Is art/music/fiction subjective?
Subjective
Side Score: 15
|
 |
Objective
Side Score: 8
|
|
|
|
|
Have you ever had to endure listening to music a friend wants to share while you would not listen to it if paid to do so? Music appreciation is very subjective because it reaches our emotional experience. Of course, there are people who make their living from applying objective rules to musical analysis -- the critics -- but this is a different topic. To counter the critics, people will make up their own minds. Personally, the sound of an electric guitar is noise regardless of what anyone tells me. Side: Subjective
0
points
It is true that some art is more complicated or more finessed than other art, but it's still subjective to conclude therefore it is the better art. A Renaissance painting may be complex and absolutely wonderful while a "Hope" painting of Obama is far less so, yet there are times and places when people are more moved and more interested in the less complicated art. You can't say the Renaissance painting is better if more people are talking about and looking at and discussing the significance of the less complicated art. Side: Subjective
1
point
Then if someone is more moved by feces smeared on the walls then by the mona lisa does that mean it's valid? No, because if you can't appreciate fine art but you can appreciate random garbage and feces you are objectively mentally ill. Anyone who is "moved" by a painting of Obama is just as sick as someone who is moved by feces. Side: Objective
|
1
point
Some artists, musicians, authors etc. are just better than others. A monkey banging on pots and pans is worse at music than your favorite pop star and your favorite pop star is worse at music than Bach. The way this can be quantified is by the simple fact that some things take more intelligence or creativity to create and convey a more intelligent message. "Baby baby baby oh" is less creative and intelligent than "I tune in with an open ear/ like a stethoscope and hear/ a million conversations being spoken clear/" and Game of Thrones is a better show than Dorah the explorer. Side: Objective
1
point
1
point
Appropriately, not to a 7 year old. Which makes it subjective It makes it the complete opposite. If specific content is marketed towards, and enjoyed by, a specific age group, then it must therefore have an objective aspect. If it were subjective it would be impossible to find the commonality required to appeal to a specific age group. Side: Objective
Look at the way art has changed over the centuries for example impressionist art which when first shown to the French public it caused outrage , paintings had to be hung high on walls to stop them being destroyed ,nowadays to mock an impressionist artist one is solely in the minority . The much loved paintings of Van Gogh I dislike I find them clumsy badly painted daubs , yet his later pencil drawings are superb ; to say Van Gogh was a bad painter and the mob descend on one to defend the " genius " , yet most artists during his time thought him so as well . Societal tastes change over generations and what was once deemed crude and crass can be elevated to high art in a generation I think this is mostly done by being constantly told what's " hot " or trendy with the " in crowd " . I often wonder how much our tastes are influenced by what others like and what society deems popular Side: Subjective
|
