>Good art shows skill

>Good art shows skill
Maybe, but how do you quantify skill, and establish rank order for aesthetic judgment for it? You can't just leave it to "I know it when I see it", because that's what the School of Ressentiment used to successfully push their view of art into the mainstream and our major institutions.

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Someone who doesn't possess skill can't meaningfully diagnose the skills of another, at least not the subtler skills that delineate the experienced from the amateur.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      What kind of skill? Artistic skill?

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        if we're talking about representational art here, fundamental skills like perspective, anatomy, color theory, certain compositional rules etc can all be judged on an objective basis. What does any of this have to do with IQfy by the way? Isn't this a thread more suited for /ic/?

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          Does this skill have to be at the level of understanding of critique, or proof of skill in practice? Critics don't have to possess practical skill when their master critique skill was enough to establish the fundamental groundwork for critique.

          >perspective, anatomy, color theory, certain compositional rules etc can all be judged on an objective basis
          As far as objectivity is possible, but the Ressentimenters will try to drag its semantics down to their level.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          >You can't just leave it to "I know it when I see it", because that's what the School of Ressentiment used to successfully push their view of art into the mainstream and our major institutions.
          This is the opposite of the truth and it perfectly illustrates just how much of a fifth column rationalism really is. It wasn't until the Enlightenment started trying to submit things like aesthetics (or metaphysics, or the social order, etc.) to rational inquiry that people started to question those things' ultimate foundations, which are necessarily arbitrary and intuitive on some level. Anyone who cannot accept that is autistic and should not be allowed to speak in the public square.

          Literature is an aesthetic pursuit. There are many different literary movements and schools based on different theories of aesthetics and there is an element of technique, skill or craft involved in producing literature; thus the discussion of aesthetic theory is directly relevant to literature. QED. Please leave us in peace jannies, thank you for your service, now go delete one of the dozen /LULZ/ threads that are up at any given point in time.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >This is the opposite of the truth and it perfectly illustrates just how much of a fifth column rationalism really is. It wasn't until the Enlightenment started trying to submit things like aesthetics (or metaphysics, or the social order, etc.) to rational inquiry that people started to question those things' ultimate foundations, which are necessarily arbitrary and intuitive on some level. Anyone who cannot accept that is autistic and should not be allowed to speak in the public square.
            Both have truth, but if traditional art can't survive an assault from pseudo-rationalism, then its foundations can't be very good.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Relative to what? You think we're going to be able to consciously construct a better foundation than the one given by nature? That's not how shit works, humans don't have access to that sort of raw creative power. Nietzsche tried to will it into existence and he lost his mind.

            Yes, the foundation is fragile. Its decay within the context of a given society may in fact be inevitable (I haven't read Spengler but I'm pretty sure he addresses lots of stuff relating to this). But our naive ideas about how to "improve" upon it are delusional and detrimental.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            What the hell are you talking about? Are you saying it's impossible to understand natural law in regards to art, as far as humans are able to do so? Are you a bot?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Are you saying it's impossible to understand natural law in regards to art
            If we're talking about discursive understanding, yes. Intuitively, we all understand it to some degree, and we sharpen said understanding by experience, but it's asymptotic. You aren't going to get perfect, sanitized rules in this field.
            >as far as humans are able to do so? Are you a bot?
            I was speaking about humans as opposed to Nature/God/etc., not bots. Maybe I phrased it in a moronic way, it's really pretty simple: the things that "work", in art or in society, are based on elements of brain structure that operate on a sub- or pre-rational level, and are the results of trial and error on an unimaginably large scale. We cannot reason ourselves into actively wanting something different, we can only build up identities or superegos that wield biological/natural reinforcement (in the form of confusion or shame, respectively) against nature and biology. That is, of course, excluding the technological option of just altering the physical brain structures directly, but that would be the end of everything we know about everything and it's pointless to discuss.

            culture is over anon. who cares about building ideological tools to bully one another into agreement anymore? everything worthwhile is beyond analysis anyway. hence "I know it when I see it". just be happy that you've retained and developed your capacity to "know when you see it". it makes your life richer. let those who can't see, or refuse to see, not see.

