On the nature of objectivity in art Anonymous 01/14/20 (Tue) 00:22:43 No. 2041 [ D]
Is there any objectivity in art?
I used to think that there was "good" and "bad" music, because some things like innovation, quality and originality seemed like really solid on their own and not based on biased views of someone, rather they are intrinsic and true. But recently I've encountered an interesting point of view I'd like to share: The things I mentioned above about music (and other art) could be considered "objectively something" only as from the point of view of a specific group, but there is no real *absolute* objectivity. For example, a painting could be "objectively good" for 22chan and at the same time "objectively bad" for 4chan. Doesn't make much sense? Here's a better example: maybe 200 years ago people valued virtuosity on instruments very highly, while today most people value emotion behind the music as much if not more than being skilled at the instrument. Of course skills are still respected, but the perspective changed a lot. Keep in mind that at the time the importance of virtuosity probably seemed immutable and objective. So maybe there really are no actual real and absolute parameters. There is no "truth", no song is "good" or "bad". It's good or bad for a certain community. Btw this applies to all arts (not sciences), music is just an example. This really collided with the point of view I had before, but with time I'm starting to think this does make some sense. What are your opinions on the subject anon? Sit by the fire and have some grilled rat, we gotta warm up our blood sometimes. These /sewers/ really are the best place to have a comfy conversation