The Subjectivity of Artistic "Quality"

[razoredge]

Huh... I dont need to look beyond, I understand the meaning of levels of quality(2) in any form of art or craftsmanship. I only looked into the dictionary for definations because you had me convinced I was missing something.

You are clearly talking about personal qualitys(1) that exist in X piece of art that appeal at a personal level to an individuals personal taste, that requires no specified amount of caliber, capacity, class, condition, distinction, excellence, excellency, genious, perfection, rank, repute, standing, stature, superbness, superiority... and is SUBJECTIVE.

Your topic title should read "The Subjectivity of Artistic "Appreaciation" (characteristic, feature, affection, aspect, attribute, character, condition, description, element, essence, factor, individuality, name of tune, nature, nature of beast, parameter, peculiarity, property, savor, sort, trait, way of it) "

 

[XxSNAPxX]

In my very humble opinion, good and bad are words that hold no REAL meaning since thier meanings are dictated by both the situation and the person saying them.

 

[Blowtus]

In my very humble opinion, good and bad are words that hold no REAL meaning since thier meanings are dictated by both the situation and the person saying them.

If you're going to rule anything context sensitive as meaningless, you're in for a shit of a time trying to communicate

 

[Blowtus]

EDIT: Blowtus, mind expanding on your thoughts? You state that only the test of time is the true metric of quality. So is it the popularity not of the present, but of the future, that determines quality? If so, please explain how the many, many underground bands who will not be remembered in 50 years, let alone 500, are of inherently low quality.

I said no such thing, I just asked whether you think any random bit of noise could as easily be held up as 'quality' as something from, say, Mozart. I think it's obvious that although taste and opinion fluctuates, there are underlying elements of music that lead to them more likely being deemed 'high quality', and I think with varying degrees of effort these elements could be drawn out and examined.

Why do people practice for years, put such effort into writing / composing? Because they believe that doing so will result in better quality music...

Of course this is still subjective, but as someone who subscribes to the 'everything is subjective' viewpoint, I also see a use for the term objectivity, to describe that which is relatively fixed from different viewpoints.

 

[ThereWasNoWay12]

Yes RedFox, I'm still with you. It is hard to take any other standpoint on this issue other than the relativist one.

Here are a few things for people to think about:

1. Perhaps, when people measure the "quality" of a selection of music, it is proper to measure it against something, in relative terms, or to measure it against what the composer or musician claims he or she is trying to accomplish. For example, if somebody wants to write a programmatic piece of music about a certain scenario, but the song generally fails to really capture the details of the scenario, then perhaps it is "poor quality". Maybe it is also just that the artist's goal wasn't obtained. If I wrote a dance song that had weird irregular rhythm to it and it was hard to fall into a groove on the dance floor, then maybe the song has failed to achieve its goal? Would it be a "poor quality" dance song? It could still be good for other listening purposes, though. So maybe there are different perspectives from which the "quality" of music can be measured.

2. The concept of elitism, for some, could apply to music. In this case, people would look toward the music experts and masterpiece composers for what is "good" and what is "bad". Does anybody think there is something in this? It is relatively rare to find a composer, theorist, or other music expert that criticizes the works of J.S. Bach. The elitist might then suggest that Bach's works are "superior".

I generally try to distance myself from the elitist standpoint. But after listening to and studying some of Bach's music myself, I have found his music to be among the most precious and dearest music to me.

 

[RedFox742]

:
1. Perhaps, when people measure the "quality" of a selection of music, it is proper to measure it against something, in relative terms, or to measure it against what the composer or musician claims he or she is trying to accomplish. For example, if somebody wants to write a programmatic piece of music about a certain scenario, but the song generally fails to really capture the details of the scenario, then perhaps it is "poor quality". Maybe it is also just that the artist's goal wasn't obtained. If I wrote a dance song that had weird irregular rhythm to it and it was hard to fall into a groove on the dance floor, then maybe the song has failed to achieve its goal? Would it be a "poor quality" dance song? It could still be good for other listening purposes, though. So maybe there are different perspectives from which the "quality" of music can be measured.

Hey, I think you hit on something there! QF(possible)T.

So a creation that is "good" is one which succeeds in the creator's original goal? I rather like that. It's still not objective, but it's closer than anyone else has gotten.

The real reason that I started this thread is that I'm sick of people stating a subjective opinion as if it's infallible truth and not even trying to imagine someone else could feel differently and not be intrinsically "wrong." It's a major problem with humanity.

 

[Blowtus]

I just scribbled 'shit' on a piece of paper. My glorious creation is precisely as intended, and thus I take my rightful place alongside the past masters

The real reason that I started this thread is that I'm sick of people stating a subjective opinion as if it's infallible truth and not even trying to imagine someone else could feel differently and not be intrinsically "wrong." It's a major problem with humanity.

The reason I argue against you is I'm sick of our 'culture of tolerance' that craps on with lofty airs that nothing is inherently better than anything else, then self deceptively ignores its own judgment and preferences anyway. I fear few will join me in espousing the greatness of my work 'shit', and I think the obviousness of this suggests that some shared identification of quality is easy.

 

[razoredge]

The real reason that I started this thread is that I'm sick of people stating a subjective opinion as if it's infallible truth and not even trying to imagine someone else could feel differently and not be intrinsically "wrong." It's a major problem with humanity.

So I agree with this, as in... its easy to get sick of around this "metal" forum, but ultimately you have to realize what you are dealing with. It crops up in everyday life as well, various conversations about anything really. One of my favorites is to hear a man talk about another woman as "ugly"... then you get a look at his woman... yikes... at their best people are shit, hypocritical, full of shit, liars, deceivers, theifs, narrow minded, self centered and self rightous... as simple as Blowtus put it... SHIT... a human quality... piece of shit... quality shit... first rate shit... high shelf shit

Yet in the artistic field these total pieces of genuine quality shit can produce craft of genuine quality... while remaining a walking talking genuine high quality human piece of shit

 

[ThereWasNoWay12]

I just scribbled 'shit' on a piece of paper. My glorious creation is precisely as intended, and thus I take my rightful place alongside the past masters



The reason I argue against you is I'm sick of our 'culture of tolerance' that craps on with lofty airs that nothing is inherently better than anything else, then self deceptively ignores its own judgment and preferences anyway. I fear few will join me in espousing the greatness of my work 'shit', and I think the obviousness of this suggests that some shared identification of quality is easy.

I will bear with you for a bit on this. Your creation is precisely as intended, but who does it appeal to, and on what level? I fear you may be correct that few will join you in praising the greatness of the art you just created.

If poor quality is distinguished from great quality by measuring its appeal to the general population (for example, your "shit" artwork might be like this, where few might agree it is a masterpiece.), then is the opposite true? This leads to saying that good quality is distinguished from poor quality by measuring general popularity. Thus, Britney Spears and Miley Cyrus are brilliant artists...

This brings me to what I was saying about emotional and intellectual content in art. What does the artwork do for a person? If somebody were to examine your artwork, what would they find so interesting? Would it move them emotionally? What does your artwork mean to different people, and yourself?

Perhaps artwork is a means of connecting with a person's brain and heart, in ways that regular or standard means of communication just cannot reach. In this way, it is a special form of communication or expression. A couple quotes from some artists that relate to this in some way or another:

"If a composer could say what he had to say in words he would not bother trying to say it in music."
- Gustav Mahler

"If I weren't the way I am, I shouldn't write my symphonies."
- Gustav Mahler

"... the poetry must be altogether the obedient daughter of the music... when music reigns supreme and one listens to it, all else is forgotten."
- Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

"I despise a world which does not feel that music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy."
- Ludgwig van Beethoven

 

[Blowtus]

If poor quality is distinguished from great quality by measuring its appeal to the general population (for example, your "shit" artwork might be like this, where few might agree it is a masterpiece.), then is the opposite true? This leads to saying that good quality is distinguished from poor quality by measuring general popularity. Thus, Britney Spears and Miley Cyrus are brilliant artists...

I suggest that quality is a component of popularity, sure. Britney and her producer/s make much higher quality accessible boppy shit with sex appeal than I ever could. Because it is a component, knowing somethings popularity allows a 'better than chance' guess as to its quality. Nowhere have I said it's the whole story, it's just evidence that there are some consistent underlying standards.

 

[razoredge]

still all said and done you are subjecting personal qualities(1) that appeal to a given person subjectively according to their taste. Not necessarily representing any raised standard of craft (quailty 2)

Now if Blowtus stopped scribbling and made a real astounding and profound canvas centered around a unique lettering of the word shit it could be considered of high quality... of questionable content and yet appeal to very few for its quality of character

confused yet ?

 

[razoredge]

"I despise a world which does not feel that music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy."
- Ludgwig van Beethoven

BTW - This quote is awesome and the way I always felt... less the despise which I would have said "saddened"

 

[XxSNAPxX]

If you're going to rule anything context sensitive as meaningless, you're in for a shit of a time trying to communicate

HAHA, Yeah, i suppose i am. But in everyday conversation it's different than when i actually sit and think about it...idk..it's the reefer :Smokin:

 

[monoxide_child]

Britney Spears does different things for different people. Some hear it as very emotional with a technically proficient voice, thus, "good". Some hear a vapid whining, thus, "bad".

kinda off-topic but have you ever heard the song "video killed the radio star"? well, it actually happened, the people that are completely totally deaf absolutely love watching Brittney Spears' music videos