Art Is Never Too Subjective To Judge(new paper)
polycounter lvl 14
Hey there, fellas. I threw this together a little while back.
It's aimed to alleviate some issues concerning ideation and giving and taking constructive feedback.
If you think you might be interested hop in and read it below:
http://artisaverb.info/Purpose.html
Cheers
It's aimed to alleviate some issues concerning ideation and giving and taking constructive feedback.
If you think you might be interested hop in and read it below:
Purpose In Art(please ignore the thread title,sorry)
Okay, so, at least in my opinion, there are quite a bunch of delusions surrounding arts, that modern human society wallows in. I tried to express my view on the subject of Talent a while back, but now comes the turn of of art being too subjective to judge.
Considering art subjective is the norm nowadays, since a lot of people seem to be brought up this way. The reasons for it trace back to the rise of “modern” art in 20th century, when paintings became completely abstract with a lengthy sophisticated description and reviews from the art establishment communicating their meaning. I dare say the modern art killed in people the desire to judge the works of art, elevating it “above” the level of an average Joe, who, out of fear of sounding simple-minded, will just say that he doesn't know much about art, so it's not for him to judge. And it seems that many people carry this mentality on into their artistic endeavors.
So it is very common, for beginning artists, to retort any kind of criticism with the subject following their unique and personal vision that surprisingly no one understands.
This notion carries on into professional world as well, where it creates all sorts of complicated situations. When your artists cannot satisfy your lead, because the lead is incapable of clearly communicating why does he request certain fixes all the time, while artists are incapable of clearly communicating their problems and outsourcing just makes you want to stick a couple of pencils in your nose and whack your head against the table.
Unfortunately, people living with a firm belief that art could be uncriticizeably subjective miss out on an opportunity to logically understand it more. And it makes them weaker artists then they could've been. It's like trying to compose music by ear without ever trying to grasp the musical theory. You can live without it, but knowing it would make you that much better.
But!
The notion of art being too subjective to judge could actually be proven inconsistent by logic alone in the majority of cases.
In order for that logic to hold up the artwork needs to possess just one attribute that hardly anything in the universe exists without: “A Purpose”. If you think about it, everything in the world is defined by its purpose and can truly be judged only in regards to it. You know that subconsciously: you’d never advise someone painting a fruit still life to paint a spaceship in the foreground. But being conscious about this logic allows you to apply it to every little detail, solving problems and finding answers in the places you’ve never thought of before.
To criticize an art piece (or anything else for that matter) firstly and most importantly, you have to establish its purpose. And then you try to see which features of the object obstruct the realization of the purpose or could accentuate it more productively.
That is the surest way to continuously make your work better and to give objective and productive feedback. If you are dedicated to producing the best artwork possible every single piece of you work should reinforce your purpose and if it doesn’t, then it could be redundant. From colors and composition to the smallest of details.
Sometimes artistic choice could be a torture and here’s an uncanny example from my personal experience how “the purpose” of your work could help you answer the most unexpected of questions: I was making a desert environment, that was about discovering an ancient location and I had to decide on the kind of dunes that were there and the wind direction in the establishing shot. Being inclined to reinforce the purpose I decided that the wind should be blowing right to left in screen space because in semantics of left-to-right-writing cultures the movement from right to left subconsciously means “going back” or “to the past” which seemed to “fit”. A meaningless detail became meaningful and since wind direction greatly affects the formation of sand dunes I got a lot of questions answered for me just by trying to reinforce my purpose. It’s the sort of thing when the puzzle pieces just start magically fitting together.
There’s also one very important thing to know. And that is that every artistical question has a variety of correct answers.
If I have an empty space in my concept and you advise me to put a space ship or a chunk of flying rock there - whichever I choose, they both serve the purpose of balancing out the composition objectively well. Unless, of course, there are other purposes that would require a more specific choice.
Also sometimes smaller decisions are just a matter of personal preference and don’t make any real difference. It’s important to be able to identify those, especially in a production environment. Years ago, I practiced it as an “art of letting go”. With every little thing I wanted to fix in a model I asked myself whether it was a mistake or just a matter of taste. If it was the latter I forced myself to simply let go. This kind of approach eliminates overwork and actually makes you more tolerant to preferences of other people. And this is especially crucial for someone in a lead position, because you never want to be the guy, who demands this pixel green, since it just creates progressively more overwork and irritates your subordinates. In fact, if you have subordinates, it is your responsibility before them to be as logical and transparent about your demands and criticism as possible. I’ve always thought that if a person is smart enough to be in a lead position, he should have no trouble clearly explaining reasons behind his decisions. And if not, he’s could be wasting your time and the companys’ money.