            >who cares about building ideological tools to bully one another into agreement anymore?
            Is this the Spengler line about culture? I don't know that "bullying" is really a useful way to describe culture, to whatever extent it may be about social control. Idk, I'd be interested to hear you expand on that. Rest of your post is exactly correct imo.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            I dunno I don't read Spengler or any other intellectual shit since everything worthwhile is beyond analysis. Trying to brow beat others into agreeing with your opinions is how I interpret the project you describe here-
            >how do you quantify skill, and establish rank order for aesthetic judgment for it? You can't just leave it to "I know it when I see it", because that's how bad things happened
            You can make up whatever scheme you want, it's trivial, pick any criteria you want, since everything you're trying to analyze is inherently beyond analysis the whole thing is just a farce - a nice little costume on a machine whose only purpose is to exert psychological control over strangers. "For their own good" you might say, or for the good of "society" or whatever group you're concerned with. I say, who has time for that? If you're fortunate enough to be able to "know when you see it", then go enjoy seeing it and experience the deeper values and meanings that ability affords you.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not OP, the other reply in my post was to him. I assumed that sentence was tagging onto the statement about "culture" being "over", which is a very Spenglerian way of viewing things. Makes sense now that I understand what you were referring to.

            100% agree again, that sentiment should be engraved on the walls of every institution that claims to concern itself with "the humanities".

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not OP, the other reply in my post was to him. I assumed that sentence was tagging onto the statement about "culture" being "over", which is a very Spenglerian way of viewing things. Makes sense now that I understand what you were referring to.

            100% agree again, that sentiment should be engraved on the walls of every institution that claims to concern itself with "the humanities".

            So Black person porn is art?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You aren't going to get perfect, sanitized rules in this field.
            Duuuuuh. Human knowledge can never be perfect. How many autists do you talk with, that you present like this by default?

            Give me a moment, I'm tired and will read the rest of your posts in a bit.

  2. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Maybe, but how do you quantify skill, and establish rank order for aesthetic judgment for it?
    Complexity

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Complexity
      That would make this better than a Gothic cathedral, which it most certainly is not.

      Does this skill have to be at the level of understanding of critique, or proof of skill in practice? Critics don't have to possess practical skill when their master critique skill was enough to establish the fundamental groundwork for critique.

      >perspective, anatomy, color theory, certain compositional rules etc can all be judged on an objective basis
      As far as objectivity is possible, but the Ressentimenters will try to drag its semantics down to their level.

      To clarify, your use of skill as requisite is confusing, because skill is generally used to mean practical ability. But critics do not need practical ability to make masterful critiques. Critical understanding is the better term, as it was all that was necessary for art critics to lay the groundwork for authoritative critique.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        >That would make this better than a Gothic cathedral
        Would it? How is a Gothic cathedral not more complex? Subtlety becomes an integral part of higher complexity, by the way.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          You made the claim for complexity, so it's on you to back it.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            A Gothic cathedral is clearly a more complex work of art due to its far greater subtlety in design, which enriches it with meaningful depth. It's also not lacking in structural complexity at all. What you posted before perfectly demonstrates how complexity is the key metric in this.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            A gopuram has more complexity in terms of elements involved, and each god depicted likewise gives depth of meaning. But Hinduism and its effects are shit.

            You said "complexity" just by itself, which is vague and not a very good explanation. So what idea would you now propose as a better, succinct explanation?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Complexity is a perfect explanation and it needs no extrapolation. In fact, its supposed "vagueness" just further cements it as the key metric in determining rank. IQ works the same way. The more intelligent communicator can say more with less words, and it'll always, without exception, fly over the heads of less intelligent listeners. At most, they'll understand the tone in which the message is delivered, but not the meaningful content of it.

            >Achieving greater simplicity without losing any depth is the more complex artistic endeavor. A 30 page book that says as much as a 300 page book due to the finer nuance of its writing is the more complex book.
            False dichotomy. A 300 page inclusive commentary of a 30 page abstruse poem reveals and says more than the poem itself.

            >It's the 300 page book but with 270 pages missing from it.
            It's more like 299 pages missing.

            >False dichotomy.
            You mean false analogy? Except I used it to illustrate what I meant, not prove a point in an argument.

