If beauty is "objective", which of these two paintings is objectively more beautiful? How do you decide this?

If beauty is "objective", which of these two paintings is objectively more beautiful? How do you decide this?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    both are ugly

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Which one is uglier and why?

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Unironically find right far more beautiful. I can never tell what le trad art larpers are on about.

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >If beauty is "objective"
    it isn't

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      This. No critic or scholar who isn't a total pseud God complex moron would ever claim otherwise. There are some objective criteria by which to analyze art but beauty isn't one of them. It's entirely acceptable to respect and understand an artist but still think their work is ugly and that you don't like it.
      >t. art school homosexual

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I just think words should have their simplest meaning. Beauty is something experienced by a subject

        Everything in the world has this fundamental quality of beauty that stems from the fact that everything seems to be more-or-less exactly in its proper place. My teeth are beautiful because they function well, but when they decay and lose their function, they become unsightly. Art loses its function when it ceases to inspire, edify, and entertain a healthy mind.

        what about bad feelings in their proper place, like a scary or warlike painting?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Scary or warlike paintings are beautiful to me. War and destruction can be beautiful. To deny the beauty in these things is to deny the perfection of God's creation.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            then, what's disorderly about your teeth knocked out of your head? It's a question of POV?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes unironically. Getting my teeth knocked out will hurt and be a long-term inconvenience to me. But if I was watching you get your teeth knocked out I might think that the way the blood drips from your mouth is beautiful.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            This is what it means to be a subject experiencing subjective beauty.

            No. The soup can isn't deep and it doesn't make me think of anything worthwhile. Being pretentious doesn't automatically make bad art good.

            being complicated, modern art generally causes people to miss the mark as to its meaning. Maybe this is the true location of our battle line, the artist's level of engagement with an audience. Conservatives like art you can recognize in an instant, based on universal human values, while artists themselves quickly compete and bore one other out of traditional representative subject matter.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >like a scary or warlike painting
          War is simultaneously ugly and beautiful, but even evil/disorder (which ugliness merely represents) has its place.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            isn't modern art just exploring various disordered or complex states? The modern artist would say trads want everything to be simple and comprehensible.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            No. The soup can isn't deep and it doesn't make me think of anything worthwhile. Being pretentious doesn't automatically make bad art good.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The soup can isn't meant to be deep. It's merely about anti-elitism and bringing art to the masses through the use of the same commercial mass culture they're familiar with. Some low IQ bug people liked it and hung it on their walls, so it served the exact purpose the artist wanted. Making it a success.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >but even evil/disorder (which ugliness merely represents) has its place.
            I should have added here that it's all about intent. Quasimodo is ugly, but Hugo didn't insert him into his story for an ugly purpose. The same cannot be said of George RR Martin's graphic depictions of excretion and fornication.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Martin is reflecting the real world. When we criticize him, we're really criticizing how people are, the society that made him popular. That doesn't mean it's good art, but it does give the lie to criticisms like "it's not art" and "it doesn't inspire people". People are inspired alright, to continue their shitty ways.

            Quasimodo also reflected the real world of his time, albeit a more literary one.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >reflecting the real world
            Oh for frick's sake stop with this meme. The middle ages weren't desaturated, violent, miserable, nihilistic and dirty 24/7. There was also art, beauty, intellectualism, culture and happiness. Gritty fantasy is an art style in and of itself which has become far removed from actual reality. Ironic that gurm criticises Tolkien for his supposed lack of realism when what gurm writes is even further removed from reality than Tolkien's work is.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Not THAT world. Whose world is desaturated, violent, miserable, nihilistic and dirty 24/7? Yours! It's very fake history and it pales in comparison to past literature, but so do most books.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I misspoke. It never crossed my mind that GOT reflects real medieval England, I was referring to our world. Filth for no reason is big right now, and as much as I despise gurm it's not his fault.

            Oh OK my bad anon. But yes, it's not his fault in any way, shape or form. In fact filth for the sake of filth was arguably more popular in the 70s-80s than it is today.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The middle ages were definitely miserable and dirty for a substantial portion of the population 24/7.
            >what gurm writes is even further removed from reality than Tolkien's work is.
            Debatable but you're missing the point of why gurm's criticism fails: because Tolkien set out to make a legendary work so it necessarily had to be cleaner in some areas, gurm is too moronic to understand the value of that, but his filth does actually make his work more "real" in some areas.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Nearly all medieval historians worth their salt today agree that while medieval hygiene wasn't comparable to today, the meme of everyone being filthy and covered in shit is a media invention. Medieval health literature was very well aware of the benefits of hygiene and would constantly recommend some form of daily washing or removing waste from one's vicinity, and there were so many proposed cures for things like body odor that it's clear they were just as culturally unacceptable then as they are today.
            And there's no measure for misery vs happiness other than first-hand subjective reports, standard of living has very little to do with it. Scandinavian people today have a great standard of living but can't stop killing themselves at higher rates than the uncivilized world regardless.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            They lived in a shack with their animals that was partially made of their dung and washed their clothes with stale piss. Men would often work in only their braise because it wasn't worth damaging their expensive coat and shoes. It was filthy. You're not broadening my perspective by telling me things I already know, I just said it was generally dirty for the vast majority of people, which is correct.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            everything is this meme
            >people notice leftism makes everything worse
            >lie and say everything was always worse

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Hollywood's version is just a reflection of modern society in Hollywood.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I actually agree with you. The world is disgusting, so portraying it as disgusting makes your work feel more real. There's a place for that, but he's just a pervert who inserts that filth for no reason. If I was describing a fictional castle, I would not neglect the fact that there are toilets, but I wouldn't write a paragraph describing what goes on in them either.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I misspoke. It never crossed my mind that GOT reflects real medieval England, I was referring to our world. Filth for no reason is big right now, and as much as I despise gurm it's not his fault.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >what about bad feelings in their proper place, like a scary or warlike painting?
          sublime art

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Heh, I went to a subversive leftist institution and now repeat leftist platitudes, are you impressed by my intelligence yet?
        As disgusted as I am by aestheticism it's amazing that something much worse came to dominate art.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          A major redpill for me was realizing that since leftists only destroy beautiful things and replace them with ugly things, that their idea of beauty isn't a different personal preference, they are simply evil and promote objectively ugly things.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Right is somewhat interesting, but I wouldn't put any of them in my house.

      This. No critic or scholar who isn't a total pseud God complex moron would ever claim otherwise. There are some objective criteria by which to analyze art but beauty isn't one of them. It's entirely acceptable to respect and understand an artist but still think their work is ugly and that you don't like it.
      >t. art school homosexual

      Only ugly people think beauty isn't objective.

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Everything in the world has this fundamental quality of beauty that stems from the fact that everything seems to be more-or-less exactly in its proper place. My teeth are beautiful because they function well, but when they decay and lose their function, they become unsightly. Art loses its function when it ceases to inspire, edify, and entertain a healthy mind.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Art loses its function when it ceases to inspire, edify, and entertain a healthy mind.
      What if I find a piece of art inspiring and someone else doesn’t? You’re still describing a subjective phenomenon. And before you say “I specified healthy mind,” I’ve seen plenty of psychologically healthy people react differently from one another to works of art

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I'm not saying that everyone will have the same reaction to the same thing, just that some things are genuinely bad regardless of how they are perceived.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          You said that we can objectively evaluate the quality of art based on whether or not it inspires healthy minds. That doesn’t seem like a workable standard, much less an objective one, because in my experience a piece of artwork can inspire one healthy mind but discourage another

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    If taste is "objective", which is objectively better, ice cream or steak? And which tastes worse, piss or shit? How do you decide?

    If you can't provide an objective answer to these questions that everyone can agree on, that means there's no objectivity to taste and you cannot say that steak tastes better than shit.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I thought this was going to be a pro objectivity post because taste seems easier to quantify than beauty

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Shit definitely, piss is just salty, slightly bitter water, shit tastes horribly.

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Legends are superior to history because they are idealized. History is full of anticlimaxes, effort that doesn't pay off, and various unsatisfying conclusions. But in the legends, no matter how sad they may be, all of it has a purpose, and even in death the heroes come out on top. Good art works the same way, it's a legend in visual form. It celebrates the world, but also reminds us that it's fundamentally unsatisfying and is but an imperfect hand-me-down of something much more splendid.

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Statistically objective, individually subjective.

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    One would have to first define beauty

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Left is objectively more beautiful. This is because I can see her ass.

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    She is from different angle

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Great video on this topic.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Reminder that this is the art even israelites make when they are mentally well; disordered artworks are from a disordered mind

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >disordered artworks are from a disordered mind
        Disordered artworks come from being numb. Most people only interact with art occasionally. Whenever they see a picture like yours or this:

        https://i.imgur.com/o8O7pEv.jpg

        >what about bad feelings in their proper place, like a scary or warlike painting?
        sublime art

        They like, it looks impressive. But an artist nowadays will paint a ton of different styles of paintings. They will study art history. They will go to museums. They will see thousands and thousands of different kinds of scenery, portraits and all sorts of other art. And as it is their job, they will do it every day. At some point, you've already seem the thousandth art depicting Poseidon out in the sea and you won't feel anything. At this point the subversion appears. Someone does the same portrait as always but in a more abstract way and it's new and exciting. Repeat until even that becomes boring. A few generations later and people are painting scribbles and taping bananas to walls in order to shock, to see if they elicit some emotion, any emotion. Meanwhile the average person has no idea what is going on, like a person who was perfectly fine playing the occasional Pac Man or Mario in the 80s trying to understand what the hell those newer gamers are doing with their MOBAs or Battle Royales.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          There are artists among my frens and I am art historian
          I value originality but think shock value is pretty cheap

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    ACTUAL good video on the subject

Comments are closed.