But here’s an important question: How do you tell a personal preference from a legitimate fix? Pretty easy, actually. If you can’t objectively formulate how your suggestion helps reinforce the purpose of the object than it almost certainly is just your personal preference. And it, being done, will please some people a bit, but then it’ll just displease others, who have a different preference, so following with those fixes seems pretty moot.
Important to note, that I am in no way stating that art is not subjective at all, I just think that personal taste shows through mostly in defining the purposes. Because later on pretty much everyone can hop in and work in the framework you create. As it actually happens with art directors and concept artists in real games or movies. Even your junior artist, for example, can come up with something within this framework that is objectively better(relatively to the purpose) then what the art director originally planned, and not following with this idea would actually hurt the project.
So in case you’re not spreading grandmas’ poop on canvas to show your imaginary friend, you almost certainly gonna have a purpose to your art, which means it can be objectively criticized according to it. Even coming back to abstract art examples, if their purpose is to be chaotic, happy or calm, there’s still plenty of advice to be heard. And if someone gives you “wrong” feedback you don’t tell them that it doesn’t “fit your vision”, but try to communicate your purpose instead. And see it as a point in itself: If a lot of people give you “wrong” feedback then your art fails to communicate your purpose at all, which is the first major problem to tackle.
As with talent, a lot of people try to use subjectivity in art as a form a social defense mechanism, looking for an excuse for a job poorly done. It’s also quite easily identified, by the lack of clear purpose by the author himself. If you are that kind of person, hopefully, after reading this, you’ll see that art needs no excuses, but appreciates a thoughtful and friendly advice, instead.
http://artisaverb.info/Purpose.html
Cheers
Replies
EG: don't start a sentence with "and" . quite a few run on sentences, ect. Punctuation errors.
There are a few wrong generalizations as well"
"How do you tell a personal preference from a legitimate fix? Pretty easy, actually. If you cant objectively formulate how your suggestion helps reinforce the purpose of the object, then it almost certainly is just your personal preference."
You can easily reinforce the purpose with your own personal preference. This is what make art GOOD art, is just that; The artists, personal preference. The art director has a personal preference, as does the Creative Director. You go to art school for YEARS to tune in your personal preference to decide what is good or not.
Good stuff buddy, read through all of it like I do with all your previous articles. A little bit too much text for simple ideas, but it gets the (long) message across.
But yeah it is a bit discombobulated
Why not? You know how much that would improve stuffy still-life paintings from the masters?
You see half empty, I see half full. You see poop, I see chocolate. Perception can be subjective, and perception of art is far more so. I can see the point you're aiming at, but I can't agree with it.
The self-entitled intellectual inbreeding that goes on with aforementioned art world is another matter entirely
And your look at roots of that view is damn silly.
Lol, seriously?
What about all those artists/composers whose works were treated like shit when they were alive, while years after their deaths they inspired next generations of artists to go in new directions?
Their works were treated like shit because for most people at the time they were too different from what was considered "good" art. Those works were percieved as an equivalent of canned shit.
Ever heard of Salon des Refuses, where common folks would come and laugh at the "tasteless" art?
Some of those paintings now appear pretty much in every art history book.
Also, you should read about how differently musical consonance and dissonance have been percieved in various cultures and ages.
Also. whenever a new medium is created the "is this art or not" arguments arise again.
Today it's pretty much normal to percieve photography as art, but it wasn't always like this.
...and so on.
Perception of art differs from person to person therefore it's subjective.
The border between "Art" and "Not Art" lies where each human puts it.
only an absolute being, a God, would be able to look at art objectively, unbound by a faulty mammalian brain.
Would a dry pile of grandma's shit painted in amazingly designed patterns be an art?
I don't know and I don't care. When i like something it's not important if majority of humans considers this art or not.
Whether someone thinks that objective beauty exists or not should be irrelevant to his professional work.
Being a pro means having the ability to distance oneself from one's views.
As for "what's the purpose" part of text, i generally agree.
Neomarxist aesthetics might say that no commercial game art can be "art" because it has a clearly defined purpose to make money, and thus has been made into a tool of propaganda and instrumentation, etc. Obviously most people here might reject that notion, but it's a significant body of thought in art history and the like.
So I guess I'd say is, you're not just talking about art in general. It seems like you're talking about art assets in a video game, which isn't the same thing, and it's confusing.