            >A 300 page inclusive commentary of a 30 page abstruse poem reveals and says more than the poem itself.
            Completely untrue. You're just incapable of reading poetry, which is the more complex and therefore more artistic literary work.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I'm smart but I don't need to prove it, just trust me bro.
            Hard pass.

            This is the path to woman-type "I know it's true, because I know it's true" thinking. And the path to all manner of pseudery and troonydom.

            There is a true essence to what you're saying, but you obviously don't truly understand it and aren't able to explain it, hence your Timidity (which is as good an umbrella term for your behavior, as you claimed for art with "Complexity").

            Next.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            I've given you more than enough. You're just a moron.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >A gopuram has more complexity in terms of elements involved
            But not in terms of design. More elements being placed on display does not equal greater complexity. There are just as many elements behind the Gothic cathedral, but the fact that they are not on display, and are instead masked from plain sight, is what makes it the more complex creation.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Better response than the troony.
            >More elements being placed on display does not equal greater complexity
            You're right insofar as your statement applies generally. But in reference to anon's position, in the gopuram case it does, because he also included references to meaning. And each of those gods have unique myths to them, each appending more complexity to the structure. And overwhelmingly so with the amount piled onto the gopuram. It's not even close in terms of complexity. Despite all that, Hindu art is shit.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            The cathedral is masking an abundance of myths about God and the angels, however. The difference between the gopuram and the cathedral is not the quantity of meaning, but the depth of the mask (the gods on the gopuram are also a mask, since gods only take a human form for our purposes of communicating them, but it's a simpler mask).

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Neither of us know enough about either to make a call there, but I'll leave hanging that Hinduism potentially has equal or greater depth, if we go by additional hidden masking.

            >how do you quantify skill, and establish rank order for aesthetic judgment for it?
            And why would I want to do that?
            >You can't just leave it to "I know it when I see it"
            Actually I can, otherwise you wouldn't have created a thread just to complain about it.

            Now now, child, the adults are speaking.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            In case you think you do know enough to make the call, what level of complexity is the sum total of Christian theology, to Hindu theology?

            I know Latin and Sanskrit, and will ask you to perform deep studies if you cite the inevitably touched-on texts in either language.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Pseud take. This

            In case you think you do know enough to make the call, what level of complexity is the sum total of Christian theology, to Hindu theology?

            I know Latin and Sanskrit, and will ask you to perform deep studies if you cite the inevitably touched-on texts in either language.

            si where the conversation needs to go to settle the matter.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        >That would make this better than a Gothic cathedral, which it most certainly is not.
        You're aware Gothic was considered barbaric up until the 19th century, no? And the way that architecture responded to this revelation in aesthetics was to mass-produce imitative neo-Gothic kitsch - do you think that's a satisfactory aesthetic regime?

        Also I'm pretty sure that anon is simply saying that that complexity is a measure of *skill* - taste is of course a separate question.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        >That would make this better than a Gothic cathedral
        Would it? How is a Gothic cathedral not more complex? Subtlety becomes an integral part of higher complexity, by the way.

        Copes from the snow monkeys who will never grasp the Aryan soul, SIR

  3. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    I don't think good art needs to show skill because simplicity is often more divine than complexity but the greatest of simple pieces of art are almost always made by people who are technically very proficient.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Achieving greater simplicity without losing any depth is the more complex artistic endeavor. A 30 page book that says as much as a 300 page book due to the finer nuance of its writing is the more complex book. The problem with a lot of "modern" art is that the depth is lost in the effort to make the surface output simpler; it falls flat and doesn't create an aesthetic experience. It's the 300 page book but with 270 pages missing from it.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Achieving greater simplicity without losing any depth is the more complex artistic endeavor. A 30 page book that says as much as a 300 page book due to the finer nuance of its writing is the more complex book.
        False dichotomy. A 300 page inclusive commentary of a 30 page abstruse poem reveals and says more than the poem itself.

        >It's the 300 page book but with 270 pages missing from it.
        It's more like 299 pages missing.

  4. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >School of Ressentiment
    Modern art is great, it's just beyond the abilities of the prole to grasp, that's why he rages at it.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >thread about art
      >only pictures posted are low res

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Okay, let's be open minded. We're not going to understand all realms of art without Extrapolating its Complexity, a process which troony pseuds seethe at.

