnessed when philosophers tried to introduce the concept of Ideal Observer, therefore, objective, into Ethics...) in use. I see a systematic, and even repeatable, methodology. But what would tell us a Martian Ideal Observer?

Uberdog, my point is you cannot be objective. In penance you should reread the three last pages, if only for putting me in the wrong camp.

I don't believe in penance. I read your post before last which seemed to suggest that one could be objective. i didn't know there were three more pages accrued since I went to sleep last night.

So, we agree, objectivity is a Holy Grail as yet unattained?

quote:

Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:

quote:

Uberdog, my point is you cannot be objective.

A wee gedanken with sensual opportunities. When one touches oneself, what is the difference between that and when someone else touches you.

You let me know when you get someone else to tocuh you.

(rimshot!)

quote:

Originally posted by Psychophant:
I meant this Venezuela mention. Good to have helped you find about Standard Oil...

So, besides disliking my jargon (subjective and objective appear in my literature, art and philosophy readings, and I prefer to use a precise wording, maybe because this is not my native language), and my attitude, I see no real arguments. A few personal opinions about psychiatry which I still do not see what had to do with anything, but not much about art.

quote:

Subjective
adj: taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias; "a subjective judgment" [ant: objective](philosophy) of a mental act; occurring entirely within the mind [syn: immanent] [ant: transeunt]

Objective
adj: undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena; "an objective appraisal"; "objective evidence" [syn: nonsubjective] [ant: subjective]

If art is not subjective, there should be something measurable or observable by all observers, no matter what their culture or education, to differentiate art from not art, or to say one has "more" art than something else.

I do not see anything like that, but maybe you can show me the error of my ways.

Now, if you can tell me where did I not look enough, that would make it a complete lesson.

As for what I do for a living, it is all here in the board...

Yes, you made it clear above. i did not see that prior to now ( abillioneth of a second before now {a billioneth of a second before that}[and so on])...

Ah, Psychophant, I'm finding that I'm not as pissed at you as I was. But first let me address these points...

I wrote two short paragraphs on psychiatry because you used the terms of that science and then offered a diagnosis. (a diagnosis which was by the way a little bit insulting)

You suggest that your methodology is superior to mine, and that there is something wrong with my approach.

Then you give a "shrink's" interpretation of a "primitive" mind it's view of an AK47.

So... "if it walks like a duck..."
(this is not by the way to say that you literally, objectively walk like a duck)

It would seem that most of this bruhaha is centered around the use of the terms "subjective/objective".

Now then, I would never dismiss centuries of artistic output because I didn't think it was "objective" enough. Whatever gave you that idea?

If a painter in the fifteenth century had to satisfy church officials with certain specific, religious or interpretive details, in order to sell a painting, then that act of religious detail was objectively his intent. That's what the painting is about. The artist is the expert, the creator and the facilitator of whatever meaning the painting holds.

And if that same artist, longing in his/her heart of hearts for some semblance of religious or philosophic freedom, decides to put mystical, or should I say more mystical symbols into the painting, perhaps alchemical symbols or painterly interpretations of literary symbols, in order to "put one over" on the Church, (a subversive and dangerous act) then that too is what the painting is about. And this is just on the objective side of the equation.

This one painting is already quite a complicated creation.

Then along comes the "subjectivists", and they start their brand of interpreting, branding and labeling. These are the historians, the critics and commentators who all feel the need to throw their two cents in.

This is what I try to hold at arms length. This is where the rub is in my estimation. There's an old saying: "people who can, do. people who cannot, teach." And that I think is a big part of the problem.

We might agree I think that most people in the world wouldn't know art if it came up and bit them. But some of us know it, and even understand it. (or parts of it)
To me it just seems obvious that a work of art is about whatever the artist says it's about. The rest is only a lot of talking.

quote:

"people who can, do. people who cannot, teach."

I always find this incredibly insulting to teachers.