A lot of people, smarter than you or me, have thought about this for a longer time than you or me, and it might be worth reading what they said and how that figures into game art.
First of all I am sorry, I chose poor words for the title and ended up confusing you. The paper should've been called Art Is Never Too Subjective To Judge. I fixed the first post to help a bit.
I am in no way stating that art is not subjective at all, but got it a bit to generalized in my head and that was wrong, so thank you again. The title's changed so now hopefully it'll serve it's purpose better.
Thanks for the feedback, Acr0. I see your point, but, speaking in the framework of the paper, I think that personal taste shows through mostly in defining the purposes. Because later on pretty much everyone can hop in and work in the framework you create. As it actually happens with art directors and concept artists in real games or movies. Even your junior artist, for example, can come up with something within this framework that is objectively better(relatively to the purpose) then what the art director originally planned, and not following with this idea would simply hurt the project.
As an art director you can't possibly hope to come up with better ideas then 20 other artists all the time, so it's not so much about carrying out your personal vision, but setting up an original and cohesive visual experience in the beginning and making sure it gets enforced and expanded upon, for the sake of a better project.
Hey, kat, In no way did I try to bash on abstract art or doubt it's value. It has it's purpose and there's even a mention about it near the end.
It just that compared to representative art the quality is not apparent from the first sight, that's why general public stopped judging it. That was the only point I tried to make with this.
And yea I do agree that the modern art world is built entirely on subjectivity and I am actually not a fan of that. It wasn't always that way. This actually a huge subject in itself, but in case you haven't seen in I would highly recommend you to check out the "Banishment of beauty" lecture
[ame="
though I'm terribly afraid of derailing the thread.
Blaisoid, I put 20th century there, because that' when abstract art became the norm. I never claimed to present a careful timeline of any deviations from representative art, so I see nothing worth being rude for.
Helder, buddy, thank you. I'm glad you saw through some of the imperfections. I'm sorry about the length. I'll make a point to cut up the next one like crazy, I promise.
I do like it and agree with some stuff, but I think you should avoid talking about modern art and it's purpose, and focus more on the game development part of it, studio hierarchy etc.
Modern art by itself is a very very lengthy issue and that kind of comparison comes out as a bit shallow for me, and could also be misinterpreted and end up being offensive.
Specially because that's totally different from what we do. Even though we all work with a similar skill set and produce images, we're dealing with market oriented products that have a very specific purpose ($), way different than art. It's kinda like haute couture and the clothes people actually wear. Same medium, different purposes, none of them is more important than the other. Both need to coexist.
[edit]fonfa beat me to it.
I started to feel sorry for a bit about including that paragraph about modern art, but then again it had it's purpose: to make people think why they are reluctant to judge any kind of art. And I find it very useful.
But then again, the wording was a bit harsh and pulled over too much attention, so I fixed that, to just communicate the idea as plainly as possible. So thank you for pointing that out.
But I still question, how the rest of the paper does not apply to any kind of art and why they should be treated separately?
Doesn't abstract art have a purpose and artist inclined to do their best work?
If you think about it abstract art is all about it's purpose, the idea behind it. And it's recognition mostly relies on it's descriptions and reviews.
edit: I also very highly recommend to check out that lecture I linked. Apart from an alternate view on modern art it also makes a lot of very interesting artistical points.
I think you might be confusing what the purpose of the Art Bible is, as opposed to what other artists in the company are for. The art bible is the Vision of the project. Vision should not be confused with personal preference. The art director/Creative director have this Vision that sets the aesthetics of the game. Concept/character/env etc can all influence the vision with their own artistic preference with how characters stand, or jungles are made. They create it and defend it and justify it, that is what makes a good artist.
I agree with the rest of the posters that you should not reference classical art. Your point gets a bit lost, and your thought process is a bit all over the place. You should focus on a breakdown of the production pipeline. The argument of comparing games to "Art" is ongoing and very complex.
Pure art has no purpose other that to express the feelings and emotions of the creator. Yet it can still be criticized, but that criticism is meaningless. Commercial art is a world of compromises and direction. I would relate commercial art more towards advertising. Even Shadow of the Colossus. Making the creatures cool looking and attractive to the player is far more important than expressing a pure vision of the Art Director. A good art director will know this and focus his skill and making attractive art.
