Is art subjective?

[LivingNumbers6.626]

...or rather, is the enjoyment of art subjective?

Ever heard the argument "rap and hip hop is superior to all types of music!" or..."clearly The Catcher in the Rye is not a good piece of literature" or "thisd is not art! this is just a square!"

Are there quantifiable, rational means as to how to prove that one piece of art is better than the other?

Or is it all subjective?

Is that not the power of art? To emphasize subjective beauty?

Should we inflict the same level of objectivity to art as we do to science?

[Mudhammam]

Beauty is ascribed to that which brings ascetic pleasure, and the source of pleasure is reducible to chemical reactions derived by a person's physiology, which is wed with their surrounding environment; hence, it will vary with everyone. Beauty really is in the eye of the beholder.

[Tobie]

Art is definitely subjective. One man's art is another man's toilet paper.

[Zidneya]

Just as the beauty is in the eye of the holder so does degradation.

[Dystopia]

This is a subject that brings me lots of interest, but I haven't researched enough to make a definitive conclusion.

I remember in highschool (philosophy class) discussing this, the whole stuff about the horrid and ugly being art too.

In my opinion, most art (and beauty too for that matter) is subjective, however I think we could consider a small part to be objective, or we would be pressured to reach absurd conclusions. I'll give an easy example, what If I consider Bieber to be the best musician and artist worldwide? I could do it, but most would disagree with me.

I'll use the same criteria that I use for objective morality, there is art that 99% of people will consider valuable (even if they are not fans of the artist), just like moral values, and beauty. I could say Irina Shayk is ugly, but how accurate would that be? If beauty can be subjective too, then how come 'ugly' people never date gorgeous ones?

[bennyboy]

You can clearly have objective measures of art-- but the definition of art is then arbitrary. For example, "Art is that which causes the strongest sense of longing" could be followed by the laboratory identification of brain regions/patterns which viewers associate with the feeling they call "longing," and then people could be made to look at a lot of things to determine which artifacts most strongly activate those brain regions and patterns.

But then some guy will come along and say, "This thing here doesn't invoke any particularly longing, but it clearly deserves to be called art," and fucks things up by bringing mind back into the scientific study of mind. The next day will be even worse: the brain researchers will fight back by writing a wikipedia article "proving" beauty is a triggering of X-function in the Y-lobe of the brain. Then when I point out how beautiful a sunset is, every prick in every forum in the world will call me a n00b, and link this definitive proof that beauty has nothing to do with beauty.


Let me try my own definition of beauty: "That which elicits emotions for which no combination of words is a sufficient description-- or which makes me horny."

[Baqal]

I'll use the same criteria that I use for objective morality, there is art that 99% of people will consider valuable (even if they are not fans of the artist), just like moral values, and beauty. I could say Irina Shayk is ugly, but how accurate would that be? If beauty can be subjective too, then how come 'ugly' people never date gorgeous ones?

Let me rephrase that for you.
"If beauty can be subjective too, then how come I have never seen 'ugly' people date gorgeous ones?"
You're welcome.

[downbeatplumb]

Let me rephrase that for you.
"If beauty can be subjective too, then how come I have never seen 'ugly' people date gorgeous ones?"
You're welcome.

Many gorgeous girls have gone out with ugly men, I think it's something to do with low self esteem.

And occasionally, money.

[bennyboy]

I'll give an easy example, what If I consider Bieber to be the best musician and artist worldwide? I could do it, but most would disagree with me.

I wish that were true. But if you run a poll to determine how many people think Mozart is the greatest musician in history vs. Bieber, wanna guess who will win?

---

I'll use the same criteria that I use for objective morality, there is art that 99% of people will consider valuable (even if they are not fans of the artist), just like moral values, and beauty. I could say Irina Shayk is ugly, but how accurate would that be? If beauty can be subjective too, then how come 'ugly' people never date gorgeous ones?

Let me rephrase that for you.
"If beauty can be subjective too, then how come I have never seen 'ugly' people date gorgeous ones?"
You're welcome.

You've never seen me standing with my wife.

[Michael]

Fascinating question in the OP.

I'm just going to enjoy reading this one.