Objectivity

People say art is subjective.
How about this?
The Tale of Bob. Bob choked on a wiener. THE END.
The Tale of Bob is objectively worse than Moby Dick. this is not up for debate.
People just don't want to face it but there IS objective goodness when it comes to writing.

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    It is still subjective even though most people would agree that Moby Dick is better.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Prove it then

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I don't wanna read Moby Dick because it takes time so for me those 2 sentences are better because they take less time to read

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          IQfy poster who doesn't read detected

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I do read but for now I have other books in my queue so no time for Moby Dick

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Common =/= objective

        Many people make this error. It's because you're not really registering what is meant by the statement "art is subjective."

        Subjectivity does not mean we can invent any interpretation we want, claim the interpretation is valid, and call it a day. This is what idiots in American academic institutions might claim, but it's a philosophical error.

        Subjectivity means this: truth is an interpretation, and that interpretation is dependent on you, a so-called being whose existence is relative in time and space and who is in a state of becoming. Really, the phrase should be "art is relative" to avoid confusion.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          You mean like the "everyone sees the same color differently" thought experiment? In that case sure I agree that truth can be relative/subjective, but in the context, say, writing a story about that color, I think there can be objectivity. For example a story where I say
          > Bob thinks the color Xanthaum-2 is beautiful.
          That is a fact.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >That is a fact.
            But it's also not a qualitative judgment.

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Finally something succinct and with a clear message not having two hundred pages blathering on about whales to get to it

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    This sounds like it could be in American Fiction 2.

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Worse by what metric? While The Tale of Bob appears concise at first glance it raises a good number of questions, we don't even know if it was a dick he choked on or a piece of chicken? Since we know nothing of Bob we can make him out to be anyone and we have endless possible situations which could lead up to Bob's choking. We don't even know if he died so when interpreting meaning we have a good deal of leeway. The Tale of Bob is an analytical playground and we can spend as much time analyzing it as it would take to read Moby Dick.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      You are wasting your time. OP is literally relying on subjectivity to posit how something is objective. Some of the users here are just hopelessly stupid

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The author is not dead and The Tale of Bob reeks of lack of effort hence it is worse than Moby Dick, simple as.

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    All real art(not modern ~self-expression~ art) has a degree of objective quality because it takes skill, effort and time
    People are more accepting of objectivity in some forms of art than others. For example music. I've never written a song in my life, and if I tried to write one then whatever I produce will guaranteed be worse than Moonlight Sonata. Because music has rules and structure and a good songwriter can work with these rules to produce something great, and I can't. It's the same to some degree with any legitimate form of art.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Absolutely based. You expressed what I couldn't. I completely agree

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >All real art(not modern ~self-expression~ art) has a degree of objective quality because it takes skill, effort and time
      This is like the LTV but for art. It's dumb.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

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

      Absolutely based. You expressed what I couldn't. I completely agree

      >art is rulez
      you Black folk are moronic and will never be artists

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I think art is subjective in a sense that it presupposes the audience to have personal agency to judge/engage/interact the "art" for themselves

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    the purpose of art is to impose subjective emotions.
    debate over.

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >The Tale of Bob is objectively worse than Moby Dick
    why? by what metric? what is the standard for that metric?

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Subject/object distinction is inauthentic. The art simply is what you perceive it to be.

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    If you utilized an objective scale to judge art would it outweigh the negative aspects like tethering its evolution?

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Correct. Postmodernism is a psyop. The morons who don’t believe in objective truth should be laughed at.

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    When people say "art is subjective" they tend to mean "art means good."

    In conclusion: they are imbeciles.

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The best we can say is that it is possible to formulate objective standards for the evaluation of art. We can’t even agree on the purpose of art. Until someone can compel or convince everyone to accept one and only one purpose of art, it stands to reason it is impossible for there to exist one and only one objective measure of art. Someone who accepts Shklovsky’s notion of defamiliarization of reality as the purpose of art is going to judge works with a different metric than someone who asserts the purpose of art as moral edification.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      /thread

      The "quality" or even "purpose" of art is completely subjective, the only objective thing about art is
      >how hard is to create something similar
      >how impactful it was

      Is Garfield or Spider-Man characters impressive in any objective way? No, not really. Are they fresh new ideas never tried before? No. Is their writing or art in any way superior to previous works? Absolutely not, in every possible way those 2 characters and their comics are mediocre but the impact they had on culture is undeniable.

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Everyone agrees that shit tastes bad, but there are other species that like the taste. Everything is subjective, even if we happen to agree.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Everyone agrees that shit tastes bad
      Not coprophiles, and they're certainly the same species

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Let me rephrase OP's moronic statement a little bit and make it a bit more interesting. Can art be universally good? I'm not asking whether universals ulitmately exist or not but whether there are artworks that can be considered universally good. Likewise, are certain values universal, like bravery and wisdom?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        > Can art be universally good?
        Yes. Proof:

        Suppose there are only two humans.
        They see a painting, and both like it.
        Therefore, all humans like the painting, and so it is universally good.

        Q.E.D.

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >The Tale of Bob is objectively worse than Moby Dick
    prove it. Try to revive the same old tired debate that Plato effectively buried in Ion.

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    It’s subjective because it’s a statement based on the fallible human mind at the end of the day. There’s one homie out there that unironically thinks the story your wrote is better. And every argument you try to throw at him to prove him wrong won’t be objective arguments. They will all have a basis in your emotional mind

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >People say art is subjective.
    People with poor taste say that.

    Here's some "modern art" for reference.

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The tale of Bob was more fun to read than Moby Dick, therefore the tale of Bob is better written. Why would you use that shitass book as an example? Almost everything is better than Moby Dick.

  19. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Art which has a wide appeal tends to attract people who otherwise wouldn't enjoy art in the first place

  20. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    subjective things depend on the brain of the beholder. objective things don't.

    there is an arrangement of atoms (brain) that, when it reads your story, cums instantly (gets a lotta feel good chemicals).

    Where is that brain? doesn't exist; natural selection couldn't make it.

  21. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >The Tale of Bob is objectively worse than Moby Dick. this is not up for debate.
    If someone thinks it's better, it's better. Not you or any amount of other people's opinions can change that. Art is subjective, moron.

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