I think extra credits covers what you are trying to talking about well: aesthetics:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/graphics-vs.-aesthetics
"But unfortunately, people living with a firm belief that art is subjective hardly ever try to make an effort to logically understand it. And it hurts them. It's like trying to compose music by ear without ever trying to grasp the musical theory. You can live without it, but knowing it would make you that much better of an artist."
Dude that is the most narrow minded thing i've read in a while. What about um.... Jimmy Hendrix?!
thinking that you're never going to be good at something because you don't know the "basics" that SOMEONE made up... IS going against the principles of art, and that's learning from mistakes.
I MEAN LOGICALLY think about it!!! what about the first caveman that started painting on walls, did he have TUTS?! for geebuz sake!
this whole thread is kind of, off base, it feels more like you're talking about artist insecurities.
But you just said the same thing that I did, only with an "art bible".
How is that not a purpose? If you're painting Holocaust with abstract black brush strokes, wouldn't "add some ash flakes on the canvas" be a viable advice?
If you're painting happiness in blue, wouldn't "blue is associated with sadness a lot in english speaking cultures" be a viable concern?
I don't say that you can cover every single bit of the picture with logics, but you generally can always think of something to reinforce it's purpose.
Why so? Following you logic an artist that paints "silence" or "sadness" can not show through his personal preference, because his subject overpowers it.
Thanks for your opinion, Alberto. But I'm afraid you're taking this a bit too far on your imagination. I actually never stated that you have to know "the basics that someone made up" to accomplish anything.
I play guitar and compose music, and greatly appreciate what Jimmy did. And the only thing I can say about it, and I did in the paper, is that trying to logically understand what you're doing will help you a lot. Jimmy had zero music education but he knew music theory. He might not now how other people called things, but he saw harmonic patterns that exist in music, he understood which note progressions work, he even invented a new chord. Every time he did something he took from the palette of filtered knowledge that he accumulated over the years. As much as everyone here does.
My point was that you don't just pluck around randomly everytime and hope that your "taste" will get you somewhere. You think and teach yourself.
This is exactly what i said. Art is subjective and objective at the same time. So the argument is kind of nullified by that.
To be a good artist you DO have to pluck around and develop your taste, because that ultimately drives your skills, which you DO have to think, learn, and teach yourself.
That is pretty much the core of the issue with your post. You touch on a huge array of subjects without exploring them and diving into the issue. You flirt around some pretty huge and deep philosphies without saying too much about them. Using the proper vocabulary and explaining your use of that vocuabulary is very important. You are coving way too many subjects without saying all that much about them
Bright blue sky with a clear blue sea? that's a pretty happy scene. Subjective
again your mixing traditional art with commerical art. Logistically, a group collaborations Vision is far different that a crazy painter who cuts of his own ears vision. Here's a quote from a FAMOUS abstract painter that tried to explain his work:
"I construct lines and color combinations on a flat surface, in order to express general beauty with the utmost awareness. Nature (or, that which I see) inspires me, puts me, as with any painter, in an emotional state so that an urge comes about to make something, but I want to come as close as possible to the truth and abstract everything from that, until I reach the foundation (still just an external foundation!) of things I believe it is possible that, through horizontal and vertical lines constructed with awareness, but not with calculation, led by high intuition, and brought to harmony and rhythm, these basic forms of beauty, supplemented if necessary by other direct lines or curves, can become a work of art, as strong as it is true"
Can you imagine trying to sell that, In a PURE visual medium (as the painter did) in a commerical environment, such as games?
I'd love to get that fixed.
The "Bilbe" as a term is not so widely spread and even as a subject. Artists work through concept art, concept artists work through art director, so the bible is not necessary on a lot of occasions.
The term is tangential to the paper so it's not there.
I also didn't find any 'vocabulary' there that wouldn't be familiar to general audience. If you could, please, specify, it'd be much appreciated.
again, why so?
They both aim to show you their work and evoke a specific response, which is a purpose. So why does the logic not apply?
The Art Bible is a HUGE term across many many studios. You cannot start a production without it. In my 10 years in the industry, every game I've worked on has had an art bible. just google "art bible game production". I'm not sure of your game experience, but I gather you are fairly new to the industry when you state a Bible is not required. No offense
I guess your whole article is structured in a way that your through process is all over the place. It is hard to follow. You talk about entire production pipelines, without going into detail about your thoughts on them. You also have some odd sentences, where the vocabulary you use seems to be out of place:
"The notion of art being too subjective to judge could actually be proven inconsistent by logic alone in 99% of cases."
