NationStates Jolt Archive

I often hear it said that art (music, paintings, whatever) can't be compared, like in a post on this forum someone said that band's can't really be compared because it's all a matter of opinion. Is that true?

Can art be actually, in fact, better than other art?

no

Who's to decide which art is better? I guess the market. Look at which art commands the highest prices.

Can art be actually, in fact, better than other art?
From opinionated points of view, yes. From a group view, no. I personally believe that most portraits are utter poo, conveying no sense of feeling from the painter. There are obvious exceptions, but I couldn't really ever like them. I either like art with some sense of feeling, or ingrained intelligence (particular fan of MC Escher)

EDIT: Ha! At this point I am the biggest posting member in this thread *joy*

I think it can. Hard to describe how, but still I think it is possible. Certainly with the amount of copying of late

Damn

I think that art can be judged by the level of effort and expertiese needed to make it work or to understand it. Art with no effort or comminication of ideas is not true art.

I think that art can be judged by the level of effort and expertiese needed to make it work or to understand it. Art with no effort or comminication of ideas is not true art.

But how do you judge it? And how is your judgement any better than someone else's? What if a painting to one person is just scribbles, and to another its a complex work of genius?

Certainly, but it takes longer to find out considering the "better" art will be the stuff still around centuries to come. At the present however art is an opinion sort of thing because I like some stuff that other more artsy types would be appalled by, probably negating my opinion anyway.

I think that art can be judged by the level of effort and expertiese needed to make it work or to understand it. Art with no effort or comminication of ideas is not true art.
Similar logic to mine. Although I think that tent that was in the saachi gallery (by a female artist I can't quite remember) was pointless to the extreme.

Did anyone see the winner of the most influencial piece of 20th century art? It was a urinal. Why? Because it was one of the first pieces where the artist said "It's art because I say it is" :headbang:

Some "art" i.e Tracey Emin's "unmade bed" isn't art at all, it's a fekkin' unmade bed!!
Martin Creeds "lights going on.....(five second pause).....lights going off" isn't "art", it's an automated light switch!!

If you want to win the Turner prize it pays to be either a clatty, lazy bint who can't be arsed to tidy up her bed or a semi competent electrician.

Doesn't anyone just get out some paints and a canvas anymore?

At the moment, I don't think it is possible to say that one piece of art is inherently better than another one. But I think that will eventually change: postmodernism can't last forever.



Did anyone see the winner of the most influencial piece of 20th century art? It was a urinal. Why? Because it was one of the first pieces where the artist said "It's art because I say it is" :headbang:I think that Duchamp's urinal deserved the prize. It did, for better or worse, have a huge influence on the evolution of modern art, and it's impressive (to me at least) how far ahead of his time his thinking was (it was 'made' in 1917).

Yes. Of course it is.
Almost everything is subjective.
Even "facts."

I often hear it said that art (music, paintings, whatever) can't be compared, like in a post on this forum someone said that band's can't really be compared because it's all a matter of opinion. Is that true?

Can art be actually, in fact, better than other art?

Well... for most of my life I thought so, but arguing with my wife on the subject has proved utterly fruitless. ;)