Has art jumped the shark after WWI?

[abaris]

It comes down to how well does the final product demonstrate the understanding of the medium that the artist had.

The more fudamental view would be, how well did the artist manage to reach an audience. In short, I don't give critics much credit. Sometimes their judgment is in accordance with mine, but sometimes it isn't. Which only proves that art is a totally subjective experience. It speaks to you or it doesn't.

But that doesn't mean I'm unable to appreciate things I personally dislike. For example, Arnold Schoenberg doesn't reach me, but I appreciate that he introduced something entirely new to music.

[Faith No More]

The more fudamental view would be, how well did the artist manage to reach an audience. In short, I don't give critics much credit. Sometimes their judgment is in accordance with mine, but sometimes it isn't. Which only proves that art is a totally subjective experience. It speaks to you or it doesn't.

But that doesn't mean I'm unable to appreciate things I personally dislike. For example, Arnold Schoenberg doesn't reach me, but I appreciate that he introduced something entirely new to music.

Art isn't just about reaching an audience, though. It's about craftsmanship and the ability the create something unique and creative. If we judged art simply on how well it reached an audience, Justin Beiber would be considered up there with Leonardo Da Vinci.

[abaris]

Art isn't just about reaching an audience, though. It's about craftsmanship and the ability the create something unique and creative. If we judged art simply on how well it reached an audience, Justin Beiber would be considered up there with Leonardo Da Vinci.

Yet there is no objective standard. There isn't a checklist to say this or that artist is better than another one. To illustrate this, here's the story of painter Pierre Brassau.

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/...tist-hoax/

[Faith No More]

Yet there is no objective standard. There isn't a checklist to say this or that artist is better than another one. To illustrate this, here's the story of painter Pierre Brassau.

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/...tist-hoax/

Well, there can never be an objective standard. I agree that much of what is defined as art is largely subjective. What I'm saying, however, is that one person's subjectivity can have a more solid justification, which comes from an understanding of the artistic medium.

[thesummerqueen]

This is kinda like the argument I had with Nap - there is no objective standard for video games.

[Faith No More]

This is kinda like the argument I had with Nap - there is no objective standard for video games.

No, there isn't, but when you analyze just what a video game consists of and the process it takes to make one, a standard begins to appear. It's the same way with art.

[abaris]

No, there isn't, but when you analyze just what a video game consists of and the process it takes to make one, a standard begins to appear. It's the same way with art.

Yeah, but it says nothing about people liking it. You can create art solely for your own enjoyment, fulfilment or whatever you might call it. But you can't create a video game or a movie in the same way. That's where you need an audience and both mediums only are created with an audience in mind.

[Faith No More]

Yeah, but it says nothing about people liking it. You can create art solely for your own enjoyment, fulfilment or whatever you might call it. But you can't create a video game or a movie in the same way. That's where you need an audience and both mediums only are created with an audience in mind.

Okay, now you're getting into how art has to conform to a consumer marketplace.

You see, art, at its essence, is an expression. Art is created so the artist can express a feeling, opinion or whatever they choose. How the audience reacts to that expression is secondary. Now, the audience does need to come into consideration when you're trying to understand how to communicate your expression, but ultimately, the expression comes from the artist.

[abaris]

Now, the audience does need to come into consideration when you're trying to understand how to communicate your expression, but ultimately, the expression comes from the artist.

You can paint a picture without having an audience, you can write a book too or compose music. But you can't develop a multi million video game or make a movie without an audience in mind. They may be art, but they're a commodity too, since they need to be sold.

[Cato]

Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike AC/DC. There are just times when I'm in the mood of having fun background music, and there are times when I feel more like sitting in a darkened room, getting lost into some stuff with many layers. Beyonce autotune just doesn't do for the latter.

I dropped the AC/DC quote, but thought it would be decent to give my opinion regarding the OP.

Eye of the beholder, and by this I include personal shifts in taste and how our moods will often dictate what is appealing at any given moment as you suggest. As far as art goes, I know what I like when I experience it and I don't need professional critics, academics nor the masses to tell me otherwise.

Having to explain why I should enjoy/appreciate something is a tell-tale sign that someone is peddling what I consider shit. Andy Warhol is shit, my opinion. If others think differently, more power to them. I lose patience when people use differences in aesthetic tastes/values as tacit permission to unleash their inner snob to try and take a shit in my mind.