What do you mean by "inconsistent"? do you mean inaccurate? And by what "logic"? And why 99%? The logic of all are having "purpose"?
Who are you to judges an abstracts painters art's purpose? It's the purest form of expression possible! You cannot judge that. You can give your opinion, but everyone has opinions. It's not in a commercial space. You move that art into a commercial space, where it has a commercial purpose, THEN it can be judged by the target consumers and the client.
In all the people on here are saying your paper needs more depth and structure, right now it reads like you are thinking out loud without explaining your thougths properly. I think a lit. forum would be a better place for structure feedback.
Why would the paper need to go into specific parts of the pipeline if it's about 'purpose in art'? That's what it touches on. I know I've messed up with the title, but I still don't think it says "production pipeline review"
Google for "inconsistent":
Contradictory statements being:
"your art has a purpose", "you want to reinforce your own preference", "you have to reinforce your purpose".
99% percent exactly because not all artwork has a purpose.
Why can't I judge that? I am the audience as much as everyone else.
It aims to evoke a specific response in me, which is a purpose.
So why does the logic not apply?
Games are games though, and casual or web based games do have less focus on what i'm talking about than a AAA projects. Not making light of the work, but if you are writing about Game art in a general sense, as you are, i think you need more experience in a full production cycle. Conceptual - Prototyping - Pre Pro- Production - Opimization - Polish. Interactions with ALL departments. It is all relevant in terms of writing about how to construct good feedback on commerical game art made in our environment. You have people with 4 full production cycles, 10+ years of experience, and that many hits under thier belt leading teams, still figuring all this process out.
I think people are saying is it was a good effort, but it's hard to understand your thoughts and you need to delve into both how game art is made and the purpose of traditonal art if you want to write about it in a insiprational way
but anyway, Hope my feedback was useful, back to work
And again, All art has a purpose, even if it's purpose is to specifically not have a purpose. (watch exit though the giftshop)
I've never said the you should listen to me cause I said said so. In fact I discourage that by all means.
And no offense, but you keep saying, why I could be wrong instead of where I am wrong an why.
It all boils down to the logic making sense. If someone can objectively prove you were wrong, then you were. In fact I would love to be, 'cause I'll have the prize of correct knowledge in expense of your time, so I am truly sorry for that. But the last thing I want is to share incorrect knowledge with people, so if you still think the logic does not apply I would be happy to hear why.
By saying art is never too subjective to judge, we've got to assume that everyone's perception of art can in some way be objectively quantified, so that they may begin to objectively judge it, and that seems like a pretty wacky idea. When you're creating art to be perceived by someone, the potential breadth of their perception throws a gigantic wrench in any kind of discursive way of analyzing it.
We can certainly agree on and judge many mechanical elements of a piece, but I can't see how we could find any kind of shared, objective meeting of the minds on our most central perceptions of it.
Subjectivity is literally defined as:
adjective
1.
existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject
rather than to the object of thought ( opposed to objective).
and that is a quality inherent to individual perception of art.
This is a pretty exhaustively filled out field that you're writing about, too -- maybe pick up some books about it and research what (objective and subjective) arguments have been made on it in the past? Susanne K Langer had some extremely interesting and developed ideas on the subject.
The idea does seem pretty wacky and yes, not 100% everything can be judged objectively, but that is why there is a condition: a clear purpose. And of course an artist willing to reinforce that purpose.
If someone made something with a specific purpose in mind, why can't someone else have an idea on how to objectively deliver on that purpose better? And provided the aforementioned conditions are met, why is this logic ludicrous?
That's totally a sensible idea! It's just that I think you're (dramatically) overreaching with it. Production of art certainly involves a multitude of objective factors -- those the factors when we self-criticize, when we learn, and when we study. But the piece of art, regardless of its many objective qualities, is not in and of itself a wholly objective thing. So a piece can never in whole be judged objectively -- even if many of the elements and much of the artist's decision making can be.
A study is a great example of this -- you can very objectively compare it, visually, to the subject... And you can analyze the brush strokes, and the technique... But that doesn't necessarily tell you how good of a painting it is. Only how successful it is as a study. One (sizeable) objective slice of the bigger subjective pie.
Illustrators' and production artists' works are another great example of this -- Your goal is to make something which serves a certain visual goal for the client, so success can be objectively measured in how well it evokes what they hired you to evoke... But this clearly isnt a wholly objective thing either, since there are a multitude of different ways to hit the same 'feel'.
To go a step further: in my opinion, in fact, EVERY quality of the art is inherently subjective as it's beheld by the viewer -- regardless of how many objective systems are used by the creator and critics to try and analyze elements of it. IE, I personally feel that nothing anyone makes has any central objective grounding, but that they can be viewed through a lens of objectivity to try and better judge them.
I very much a agree that a piece as a whole can not be judged objectively, I didn't claim that the whole could be judged objectively and I am not sure that is even possible. Things are a summary of their parts and they tend to be judged that way.
If you can objectively criticize a piece of the whole you're still criticizing the whole.
An art piece generally consists of great multitude of purposes, maybe even a hierarchy of them.
For example in a game environment you could have:
- communicate story
- help gameplay
-- enforce the art style/realism
--- have harmonious composition of space
--- Have a harmonious color scheme
--- show off some cool tech
--- etc...
Purposes themselves are defined by a variety of subjective reasons(plot, gametype, artsyle...) But with all the purposes set up you can dissect the whole into purpose-specific slices and objectively judge them according to their purpose or the purposes higher in the hierarchy. That's very close to the definition of Analysis, btw.
If I got you right, in a study, your purpose is to learn more than to reproduce. And, yes, that can not be judged traditionally. It has to be judged in a context of how well you can apply your new knowledge further in your original work. But it is not really judging a work of art.
Absolutely! And it was in the paper actually. But why can't a multitude of correct answers be equally objective in regards to a specific goal?
I have an empty space in my concept. You could advise me to put a space ship or a chunk of flying rock there. Whichever I choose, they both serve the purpose of balancing out the composition objectively well.
Any additional purposes could further aid your choice, though.
This is a nice point, but you can't squeeze anything productive out of it.)
On thing that I started to latch on to with regards to nomenclature is the difference between art and design.
Both are forms of expression but one could be considered for more subjective (art) while the
other (design) is far more objective
I wrote some posts awhile back on this: http://www.polycount.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1402591
Language is an issue indeed. In fact I read through the post you linked and there isn't a thing I disagree with or can see the paper contradict.
I just assume it's logical that the subjective emotions once decided to be placed into an art piece, become it's specific goals. The emotions are entirely subjective, no argument about it, but their implementation, could be objectively judged.
That's the only point I'm trying to make.
This website jocose linked to contradicts everything you are trying to say in your OP though. You say that art is never to subjective to judge. You are trying to lump commercial art (design), into the same category as fine art.
"An artist, on the other hand, could never be given any specific instructions in creating a new chaotic and unique masterpiece because his emotions and soul is dictating the movement of his hands and the impulses for the usage of the medium.
No art director is going to yell at an artist for producing something completely unique because that is what makes an artist an artist and not a designer.
People are basically telling you your whole thesis is way off base. Either you are not using the right language and vocabulary to concisely write out your thoughts, or the base idea you are writing about is wrong.
Though the text there is very arguable
Author doesn't prove that "Taste" and "Opinion" aren't the exact same thing.
Dictionary definition for taste:
"A personal preference or liking"
For opinion:
"A personal view, attitude, or appraisal"
could they unarguably be considered different things? Looks far from it.
Also the talent part heavily undermined credibility of the whole article. I'm yet to meet a great artist that believes his abilities have anything to do with talent, and I actually prove wrong some of the points of the article in the other paper I linked in the first post.
Okay, is actually a classical example of what Logics(as a university discipline at least) considers a false definition: a definition that features itself as an argument. Just move the word "artist" into the beginning of the sentence.
That's just an invalid thesis.
I'm sorry to repeat myself, but my basic argument is:
"If someone made something with a specific purpose in mind, someone else can have an idea on how to objectively deliver on that purpose better."
If you're saying I am wrong, just say where I am wrong and why and If your argument is more logically sound I'll gladly take it and admit myself wrong.
Quoting other people who agree with you, proves only that someone agrees with you. But people also used to agree that sun rotates around the earth. And while my issue is far from that significance I would love to be proven wrong instead of trampled by the authority of many.
ART: The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture,...: "the art of the Renaissance"
DESIGN: A plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of a building, garment, or other object before it is built or made.
You can see the difference. In modern English language the definition of art does not included "a purpose" or a plan. It is chaos the pure attempt to express the ineffable. It is no planned it is not defined and it can never be reproduced.
Now, art in the context of a plan or purpose is called design.
What are you are talking about is not art but Design. "Design" is not subjective, with this I agree.
Art however is a word that is reserved for the non-planed, spontaneous, and improvised.
If your revise the words you are using then yes your thesis makes sense but it also not new. It is a very old concept that has been around for a long time. Looking a bit deeper into the study of aesthetics you will see this distinction has been critical to the discussion for a long time.
Keep in mind that one can not have art without design nor design without art. They are inseparable and intertwined, and as I said part of an expressive spectrum.
Canning the entire process as one or the other is, of course, going to lead to confusion and demand clarification because it is a poor model.
Art and design are co-current.
By the way I absolutely love the level of thought you put into your craft please keep this up.
The paper really came out of my talk with my drummer friend who told me their new keyboardist was kicked out of the band for trying to really improve their music.
So the initial message was to stop people from using subjectivity as an excuse for a job poorly done. And the best I could tell them, was that art's not subjective, because everyone can objectively criticize it(if it has a purpose).
But there was more to subjectivity in art and that slipped my mind that moment, being too caught up in the original message.
So I am sorry for creating confusion, I really am. Never did I want to claim that art is not subjective and the paper reflects that now. My only point ever was that if your art has a purpose, and most does, then someone could give you an objectively valid advice. And I still stand by that.
This is no way a new concept and in fact it's what all design was ever based upon - a purpose. I just didn't see people being to aware about it.
But to stray from the topic of the paper and back to your post, here are a few points I strongly disagree with:
I am sorry but according to this statement the majority of pre-20th century art doesn't qualify as art at all. All classic painters be it da Vinchi, Bosch, Rembrandt, Zorn or everyone else extensively studied and planned their future works. Their preproduction for a single painting could last years with hundreds of sketches, etudes and studies. They basically produced plans and drawings to show the look and function of a painting before it was painted. But you don't see no one calling them designers. The famous painting "Rooks are Back" by Russian classic Alexey Savrasov was reproduced by himself on numerous occasions.
It still considered a classic example of russian art and is displayed at Tretyakov Gallery in St. Petersburg.
Improvisation is actually taught at Musical Higher Education establishments and greatly relies on very extensive knowledge and skill and much less on emotion.
Also is all the other music but improvised not art?
I'm afraid it might be you who is confusing terms. Almost everything humanity calls art be it paintings, sculptures, books, films and music relies extensively on planning, preproduction and skill. I would personally throw out the word design all together, since classical art seems to encompass the majority of what's described as design. But if you are so inclined to preserve the tandem of "art" and "design" then according to the Wikipedia definition of design:
Art and design could be consecutive parts of the same process of producing artwork. Where art would be the first part where you decide on goals, environment and constraints. While design is where you work within those constraints. This way art is still subjective, but design constitutes a huge part of artwork production anyway and since you said it's mostly objective then you can still objectively judge almost every kind of artwork.
You realize all thoes artists were COMMERICAL artists? usually paid by indivduals or the CHURCH to paint something speciifc, that had a speciifc purpose. Portraits, biblical scenes, ect.
They were the epitomy of commercial art/design Hell Rembrant didn't get paid by half the people in his famous Night Watch painting becuase they wern't shown well enough. The chruch had very strict rules to how they painted their scenes. Church commisioned paintings are probably some of the earliest examples of advertising design. Individuals paid them well because photography didn't exist. The artist had some expression of vision, but they were given strict guidelines by the client. That sounds a lot like design work.
The whole reason why commerical art is so universally apppealing is due to the fact the artist HAS to make it universally appealing. Yes classic painting is fine art, but don't ignore why that art work was made.
If you are looking for more art examples, try Peit Mondrain, or Henri Matisse, or Picasso or Van Gogh (just entering 20th century)
This painting? This will cost you 25 million for the original. I personally hate it. Some love it. Subjective. Not commercial art. This form of art has value, what make it have value? What is the "purpose" of this painting? Matisse did not paint this for any specific purpose, other than his vision. Can it ALSO have universal appeal? Sure, but they are not dependent.
I never said abstract art is bad. I don't mind it not having a purpose.
It only means that you can't objectively criticize it. What's this all about, really?
If the dude called this "Cold Morning" or put it in his description, then we could objectively say, that it doesn't look or feel very cold. That's it. If he doesn't - no argument.
Why do you keep bringing the same thing up?
Also,
This is pretty disturbing. Human art tradition was based heavily on extensive studying, planing and preproduction for a couple thousands years and you don't honestly think that all of those people were sellouts unworthy to be called artists?
There are thousands of art masterpieces hanging in galleries around the world that were created through careful planing and thorough study without any commission whatsoever, also by the artists I mentioned before.
You do realize that you are incredibly biased to any kinds of art but abstract "pure" art? Does it make all other art..."dirty"?
Non-representational art is just a fraction of humanities art heritage, that wouldn't be possible without centuries of artistic knowledge and skill that humanity accumulated. Might as well show some respect to it.
And hey, if you're here to evangelize for abstract art, then please cut it out. It's up to each and everyone to decide for themselves whether there is something in those paintings worth 25 mil.$ I'm just trying to advocate for people constantly putting a good thought in improving their work.
only debating what you are trying to sell. That sentence and the next 3 paragraphs, you are trying to impose a commercial workflow and critique onto 99% of all Art.
This is only art history 101.. really basic stuff.
Every master painter had pupils, that were paid to help work on large paintings and learn the trade. Commercial Artists are still artists. I never said they were not artists. A traditional Japanese sword maker is an artist, but if he goes off an makes "his" vision of a sword with a zaggy blade, he wont be commercial successful... but he will still be a "Artist". We can judge his work, but it will be meaningless unless he goes off and says "MY sword is superior!". Then he is moving his ART, back into the commercial world.
I am commenting, as are others, on how you are judging art under one broad defining rule. I am mearly saying, it is too complex a subject to try and cover in a short post.
Remember you can not create a piece of art work without a design and you can not create a design with out some art to fill in the gaps in your plan.
There is no such thing as pure art or pure design. I was just speaking to the nature of the two extremes.
Think about it, it would be very hard to reprodouce pure emotional expression (a jackson pollock paint splatter painting) but much easier to reproduce the apple logo (a well exucted thoughtful designed)
Jackson pollock still had a plan, although it be a very crude an simple one, but most of it was improvised in the moment.
I also don't know how you got the idea that I was suggest art didn't take skill. The act of responding in the moment takes a tremendous ammount of practice and skill, and so does planning and reasoning before hand.
Again, Art and Design are sub compoenents of expression. Expression is both these things and can not exist with out them no more than an atom could exist with a proton and neutron.
99% is obviously far from an exact number, but it could more as much as it could be less.
I also have nothing about commercial art at all. I talk about a constant conscious effort to become better and if this is all the same to you, then I am sorry you think that way.
Jocose, Art is what the audience perceives. At least if you plan to show it to anyone. And the audience honestly doesn't care about where the atoms are there. Not every art critic could tell authors replicas from one another so what's the difference? I find your statement very-very arguable.
It's unarguable, that it's hard to reproduce, but very arguable that it is "pure emotional expression". There's a chance that an artist splattering happy paint will end up with a similar result as the artist splattering the sad one. And most importantly, will the audience see any difference?
If you splattering paint with a purpose to convey an emotion, will the people be able to tell if you tried to convey happiness or sadness? Unlikely.
You guys seem to try convince me in importance of abstract art more than anything else, but I don't want to go there. There's much more to art than this.
As with this splatter thing, if it can't hold up against logic and depends mostly on viewers interpretation I'm fine with that. Then the paper does not apply and that's about it.
All art has different purposes. The art in a video game has a purpose, which is to guide the player, immerse them in a virtual world, and to improve gameplay.
Paintings can be made out of pure expression; they don't always have a storyline, or a list of characters, or a list of items that come from the world that the painting is displaying. Sure, concept art usually does, but again that is art with a different purpose in mind from the beginning.
It is all about the purpose the art has at its conception. In a game studio, the art is going to be used to make the game better, in terms of immersion, how it improves gameplay, how it looks different from the competition....
All art in a game is created a certain way to be marketed to a certain demographic.
You try to categorize all art under the same category, regardless of the medium or regardless of the initial purpose of the art. You need to make your write-up more about game art, or otherwise make it more clear in the beginning that it isn't just game art you are talking about.
I never actually stated that they can not be. Where is this coming from?
No purpose - no critique:) pure expression as a purpose - no critique as well.
You talk about game art and traditional art too interchangeably, and that also messes with people as well.
Your title is, "Art is never too subjective to judge," but your paper doesn't feel like it has that title when reading it. You change subjects too much. You talk about one subject, but then you don't delve into it deep enough and move to the next one suddenly.
Your paper is kind of confusing to follow, in short. It doesn't have an introduction, discussion of one or more topics broken up into paragraphs, and then a conclusion for said topics.
In short - I think it needs to be long enough for you to fully talk about everything you mention more in-depth. The paper also needs more structure.