Is art objective?
 

So this is the question, fellow forumites: is there an objective standard by which we can judge the quality of an artwork, or is it all personal opinion?

I was discussing this with a friend recently, and the conversation got... well, quite heated. I believe that we can judge art objectively, particularly in the area of film. For example, The Seventh Seal or Rashomon is better than something like Gigli. That is fact. My friend believed that if you were of the opinion that Gigli is better, then that is true as far as you are concerned. I vehemently disagree with this viewpoint, and moreover, I find it destructive. You'll never be Ingmar Bergman. So why try to create elevated works? Why not just crank out lowest common denominator pabulum? After all, as long as someone, somewhere likes whatever cinematic atrocity you've excreted, it must be good, right?

So let me hear your thoughts. Am I an elitist snob, as my friend claimed, or is my argument valid?

I think that what your freind stated is exactly true..
in short..he is saying exactly what you just said but in other words..
to each his/her own opinion..I think you were just looking for a debate ..
we all view art differently no matter in what form.That is fact.{ My friend believed that if you were of the opinion that Gigli is better, then that is true as far as you are concerned. I vehemently disagree with this viewpoint, and moreover, I find it destructive}
how do you find this destructive as to what you had replied ..(as long as someone, somewhere likes whatever cinematic atrocity you've excreted, it must be good, right?)

Not everyone is going to agree with everybody elses point of views but its thier choice..and thier own opinion..
to cause a stir over nothing at all is kinda stupid really. 'shrug'

It's all opinion. If I think Bazooka Joe comics are better than the Mona Lisa then it is... to me. I hate a lot of artwork, movies, music, poetry etc... that is considered to be "great". I also like a lot of it. My fiance doesn't like foreign films and she didn't hate Roshomon but she didn't care for it either. Is she wrong? Nope, she has a right to dislike it as much as I have a right to love it. It's all opinion and you can't argue that. You can't say that a piece of art is great so everybody has to consider it to be so.

technically it is all in opinion, but i think that the ones that have more detail are far better then others with less. like i thought starry night and The Scream sucked. fuck, i could'a made those!

I think you have a good argument.
There is a standard for art.
But there is also a personal preference which supersedes the standard.
So,you're both kinda right.

Art is the physical manifestation of creativity,untainted by politics,religion or any social viewpoint.

The Mona Lisa is art.
A jar of your own piss with a crucifix stuck in it and calling it Piss Christ is not.
Some might say the Cistine Chapel or the Pieta is religious in nature,but it's not-it neither promotes nor denies a religious viewpoint.It is the artist's interpretation of a story from a book.

And what does pabulum mean?

I disagree with the "jar statement" Art is created the second the "creator", expresses him/herself via anything "sensational"(visual,audio,taste,feel,etc etc) If im upset with christianity and society, and i feel that putting a cross in a jar with piss sums up a part of how i feel. Well then, ITS ART.

Art is the physical manifestation of creativity,untainted by politics,religion or any social viewpoint.

You said it. :)

I have to disagree with your disagreeing,but then again,I don't consider Andy Warhol an artist for the same reason.:cool:
Some people become an "artist" for the money and fame.
A real artist has no choice.

It's all relative though,whatever floats your boat.

Something bland, easy to digest. Also: the typical state of modern art and cinema.

First of all, I'd like to say that I certainly didn't mean to suggest that something is great just because I say so. That would be terribly arrogant. What I was really trying to get at is that there are certain ideas of such grandeur and beauty that they override personal preference. I don't care for Cubism or Bauhaus architecture, but I can recognize the masterpieces of those artforms.

Second, I wasn't trying to get anything started. I apologize if it seemed that way, as it certainly wasn't my intention. I was really just trying to get a discussion going.

It depresses me to no end to think that there is no true beauty in this world, that everything is just in the eye of the beholder. I have to believe that there are such things. It may be a pitiful delusion to cling to, but that's the way I feel. Thanks for your replies, everyone.

Every man feels instinctively that all the beautiful sentiments in the world weigh less than a single lovely action.
-James Russell Lowell,Rousseau and the Sentimentalists

Art is both objective and solely judged on opinion. Some people hate art based solely on its subject which would mean it is based on opinion but others hate art based on its style, form and medium choices which would mean it is objective. I personally agree with both at different times.

Oh but art is a reaction to religion, politics, and ALL social view points. They're what fires the brain into reacting or possibly rebelling.

Can you compare Monet with Romero? You'd have to be looking at both from weird angles, but that's what so great about art. There's a broad spectrum, prismatic almost, to which you can compare artistic works.

What can hold the prestigious title of "Art?" In my book it sure as hell won't be a movie like "Chopping Mall" however, someone into 80's B horror films can draw various conclusions that enables them to see that piece of shit film as a masterpiece. (Be very afraid of that person).

Like I was saying before,
Art neither promotes or denies-it just is

If used as such-it's propaganda,it's the human equivalence of-my god is better than your god-my political side is the only side-what I do socially is the Only way,and Dick and Jane down the street are wrong and wierd...

See what I'm saying?

And ,to clear up any confusion-I am debating.
I am not angry,and I am not saying anyone is wrong.
@nock....this was a great thread-you didn't "start" anything sweetie.

This is an easy question to answer for me. A painting, sculpture, photograghs etc can be called art and whether you like it or not is up to the individual. Alot of this bullshit we see today is most definately NOT art and no matter how many pretty words are used to polish it up it never will be. Some lazy bastard who cant be arsed to make the bed decides to show it in a museum and, before you know it, a gaggle of chinless wonders are having multiple orgasms over it like its a modern day Van Gogh. It's all bollocks and has no relevance to modern society, politics, religion or whatever. I can appreciate a nice picture but thats about as complicated as it gets.

I get you, Nova... it's sorta the old saying that art reflects life. Have you ever tried art that reflets another life? That's what fiction is all about. You construct your characters from the feet up. You get to tell their story, describe their features... The subtlety is that of a painter at her easle. Each brush stroke is another characteristic. I love the art of writing. (I personally believe that poetry is the more refined writing form of art.

This IS a great thread. There shouldn't be any arguments, just us sharing thoughts and opinions.

To Nova and Haunted: I'm glad you guys enjoy the thread. And I'm very glad it hasn't led to any arguments. I thought it was an important subject, so it's good to see so many thoughtful replies.

Let's hear some more, people. Inquiring minds want to know.

"Art. Great thing till the idealogy consumes it. True passion put to hard copy will always have it critics venomisly destroying its crediblity and merit as art"

- Trash Fume Issue #1

That's also the case with politics.

People are fuck ups, but if we weren't here, who would we talk to?