Objectivity vs. Subjectivity in Music, Movies, etc

[ariich]

Unless your criteria is being able to fit the art in your pocket, I can't honeslty believe that anyone would say that first one is better than the second. If you were this kid's parent, I'm sure there's a level of proudness you get because it was your child who made the piece. But that proudness shouldn't factor in to whether or not it's better than other pieces.

I also don't think many people would prefer the first over the second, but that doesn't make it objectively better, which is the point here. You could list a ton of reasons you prefer the second one, but now prove that those qualities objectively make it or any other art "better". You may prefer it because it resembles something real, because it was difficult to create, because it looks cool, because it's big, any number of valid reasons. Now tell me why those qualities make it better.
Someone else may prefer the other one because it's small and cute, it's colourful, it's neat, and because a dude ripping his chest open is creepy and scary and has made a hell of a mess. Now tell me why those opinions are wrong. You can't prove anything objectively, all you can do is support your own opinion with reasons why you personally prefer it.

Now, I don't think this can be applied to every single instance of art, but for many types I believe it holds true.

And how do you decide which instances of art it applies to or not? If these rules cannot be applied unanimously to all art, or cannot be objectively differentiated based on criteria that cannot be factually disagreed with, then you're still just judging it based on which you prefer, as obvious as you may think it is.

Spot on.

There are books, movies, songs, tv shows that I ENJOY more than others that I know are technically better. I enjoy Jacob's Ladder more than The King's Speech, I enjoy The Dresden Files more than Pride and Prejudice. I don't think you can really apply these sort of judgments to anything but your own taste, though.

This comes up quite a lot, and the key question is what you mean by technically better. Do you mean the skill with which the art is created/implemented, in which case you're talking about the craft? Or if you do mean the art, what does technically better mean? Presumably it means a different set of criteria to the criteria you use to determine which is your favourite, but that's still a set of criteria that you or someone else has devised, and which lots of other people would disagree with. So it's still subjective. (Disclaimer: when I say "you", I mean everyone who makes this point, not just you).

[hefdaddy42]

YOU MEANT ME, I KNOW IT YOU BRITISH FUCK



But hey, you're right.

[rumborak]

I always have to smirk when I see the comment like "well, SC is the worst DT album, but that means it's still better than most music". I always think "do you seriously think you are listening to objectively better music?"

[ariich]

YOU MEANT ME, I KNOW IT YOU BRITISH FUCK

Well, yeah.

But hey, you're right.

Well, yeah.

[Genowyn]

I suppose I meant the craft.

[RuRoRul]

I always have to smirk when I see the comment like "well, SC is the worst DT album, but that means it's still better than most music". I always think "do you seriously think you are listening to objectively better music?"

I don't see what's wrong with a comment like that at all. SC is one of the worst DT albums (throw Awake and FII in there too), but they are still better than most music. Same way the worst of the three Lord Of The Rings films is better than most other films, the worst episode of the Sopranos is better than most stuff on TV. And yes, I seriously think that. I don't see why being the weakest out of a certain artist's outputs means it must be poor in the grand scheme of things.

But if you think that means SC is objectively better music, you haven't been paying attention.

A blank piece of paper lying around isn't art, but submit somewhere and slap the title "The American Dream" or something like that on it, is it art then? Certainly I think it could be argued so. Crude certainly, and I'm sure most people would say it was pretty crap. Though I think what numbers is arguing is that if I already have some cred and I do that at the right time, then perhaps I could get lucky and it could be considered one of the greatest or most important pieces of art of all time by some (and you really do need the cred I think. If an established artist hauls a urinal into the room,he's making a bold statement about the nature of art - if some random does it, he's a nutjob who'll get arrested for theft and vandalism). Good news is, regardless of what the self proclaimed elite of the art world think of something, you are still free to think it's just a big pile of shit (literally or figuratively, depending on the situation) if that's your opinion - the joy of subjectivity.

Art has objective qualities that you can describe, but it is fundamentally about communicating something to an audience, and since it is entirely about how it's percieved then it's inherently subjective.

[Zook]

If I puked on the floor, took a picture of it and claimed it to be art, would it be? If someone genuinely connected with that pile of vomit, could I call it art?

To me, art is something that is crafted. Something an artist worked on, put blood sweat and tears into. A picture of a urinal is not art. It's a picture of a god damn urinal.

And there is objectivity in art. Take my band KrotchRaut for example. My brother and I crafted that music over long hours (we aren't the greatest musicians) but honestly, it's terrible music. I think it sounds cool (a couple songs) but it was meant to be bad, is poorly played, frankensteined music. It's art, but it isn't good. Sharknado is technically art, but it's a horrible movie, purposely made that way. Saying it's good ironically doesn't count.

This emoticon is art: someone drew it. It's still just a smiley face though, and although it's a decent looking smiley face, not much effort went into it, so if someone tried selling it for thousands, they should rightfully be laughed at. Just like urinal man. It's not even a working urinal. At least paint it or something. It'd still be a thing you piss in, but at least it would look pretty.

[73109]

Though I think what numbers is arguing is that if I already have some cred and I do that at the right time, then perhaps I could get lucky and it could be considered one of the greatest or most important pieces of art of all time by some (and you really do need the cred I think. If an established artist hauls a urinal into the room,he's making a bold statement about the nature of art - if some random does it, he's a nutjob who'll get arrested for theft and vandalism).

What's actually interesting is that Duchamp, an established artist at the time, submitted it anonymously. The show was a total egalitarian deal where if you paid the fee, you could show your shit. His work was the only work denied at the show and it caused an uproar and has since gone down as probably the most important art work of the 20th century?

Why? That's the important and interesting part.

What Duchamp did was show to everyone that it is the artist that holds the key to art making, not the general public. If he calls it art, it is art—plain as that! Of course, you picked up on what I was saying, i.e. you need the cred. It is true that cred is often what makes or breaks an artist when he or she is doing something kind of out there. It helps a ton to be established and we probably do not know a ton of potentially really amazing artists because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

As an aside, the idea of authorial intent has been taken to even further extremes:



This piece is called Statement of Aesthetic Withdrawl by an artist named Robert Morris made in 1963. Someone commissioned a work of art from him, he made it, and gave it to the person who commissioned it. But the person who commissioned it never fully paid him. So what did he do? He signed a statement that claimed that the work he once made was no longer art! Of course now whether this is true or not is up for debate but if we follow the Duchampian narrative that started with Fountain, if an artist can—through his authorial intent—claim that anything can be his art, he can of course revoke that privilege. The statement then became a work of art in its own right and is now sometimes displayed at the Museum of Modern Art in NYC.

If I puked on the floor, took a picture of it and claimed it to be art, would it be? If someone genuinely connected with that pile of vomit, could I call it art?

Of course you could call it art! Duchamp has shown us that! Today, it is no longer about whether or not it is art so much as whether or not it is good. Is yours good? Well, that isn't really for me to say. I would need to see how it was installed, what other artists you showed with, what you said about the piece.

Hell, no one even needs to connect with it in order for it to be art. It is simply because you—the artist—say it is. Just good luck making a living out of it.

To me, art is something that is crafted. Something an artist worked on, put blood sweat and tears into. A picture of a urinal is not art. It's a picture of a god damn urinal.

For the record, it isn't a picture that is the art. The work was an actual urinal. To make a long, theoretical point in a short way, this particular work showed that art need not be about individual creativity or even individual creation but is about the idea behind it.

This emoticon is art: someone drew it. It's still just a smiley face though, and although it's a decent looking smiley face, not much effort went into it, so if someone tried selling it for thousands, they should rightfully be laughed at. Just like urinal man. It's not even a working urinal. At least paint it or something. It'd still be a thing you piss in, but at least it would look pretty.

That's what's also interesting about this whole thing. Just because someone drew it/created it/painted it does not make it art. It is art when it is proclaimed art. No one is saying that smiley face is art. If the creator wanted to say it was art, for whatever reason, fine! Who am I to judge? He just probably won't make much off of it.

Moreover, the insistence that Duchamp should have at least painted it or made it look pretty once again evinces a lack of understanding of why he did what he did and why art is the way it is today, but that is entirely your prerogative. You are not alone by any stretch of the imagination. Most people agree with you. It's idiots like me who find the stuff interesting. 

[Cable]

See, I disagree with this strenuously.   Tastes ARE equal.  There is no correlation between "education/knowledge" and "what I like". 

That's cool, and I'll stick with my view. 

I will take one final crack here to support it.

Before I listened to DT, I was a metal head mostly. I made my rounds through the metal usual suspects, and went a little deeper. All the while my definition of a solo was Kirk Hammett styled stuff, or Slayer chaotic atonal stuff. Those were the greats to me. Then I got into DT. I appreciated the solos more, become more aware of time signatures, harmony (not so much via DT) and so on. Even vocals that went through a wider range. I could not stand I&W at first, and other styles of the like because it sounded weird. At the same time, I increased proficiency on my instrument. After DT, I found myself exploring jazz, art (classical) music, and more complex forms of rock. I was attending jazz concerts, and my local orchestra playing stuff I was interested in. And I was able to respect the power of an orchestra, which I cannot say I would have as much when it was all metal. All the while, I was able to appreciate the art on a much higher level of involved music. That's not to say I swore off Metallica forever, but they lost some of their emotional appeal on me, and also the technical extreme greatness.

That is not to say the club going person who loves Robin Thicke and Ke$ha are morons, or that their opinions are worthless. I would tend to trust a professional musician's opinion, a PhD in music, or an orchestral member more than the club individual. Is that so unreasonable? That music works for them, and that is important to them. They would think Yes sucks, something that my wife has said numerous times. And even a debate of why Yes is good is futile, because their melodies suck to that individual. So their art isn't good to them. And that is ok, and valid. I could not appreciate Rush or Yes for years, and that is only after I was more educated that I could appreciate their art better. And thus, it allowed a different perspective. So my education and knowledge has absolutely impacted my tastes in art. Is Rush soooo much better than Lil' Wayne? Not really, and I get both sides. To ignore knowledge influencing tastes and informing opinions is something I cannot agree with however.

That goes to visual art too. After I took an intro to art class, I was able to open it up a bit more compared to what I thought before the class.

Taking it further, I could have chosen Freud's theory for my therapy techniques. Or even common techniques I might read on Facebook, or even here about how those who are suicidal are completely selfish, total fools and they need to get over it. And I understand those opinions, as many come from personal experience either individually or within their system. However, I am going to value the opinion and expertise much more highly from a tenured, multi appointment PhD holder in a therapy that she created, backed by peer reviewed evidence practice, for a related disorder she suffered from vs. arm-chair therapists.

[rumborak]

There is a really strange amount of "what I hate can't be art, and what I love must be art" in this thread.

Get over yourselves, folks. It all reads like Jack Black's character in High Fidelity.

[TheSilentHam]

If I puked on the floor, took a picture of it and claimed it to be art, would it be? If someone genuinely connected with that pile of vomit, could I call it art?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_fluids_in_art

[jammindude]

I've always believed that there MUST be a line....but it is not up to anyone (including me) to state where that line is drawn for anyone but themselves.

But I agree with the idea that if there is no line whatsoever, then any two year old banging pots and pans in the kitchen is the artistic equal of Neil Peart.    Ummmm.....no.   The line does exist...I just don't think it can be pinpointed with any accuracy. 

This is where we kindof get into mental health territory.    There's a science to it...but even the experts say that they are barely scratching the surface, and the many people I've talked to who have actually taken degrees in the subject say that what we've learned about mental health is a hazy outline is best.    But I would still trust their ability to diagnose an actual mental health problem more than I would Lucy (from Peanuts fame) with her 5 cent psychology desk.   

In some states, they don't even require that you have a degree to be a therapist.   Just hang a sign on your door.    Do they give good advice?   Sure.  Sometimes.   Are they experts?   Are they not experts even if they've been in practice for several years?   

 

[rumborak]

But I agree with the idea that if there is no line whatsoever, then any two year old banging pots and pans in the kitchen is the artistic equal of Neil Peart.    Ummmm.....no.   The line does exist...I just don't think it can be pinpointed with any accuracy. 

This is where we kindof get into mental health territory.    There's a science to it...but even the experts say that they are barely scratching the surface, and the many people I've talked to who have actually taken degrees in the subject say that what we've learned about mental health is a hazy outline is best.   

a) You are confusing craft with art
b) Therapy has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with art.

[ariich]

But I agree with the idea that if there is no line whatsoever, then any two year old banging pots and pans in the kitchen is the artistic equal of Neil Peart.    Ummmm.....no.   The line does exist...I just don't think it can be pinpointed with any accuracy. 

This is where we kindof get into mental health territory.    There's a science to it...but even the experts say that they are barely scratching the surface, and the many people I've talked to who have actually taken degrees in the subject say that what we've learned about mental health is a hazy outline is best.   

a) You are confusing craft with art
b) Therapy has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with art.

Yeah, those analogies don't work.

[Stadler]

I always have to smirk when I see the comment like "well, SC is the worst DT album, but that means it's still better than most music". I always think "do you seriously think you are listening to objectively better music?"

I don't see what's wrong with a comment like that at all. SC is one of the worst DT albums (throw Awake and FII in there too), but they are still better than most music. Same way the worst of the three Lord Of The Rings films is better than most other films, the worst episode of the Sopranos is better than most stuff on TV. And yes, I seriously think that. I don't see why being the weakest out of a certain artist's outputs means it must be poor in the grand scheme of things.

But I think the point of this thread is that there are two things going on there that are unspoken:  You are either saying a) I like SC least of all the DT albums, but I still like it better than most other music (which is still not "objectively better") or b) "by [this specific criteria] (whatever it is) I ascertain that SC is lesser than the other DT albums but greater than all other albums" and you aren't telling us what that specific criteria is.   That's the point.  There is no "general criteria" that applies equally to everyone that can say this.  I guarantee you that the sax player in my old band - a professional who has played with the likes of Brandon Marsalis - would say that perhaps SC is not as good as the rest of the catalogue, but all of it is SHIT when compared to Coltrane.   So if two people can take the same data and arrive at two wildly different defensible conclusions, there can be no objectivity to it.

No matter how seriously you believe it. 

[Stadler]

See, I disagree with this strenuously.   Tastes ARE equal.  There is no correlation between "education/knowledge" and "what I like". 

That's cool, and I'll stick with my view. 

I will take one final crack here to support it.

Before I listened to DT, I was a metal head mostly. I made my rounds through the metal usual suspects, and went a little deeper. All the while my definition of a solo was Kirk Hammett styled stuff, or Slayer chaotic atonal stuff. Those were the greats to me. Then I got into DT. I appreciated the solos more, become more aware of time signatures, harmony (not so much via DT) and so on. Even vocals that went through a wider range. I could not stand I&W at first, and other styles of the like because it sounded weird. At the same time, I increased proficiency on my instrument. After DT, I found myself exploring jazz, art (classical) music, and more complex forms of rock. I was attending jazz concerts, and my local orchestra playing stuff I was interested in. And I was able to respect the power of an orchestra, which I cannot say I would have as much when it was all metal. All the while, I was able to appreciate the art on a much higher level of involved music. That's not to say I swore off Metallica forever, but they lost some of their emotional appeal on me, and also the technical extreme greatness.

That is not to say the club going person who loves Robin Thicke and Ke$ha are morons, or that their opinions are worthless. I would tend to trust a professional musician's opinion, a PhD in music, or an orchestral member more than the club individual. Is that so unreasonable? That music works for them, and that is important to them. They would think Yes sucks, something that my wife has said numerous times. And even a debate of why Yes is good is futile, because their melodies suck to that individual. So their art isn't good to them. And that is ok, and valid. I could not appreciate Rush or Yes for years, and that is only after I was more educated that I could appreciate their art better. And thus, it allowed a different perspective. So my education and knowledge has absolutely impacted my tastes in art. Is Rush soooo much better than Lil' Wayne? Not really, and I get both sides. To ignore knowledge influencing tastes and informing opinions is something I cannot agree with however.

That goes to visual art too. After I took an intro to art class, I was able to open it up a bit more compared to what I thought before the class.

Taking it further, I could have chosen Freud's theory for my therapy techniques. Or even common techniques I might read on Facebook, or even here about how those who are suicidal are completely selfish, total fools and they need to get over it. And I understand those opinions, as many come from personal experience either individually or within their system. However, I am going to value the opinion and expertise much more highly from a tenured, multi appointment PhD holder in a therapy that she created, backed by peer reviewed evidence practice, for a related disorder she suffered from vs. arm-chair therapists.

Nothing you've said backs up your argument or refutes mine.  In fact, you have in a sense proved mine.   It isn't that the art is more or less "better".  It is that you have refined what it is you appreciate and value IN art.   The evolution you described (which, by the way, I went through too) isn't about the "art", it's about YOU.   It's like the kid who sees a set of boobies in a tight shirt and thinks it's the be all and end all, but for the guy who is into hard core pornography, it does nothing.  Doesn't say anything about the subject matter. 

As I said, I went through a similar evolution, but interestingly, as I played more guitar, and played in bands, I have really come to appreciate the simplicity of things.  Seeing Paul McCartney on stage, by himself, with a guitar playing "Yesterday" (a song I can play in my sleep) and yet seeing 18,000 people - many of whom were openly crying, me included - respond to that changed my life in a way that watching John Petrucci (who I love; it's in part why I'm even here) play Ministry of Lost Souls never did.  But that's ME.   That doesn't mean "Yesterday" is better or worse than TMOLS; just DIFFERENT. 

[RuRoRul]

I always have to smirk when I see the comment like "well, SC is the worst DT album, but that means it's still better than most music". I always think "do you seriously think you are listening to objectively better music?"

I don't see what's wrong with a comment like that at all. SC is one of the worst DT albums (throw Awake and FII in there too), but they are still better than most music. Same way the worst of the three Lord Of The Rings films is better than most other films, the worst episode of the Sopranos is better than most stuff on TV. And yes, I seriously think that. I don't see why being the weakest out of a certain artist's outputs means it must be poor in the grand scheme of things.

But I think the point of this thread is that there are two things going on there that are unspoken:  You are either saying a) I like SC least of all the DT albums, but I still like it better than most other music (which is still not "objectively better") or b) "by [this specific criteria] (whatever it is) I ascertain that SC is lesser than the other DT albums but greater than all other albums" and you aren't telling us what that specific criteria is.   That's the point.  There is no "general criteria" that applies equally to everyone that can say this.  I guarantee you that the sax player in my old band - a professional who has played with the likes of Brandon Marsalis - would say that perhaps SC is not as good as the rest of the catalogue, but all of it is SHIT when compared to Coltrane.   So if two people can take the same data and arrive at two wildly different defensible conclusions, there can be no objectivity to it.

No matter how seriously you believe it.

Yeah I am definitely on the side of it being subjective, like I said. I was just pointing out that I don't see how something like "SC is the worst DT album but that still means it's better than most music" is incompatible with music appreciation being subjective.

[Chino]

If I puked on the floor, took a picture of it and claimed it to be art, would it be? If someone genuinely connected with that pile of vomit, could I call it art?

To me, art is something that is crafted. Something an artist worked on, put blood sweat and tears into. A picture of a urinal is not art. It's a picture of a god damn urinal.

And there is objectivity in art. Take my band KrotchRaut for example. My brother and I crafted that music over long hours (we aren't the greatest musicians) but honestly, it's terrible music. I think it sounds cool (a couple songs) but it was meant to be bad, is poorly played, frankensteined music. It's art, but it isn't good. Sharknado is technically art, but it's a horrible movie, purposely made that way. Saying it's good ironically doesn't count.

This emoticon is art: someone drew it. It's still just a smiley face though, and although it's a decent looking smiley face, not much effort went into it, so if someone tried selling it for thousands, they should rightfully be laughed at. Just like urinal man. It's not even a working urinal. At least paint it or something. It'd still be a thing you piss in, but at least it would look pretty.

This is more in line with what I'm trying to say. I feel similarly. I'm not saying a piece of art can't be liked some and not byothers. Everyone has their own personal taste, but that doesn't mean that two pieces of art can be considered equal.

Let's say I want to buy some art for my kitchen (I just recently bought a bunch of art) and come across the following two paintings while shopping around.




Now, for the space I am trying to fill, option 1 is the better choice. It's got colors that will match my kitchen nicely, and the overall theme of painting fits the room it's going in perfectly. It's a better painting for what I need it for. Option 1 is the pieces I'd spend my money on. However, from painting perspective, option #2 is a far superior painting.

People have preferences, but I don't think those preferences should be factored when discussing whether or not something is a good/better piece.

This is a Venus figurine. These were usually carved/chiseled from calcite or limestone and date back around 30,000 years(in most cases). They usually lack a head entirely or do not have a face.


Compare that carving to the following


One might prefer the first one for a variety of reasons. Maybe they like anicient cultures more than the Greeks. Perhaps they have a BBW fetish. I'm sure some people would rather a little carving they could place on a shelf rather than a statue that might break their floor. It could be anything. I get that. But I can't wrap my head around the idea that someone would actually say the Venus figurine is a better carving than the Greek statue. They might like it more, but from an artistic stanpoint, the Greek statue crushes it. I feel like pretty much anyone given a little bit of time could make a Venus figurine. Producing that Greek statue would require a lifetime of discipline, and even then would not be possible for most.

[rumborak]

Dudes, seriously. How many more times will you conflate craft with art?

[RuRoRul]

One might prefer the first one for a variety of reasons. Maybe they like anicient cultures more than the Greeks. Perhaps they have a BBW fetish. I'm sure some people would rather a little carving they could place on a shelf rather than a statue that might break their floor. It could be anything. I get that. But I can't wrap my head around the idea that someone would actually say the Venus figurine is a better carving than the Greek statue. They might like it more, but from an artistic stanpoint, the Greek statue crushes it. I feel like pretty much anyone given a little bit of time could make a Venus figurine. Producing that Greek statue would require a lifetime of discipline, and even then would not be possible for most.

You will probably find in a lot of cases most people agree with you about which one they think is better - but the trouble is if you try to say "OK, this is objectively better for this reason" then you have to stick to that as an objective measure of one piece of art being better than another. If you say that one sculpture is better than the other because it was much more difficult to make or someone spent more time on it, then that means that that guitar solo from a technically skilled player who spent years composing it and is almost impossible for most other guitar players to replicate must always be better than a guitar solo from a less proficient player that was improvised on the fly. Or if one sculpture is objectively better than another because more people like it, then that must mean that the most popular songs on Youtube are better pieces of music than _____ (insert your highest regarded piece of music that isn't insanely popular here). Once you start trying to apply "OK, you're seriously saying this piece of art isn't objectively better than this" to things where the answer is not so "obvious", you realise the criteria for judging which is objectively better don't hold true in more marginal cases, which means it can't be considered objective at all and always comes down to people's subjective views.

[hefdaddy42]

Chino, I like all four pieces of art you posted, but for different reasons.  But none of them are any "better" than any of the others.

[Implode]

Dudes, seriously. How many more times will you conflate craft with art?

If you remove craft from art, what's even left? Art is something about whay people create and is not measurable in any way and is different for everyone? It practically makes the word meaningless.

[Lucien]

Dudes, seriously. How many more times will you conflate craft with art?

If you remove craft from art, what's even left? Art is something about whay people create and is not measurable in any way and is different for everyone? It practically makes the word meaningless.

what is art except some sort of conveyed emotion; why does craft matter?

it really doesn't. most of the time in this thread, we've been looking at paintings and other visual art that require the greatest craft to create. however, how can you measure craft in music? the simple answer is that you can't. how fast you can play an instrument, in this case, is not craft. anyone can write extremely fast things for an instrument, but that doesn't make the music written better at all. so, what is craft in regards to musical composition? the study of music theory? maturity and practice of the art?

 

I haven't found why craft matters

[Chino]

Dudes, seriously. How many more times will you conflate craft with art?

If you remove craft from art, what's even left? Art is something about whay people create and is not measurable in any way and is different for everyone? It practically makes the word meaningless.

You need craft in art, but you don't need art in craft.

In my mind this is craft;


and this is art;

[ariich]

Dudes, seriously. How many more times will you conflate craft with art?

If you remove craft from art, what's even left? Art is something about whay people create and is not measurable in any way and is different for everyone? It practically makes the word meaningless.

Actually, it makes the word everything, in my opinion. The fact that it's not bound by technical skill but a connection between the artist and the viewer/listener/reader/whatever is what makes it important.

[CDrice]

Hello everyone! Nice to meet you all.

So I come from an illustration and graphic design background (I'm more into illustration though) so hopefully I'll be able to provide some interesting view on the subject. Also a lot of what I'll wrote will be related to painting since it's my area of expertise, but it can also applies to other forms of art.

I think that there is a sort of spectrum when it comes to modern art vs more ''traditional'' art. What I'm going to present is kind off crude, but hopefully it will make sense. Basically on one end you have the concept and on the other you have the craft. The more ''traditional'' type of art was, I think, more about the craft and the mastery of the artist over his medium and the fundamentals art (composition, color theory, anatomy, perspective, etc).  Modern art moved away from that and I think it is much more based on the concept and how well the artist can sell his idea. Personnally, this type of art is very hit or miss for me (and I'd say more on the miss side). However I do enjoy some of it. I find the Pollock painting, posted by 73109 on the last page, very pleasing.

Also, the art world as moved toward self-expression of the artists as they try to provoke an emotional reaction of the viewer. That means if the goal is to create anger or disgust in the viewer, then you shouldn't expect a ''pretty'' piece of art. Before that, the old masters were actually comissioned pieces (by the church or rich people). And if you are comissioned a portrait of a king during a battle, you'll have to make it look good and strong, almost godlike.  What this means is that the goals and context of art have changed.

And if you're looking in museums for the artistic descendant of the old masters, you're looking at the wrong place  In my opinion, and maybe I'm off base with this, those people are the commercial artists and illustrators of modern days. The tools have changed. Photoshop took the place of oil paints (although, there are illustrators that work with oils, watercolor, acrylics, etc) but it's still work comissioned by someone. Except that instead of having years to make a gigantic painting of a religious scene, you maybe have a week to create the design for an extraterrestrial race for an upcoming movie, or you have 3 weeks to paint a book cover for a middle-eastern influenced fantasy story. Also, in terms of styles, a lot of those artists are influenced by the older painters. So if you're more into figurative art I'd highly recommend searching for artists in those fields. There's a lot of good ones to be found!

As for what is art... I'm not sure if it's even possible to come up with a single definition to encompass everything. I think it's all around us. In the architecture, interior design, sculpture, music, graphic design, nature itself... so yeah, it's to hard for my little brain to just think about it 

Reading what I wrote, I'm not sure what I was really trying to say. I guess it's all subjective would be it! But I hope this was useful to the conversation in some way... it probably wasn't though 

[Chino]

Also, the art world as moved toward self-expression of the artists as they try to provoke an emotional reaction of the viewer. That means if the goal is to create anger or disgust in the viewer, then you shouldn't expect a ''pretty'' piece of art. Before that, the old masters were actually comissioned pieces (by the church or rich people). And if you are comissioned a portrait of a king during a battle, you'll have to make it look good and strong, almost godlike.  What this means is that the goals and context of art have changed.

This is a fantastic point and I think is what's drawing the line between a lot of the disagreement in this thread. Hell of a first post. Welcome.

[rumborak]

Dudes, seriously. How many more times will you conflate craft with art?

If you remove craft from art, what's even left? Art is something about whay people create and is not measurable in any way and is different for everyone? It practically makes the word meaningless.

Actually, it makes the word everything, in my opinion. The fact that it's not bound by technical skill but a connection between the artist and the viewer/listener/reader/whatever is what makes it important.

This. 1000%.

[rumborak]

In my mind this is craft;

and this is art;

This is really quite amazing. I would classify the first one as art, the second one as mere craft. I mean, the second one really is just a well-constructed house. Good materials, good craftsmanship. But art? Not an ounce.

[Stadler]

Take my band KrotchRaut for example.

I think you're off base on a lot of things, but not with that band name.  Add an umlaut and it may be the perfect band name ever.

One might prefer the first one for a variety of reasons. Maybe they like anicient cultures more than the Greeks. Perhaps they have a BBW fetish. I'm sure some people would rather a little carving they could place on a shelf rather than a statue that might break their floor. It could be anything. I get that. But I can't wrap my head around the idea that someone would actually say the Venus figurine is a better carving than the Greek statue. They might like it more, but from an artistic stanpoint, the Greek statue crushes it. I feel like pretty much anyone given a little bit of time could make a Venus figurine. Producing that Greek statue would require a lifetime of discipline, and even then would not be possible for most.

But you're not talking about art.  You're talking about craft.  If the former was a perfect interpretation of what the artist saw when he looked at his ex-wife, and his purpose was to inform others with that same level of distaste and unease, therefore the craft perfectly matched the artistic intent, and it could be every bit as "good" as the other piece of art. 

[Stadler]

One might prefer the first one for a variety of reasons. Maybe they like anicient cultures more than the Greeks. Perhaps they have a BBW fetish. I'm sure some people would rather a little carving they could place on a shelf rather than a statue that might break their floor. It could be anything. I get that. But I can't wrap my head around the idea that someone would actually say the Venus figurine is a better carving than the Greek statue. They might like it more, but from an artistic stanpoint, the Greek statue crushes it. I feel like pretty much anyone given a little bit of time could make a Venus figurine. Producing that Greek statue would require a lifetime of discipline, and even then would not be possible for most.

You will probably find in a lot of cases most people agree with you about which one they think is better - but the trouble is if you try to say "OK, this is objectively better for this reason" then you have to stick to that as an objective measure of one piece of art being better than another. If you say that one sculpture is better than the other because it was much more difficult to make or someone spent more time on it, then that means that that guitar solo from a technically skilled player who spent years composing it and is almost impossible for most other guitar players to replicate must always be better than a guitar solo from a less proficient player that was improvised on the fly. Or if one sculpture is objectively better than another because more people like it, then that must mean that the most popular songs on Youtube are better pieces of music than _____ (insert your highest regarded piece of music that isn't insanely popular here). Once you start trying to apply "OK, you're seriously saying this piece of art isn't objectively better than this" to things where the answer is not so "obvious", you realise the criteria for judging which is objectively better don't hold true in more marginal cases, which means it can't be considered objective at all and always comes down to people's subjective views.

YES YES YES YES YES, Oh sweet mother of all that is holy, YES.  This is (in part) what I've been trying to say for three pages. 

[Stadler]

Dudes, seriously. How many more times will you conflate craft with art?

If you remove craft from art, what's even left? Art is something about whay people create and is not measurable in any way and is different for everyone? It practically makes the word meaningless.

I don't think it is that easy.  Art isn't craft, and craft isn't art, but I think at a minimum "art" has to have some emotional component.   

If I sit down to write a song and my whole intent is just to make a bazillion dollars, so I carefully and subtly adjust all the notes in Lady Gaga's "Edge of Glory" just so, and it goes multiplatinum, I don't think that is "art".  But if, at my wedding, I take an instrument I'm not terribly familiar with and am able to muddle through "Field Of Gold" in honor of my new wife, there is art of a sort there.

I don't think this undermines my argument any, but I do think there is ONE objective standard with art:   the artist, and how close he/she came to his intent with the final product.  In this realm, "Vapor Trails" would be "bad art", because all three members of the band have gone on record and said "that is not what we intended with that statement".   "Kashmir", on the other hand, would be "great art", because at least three of the four members of Zeppelin have said "that is pretty much the essence of all that Zeppelin stands for".   

Kiss is interesting here; during the '80's and '90's, Paul Stanley was pretty much running the ship, and Gene was phoning it in.  I happen to prefer most of the Gene songs from the era over the Paul songs, and yet from an artistic perspective, Paul probably had better intent and came closer to meeting that intent than Gene did.  So my opinion doesn't mean squat (and I'm sure you'll find someone to say "it's all crap!") 

[rumborak]

And that's totally fine. Nobody is saying only something with art can be enjoyed. A well-crafted song/object can be very enjoyable.
And to open this can of worms, I personally think the majority of DT songs fall into that category. Very well-crafted and thus enjoyable in their own right, but containing little art. In fact, the most "artsy" DT songs i can think of are SDV and Hollow Years. They transcend their medium, IMHO.
And it's my pet theory that it's the main reason why KM left DT back in the day.