      I, OP, do admittedly have love for Kandinsky. Some of his work is aesthetically pleasing. But what makes Kandinsky good, and in what regard? Is he better than the Renaissance masters?

  5. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >how do you quantify skill, and establish rank order for aesthetic judgment for it?
    And why would I want to do that?
    >You can't just leave it to "I know it when I see it"
    Actually I can, otherwise you wouldn't have created a thread just to complain about it.

  6. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    We may have expended the basic architectural direction of the case for complexity for now, but other methods for art critique are still quite open questions.

  7. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    "art" is bullshit. you can produce great art but it's only accidentally related to skill and not related to any theory of aesthetic judgement at all.

  8. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    culture is over anon. who cares about building ideological tools to bully one another into agreement anymore? everything worthwhile is beyond analysis anyway. hence "I know it when I see it". just be happy that you've retained and developed your capacity to "know when you see it". it makes your life richer. let those who can't see, or refuse to see, not see.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Are you saying it's impossible to understand natural law in regards to art
      If we're talking about discursive understanding, yes. Intuitively, we all understand it to some degree, and we sharpen said understanding by experience, but it's asymptotic. You aren't going to get perfect, sanitized rules in this field.
      >as far as humans are able to do so? Are you a bot?
      I was speaking about humans as opposed to Nature/God/etc., not bots. Maybe I phrased it in a moronic way, it's really pretty simple: the things that "work", in art or in society, are based on elements of brain structure that operate on a sub- or pre-rational level, and are the results of trial and error on an unimaginably large scale. We cannot reason ourselves into actively wanting something different, we can only build up identities or superegos that wield biological/natural reinforcement (in the form of confusion or shame, respectively) against nature and biology. That is, of course, excluding the technological option of just altering the physical brain structures directly, but that would be the end of everything we know about everything and it's pointless to discuss.

      [...]
      >who cares about building ideological tools to bully one another into agreement anymore?
      Is this the Spengler line about culture? I don't know that "bullying" is really a useful way to describe culture, to whatever extent it may be about social control. Idk, I'd be interested to hear you expand on that. Rest of your post is exactly correct imo.

      so how do we protect art from the degenerates?

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        [...]
        So Black person porn is art?

        reading comp anon.The entire point of what I was saying is that you don't "protect art from the degenerates". You engage with art because art is more important than culture and more important than politics and the fact that npc's can't genuinely engage with it doesn't damage it in any way. let morons be morons. stop being so concerned with them.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          But both can be done, idiot.

          You're not saying anything profound, and to switch your brain off like this, you're obviously not that intelligent.

          Obviously art thought is the core value. But if you, personally, are too cowardly to deal with its enemies, don't be surprised when everything you value is corrupted, when others describe what art is, in your stead.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            You're still missing the point. I value the art. What I value can't be corrupted. morons calling shit "art" has no effect on what I value and has no bearing on what actually constitutes art.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You're still missing the point. I value the art. What I value can't be corrupted.
            Your point is flaccid and what you value as a broader cultural nous can most certainly be corrupted. That you settled for this shitty board is proof enough of that. If you can't see that, jab your "point" into your eye, homosexual.

            I don't respect your limp-wristed attitude enough to want to continue this. Later.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >what you value as a broader cultural nous
            You're assuming I share your ontology when clearly I don't.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          >art is more important than culture
          Imo this is like saying "crops are more important than soil". On an immediate level it's true, but you can't separate them. But like I said, it may be that certain aspects of fundamental human psychology make it impossible for a given culture to endure indefinitely.

          [...]
          so how do we protect art from the degenerates?

          But both can be done, idiot.

          You're not saying anything profound, and to switch your brain off like this, you're obviously not that intelligent.

          Obviously art thought is the core value. But if you, personally, are too cowardly to deal with its enemies, don't be surprised when everything you value is corrupted, when others describe what art is, in your stead.

          >so how do we protect art from the degenerates?
          My last sentence above relates to this, but if it can be achieved I don't think it'll happen through any new theorizing. It's simply about people (particularly influential ones, not that I really know who that would be right now) actually upholding aesthetic standards. So it seems like the discussion you're interested in is political, not aesthetic. If you just want to retread the basics of traditional aesthetic theory in this thread we can do that I guess but I don't think it's going to go very far towards saving the West or whatever.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *