Respectfully disagree.Originally Posted by strawberrybrick
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."
Respectfully disagree.
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."
Music isn't about chops, or even about talent - it's about sound and the way that sound communicates to people. Mike Keneally
Yep. Just take a look at a Rembrandt or a fifty thousand year old 'goddess' statue — those chicks were fat! Now days anorexic looking girls, who would have been regarded as unhealthy just 100 years ago, are what is considered beautiful.
As far as music is concerned — 100% subjective. I know a guy who likes his music to sound amateur and clumsy — he just can't identify with tight proficient playing.
No, each of us is correct, but only with regard to our own perceptions.
Subjectivism is relative. Two folks who share the same subjectivity may find common ground over which to discuss specific music projects. There are various factors that can affect the relative distance between the understanding between two individuals. Some are social, some economic, some socio-geographic.
Reviewing music in strictly objective terminology rarely conveys the aesthetics of music. Aesthetics convey emotion. Subjective statements convey emotion. The key is whether the statements accurately convey the emotion of the music, and the extent to which the reader can relate to and understand the emotions conveyed in literal form.
I don't think anyon'e subjectivity quite matches anyone else's. Some factors in this are not cultural but personal, e.g. the differences between two brothers.
if beauty is only subjective...how you explain that some art qualifies to be presented in the art institutions, being distributed by media or qualify to be educated in the schools while the other art does not...is there only subjectivity in that decision?...I personally would challenge it...if I run art business, I actually do not care what a single individual thinks, I should not even consider my own emotions, I would judge the aesthetics and cultural standards of targeted audience as objective set of values to ensure that my investment pays off....
Fair enough.
Music isn't about chops, or even about talent - it's about sound and the way that sound communicates to people. Mike Keneally
You're making the exact point.
You're valuing one judgment over another. You're deeming one judgment to be more accurate than another.
Why?
On what basis are you making that decision?
You're putting the opinions of your targeted audience over the opinion of a single individual - only in an effort to make money.
That doesn't make the single individual wrong.
Music isn't about chops, or even about talent - it's about sound and the way that sound communicates to people. Mike Keneally
You're privileging one community's aesthetic criteria. Such criteria do exist outside an individual's subjectivity, but they are no means "objective." They're just criteria agreed upon by a certain group of people. When investing in art you do well to adopt the most widely held academic criteria, because academics reproduce themselves in their academies, and deeply influence others, generation after generation. Consequently, you're sure to have a market. In this circumstance, you're privileging an aesthetic criteria because it's the most lucrative, rather than engaging in an aesthetic experience yourself.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world.
No. Some things have more aesthetic value than others.
The best part about having this argument with subjectivists is that they must allow for the opposite opinion to be just as "true" as their own to remain consistent, whereas those who believe otherwise need not do the same.
smart cookie...No. Some things have more aesthetic value than others.
The best part about having this argument with subjectivists is that they must allow for the opposite opinion to be just as "true" as their own to remain consistent, whereas those who believe otherwise need not do the same.
Not at all. I have no problem saying you're wrong - this isn't an aesthetic issue.The best part about having this argument with subjectivists is that they must allow for the opposite opinion to be just as "true" as their own to remain consistent, whereas those who believe otherwise need not do the same.
Music isn't about chops, or even about talent - it's about sound and the way that sound communicates to people. Mike Keneally
It doesn't get you out of having to make some kind of cogent argument to back up your statement. Which you didn't, consequently relieving any "subjectivist" from having to take your statement seriously.No. Some things have more aesthetic value than others.
The best part about having this argument with subjectivists is that they must allow for the opposite opinion to be just as "true" as their own to remain consistent, whereas those who believe otherwise need not do the same.
Not that smart. Not that cookie.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world.
It's not?Not at all. I have no problem saying you're wrong - this isn't an aesthetic issue.
The issue as to whether aesthetic judgments are completely subjective is not aesthetic, no.
It either is or it isn't.
And it is.
Music isn't about chops, or even about talent - it's about sound and the way that sound communicates to people. Mike Keneally
People, societies do arrive at consensus all the time, in this case when it comes to "what is beautiful" and "what is not beautiful". It is not just opinion, it is the consensus of opinion that defines a particular aesthetic. Of course it changes over time, because it is a living thing, a living idea. And more importantly to your point, it is neither "right" or "wrong" - for a time, it just is.
In the early 70s, especially in Britain, a lot of young men thought rock music should take on certain aspirations; what we call prog rock. Later in the decade, another group of young men thought rock music should be the opposite; punk was new aesthetic...
Taste is neither, we appreciate each by its own aesthetic.
"Always ready with the ray of sunshine"
In other words, it's completely subjective.
Music isn't about chops, or even about talent - it's about sound and the way that sound communicates to people. Mike Keneally
Don't you find this respect for orthodoxies very oppressive?
In Germany in the 1930s, the consensus was that Nazism was the correct politics.
Are you saying that early 70s punks were wrong, late 70s proggers were wrong, any non-conformists of any era were wrong?
Also, these consensuses are not actually the opinion of the majority - punk was never the most popular form of music, it was just the one most favoured by critics.
"Will It Go Round In Circles"
Apparently it will
"My choice early in life was either to be a piano player in a whorehouse or a politician, and to tell the truth, there's hardly any difference"
President Harry S. Truman
Art can be judged with attempted objectivity, with an acknowledgement of aesthetic worth. It's been happening for centuries, and that's why we have The Louvre and so many other museums.
It's also the prerogative of any individual to call bullshit on any work of art that they don't like. Jesse Helms beholding "Piss Christ" comes to mind.
Both ways are human and justifiable.
Huh?
I'm saying that punks are punks. Judge them by punk aesthetics, not some other, like prog aesthetics. It's not about right/wrong, nor is it about majority, nor oppression!
"Always ready with the ray of sunshine"
Why should punk be judged by punk aesthetics? Should Nazis be judged by Nazi political values?
I'm not saying punks are like Nazis. I'm saying that just because a judgement comes from a safely central position within a particular community doesn't mean that it shouldn't be critiqued, or that it has any more validity that an eccentric, individual judgment.
Have any of you spent a lot of time around academics?
I used to be married to one and I can tell you, the answer to the original question is, "no."
Thank you. Having been an art history minor, I can attest to the veracity of Reginod's comment.
His reaction, however, was purely emotional. Take the emotion out of analysis and you can argue the so called "subjective" merits of a work of art objectively.It's also the prerogative of any individual to call bullshit on any work of art that they don't like. Jesse Helms beholding "Piss Christ" comes to mind.
“From thirty feet away she looked like a lot of class. From ten feet away she looked like something made up to be seen from thirty feet away.” – Philip Marlowe
I studied fine art at college, and from that experience I came to realize one thing — it's all a bunch of subjective bull! Including the way they dished out grades, which is why I became thoroughly disillusioned with fine art and changed to a language major. Fine Arts bodies impose their aesthetics on society and the arts marketplace. The same happens in music with the big labels dictating what the majority listen to. It's all politics and money, not aesthetics.
This thread has renewed my will to live...but I can't prove it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks