There is Objective Beauty in Art

LinearLineman

@tahiche said:
The key here in my opinion is what “objective” means and how we apply it.

• If we interpret the term objective as a universal, indisputable truth, then there’s no thing as Objectively beautiful or good art. It’s tied to our culture, surroundings, knowledge, experience and even as human beings.
• Objective can also be used as a sort of educated consensus derived from experience, comparison and knowledge. It’s not universal and bound to time and place. This is my how I use it in the context of art.

Taking the Prince example, Prince is “skilled” by both definitions, he’s undeniably and objectively skilled at playing and composition. Whereas he’d only qualify as “talented” by the second definition as talent is based on consensus and can be questioned.

If we are to apply “objective” in its most extreme form, as universal and unquestionable, the term itself would be objectively inapplicable. As Trump supporters will tell you, there’s alternative truths. Do not try to impose your view as universal. Don’t tell me the earth is round, that’s just the mainstream opinion, not the absolute truth. Prove it!.
So in order to use the term at all we need to make it a bit more flexible and relaxed, based on consensus.

Here’s where I drop in the “how do you like your toast?” meme…

If you ordered breakfast and they brought you toast 1 or 5 you’d be eligible and right to complaint. They’re objectively horrible because there’s a consensus strong enough. It’s not universal, sure, there’s an old lady in Croacia that likes the crunch. But we live in society and we need to stablish a threshold as to what is considered objective. If 99% of people dislike toast Nº1, then it’s objectively bad. Whereas toast 10 or 12 would be a subjective choice.
This applies to the world being round, vaccines, art, Prince being good and Reggeaton a piece of crap.

@tahiche, that’s all well and good, but I prefer rye toast (plus I might have a wheat allergy) so none of those suit me. “Consensus” includes everyone, no? Or is it just those who like and can tolerate white bread?

@wim, I really liked what you wrote, however, you’re basing it all on the existence of a soul, which, as yet, cannot be objectively proven. Yours is a romantic wish. I like it, but much as I would like to believe in such stuff, it is just that… a belief,

“There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so.” Wm Shakespeare

I like this thread but, to me, it is much more about the mind thinking than about art.

CracklePot

@Wrlds2ndBstGeoshredr said:

@tahiche said:

Here’s where I drop in the “how do you like your toast?” meme…

If you ordered breakfast and they brought you toast 1 or 5 you’d be eligible and right to complaint. They’re objectively horrible because there’s a consensus strong enough. It’s not universal, sure, there’s an old lady in Croacia that likes the crunch. But we live in society and we need to stablish a threshold as to what is considered objective. If 99% of people dislike toast Nº1, then it’s objectively bad. Whereas toast 10 or 12 would be a subjective choice.
This applies to the world being round, vaccines, art, Prince being good and Reggeaton a piece of crap.

Why are 9 and 10 toastier than 7 and 8, and 13 and 14 toastier than 11 and 12?

Because the gradient is diagonally oriented, while the numbering is vertically oriented.
Seems pretty obvious to me.

MrStochastic

@wim said:
This all seems backward to me.

I see beauty as a thing that exists in the soul and comes to our consciousness through connection with things that we experience. The thing itself doesn’t have beauty. It has characteristics that resonate with our soul and connect us with our sense of beauty.

The extent that an artist can express the beauty in their soul into a “thing” in such a way that my observing it resonates with the beauty in my soul, is the measure of the artist’s success for me, and for others with similar tastes.

But to me the creation itself is just an object or other thing to be experienced. It doesn’t possess “beauty” it provokes, or perhaps stimulates or exposes those connections in me. But it isn’t objectively beautiful. It’s just molecules, reflections and absorptions of light, sound waves assembled together for some period of time in such a way that they can be observed.

I believe an argument could be made that there is an objective universal beauty. But if there is, I believe it’s has to be something we universally share in the soul. It could be the same in all of us, but what evokes a connection to it varies across cultures, individuals, personalities, and a million other variables.

So … can a work of art be objectively beautiful? I firmly believe not. To be so would require it to be able to connect with every person. Impossible. You could argue that the thing is objectively beautiful but certain people just don’t “get it”. But who then decides who just doesn’t get it? No human is qualified to make that decision objectively. So, to me, the fact that there is no piece of art universally recognized as beautiful, means that such a thing doesn’t and cannot exist.

I think there are some good points here. Also, interesting to see @wim writing outside of his usual technical analysis.

I think the music we value most happens by accidental "imprinting", hearing something at the right time, with the right kind of receptivity. Almost like the ducklings that imprint on the first creature they see at hatching and then follow. There are a lot of chance factors that just happen to come together.

Blipsford_Baubie

@db909 said:

@Blipsford_Baubie said:

@Wrlds2ndBstGeoshredr said:

@tahiche said:

Here’s where I drop in the “how do you like your toast?” meme…

If you ordered breakfast and they brought you toast 1 or 5 you’d be eligible and right to complaint. They’re objectively horrible because there’s a consensus strong enough. It’s not universal, sure, there’s an old lady in Croacia that likes the crunch. But we live in society and we need to stablish a threshold as to what is considered objective. If 99% of people dislike toast Nº1, then it’s objectively bad. Whereas toast 10 or 12 would be a subjective choice.
This applies to the world being round, vaccines, art, Prince being good and Reggeaton a piece of crap.

Why are 9 and 10 toastier than 7 and 8, and 13 and 14 toastier than 11 and 12?

I’m relieved that I’m not the only one bothered by this.

It would appear, objectively as an absolute fact beyond reproach of course, that these toast graph makers need to get their shit together.

Hmm.. is it possible then that this toast graph may be this elusive example sought by centuries of philosophers? Nobody will agree on which piece of toast is most appealing, but everybody will choose at least one piece of toast from that canvas. Somebody made that toast. Somebody photographed it. Even if somebody has Celiac disease, they will appreciate looking at the toast even more. If it’s an impoverished person who lives in a culture who has never had toast and doesn’t know what toast is, the texture evident in the photo from one of those pieces surely must call out to their visceral imagination while in a state of famine.

MadeofWax

So is the Mona Lisa objectively art to a blind man? Is John Cage's 4'33 (silence) objectively art? I feel like art must be experienced to be "art" and once experienced is subjective. But I am willing to accept other possibilities.

michael_m

GeoTony

Whoever did the toast graph was probably just trying to earn a crust while his mates just loafed about making more dough than him. No knead to comment any further.

tahiche

@Blipsford_Baubie said:

@Wrlds2ndBstGeoshredr said:

@tahiche said:

Here’s where I drop in the “how do you like your toast?” meme…

If you ordered breakfast and they brought you toast 1 or 5 you’d be eligible and right to complaint. They’re objectively horrible because there’s a consensus strong enough. It’s not universal, sure, there’s an old lady in Croacia that likes the crunch. But we live in society and we need to stablish a threshold as to what is considered objective. If 99% of people dislike toast Nº1, then it’s objectively bad. Whereas toast 10 or 12 would be a subjective choice.
This applies to the world being round, vaccines, art, Prince being good and Reggeaton a piece of crap.

Why are 9 and 10 toastier than 7 and 8, and 13 and 14 toastier than 11 and 12?

I’m relieved that I’m not the only one bothered by this.

It bothers me too! 😂 Fucked up meme!. How am I going to get my point across if I can’t even pick the right toast meme?.

db909

@MadeofWax said:
So is the Mona Lisa objectively art to a blind man? Is John Cage's 4'33 (silence) objectively art? I feel like art must be experienced to be "art" and once experienced is subjective. But I am willing to accept other possibilities.

Well stated

McD

@MadeofWax said:
So is the Mona Lisa objectively art to a blind man? Is John Cage's 4'33 (silence) objectively art? I feel like art must be experienced to be "art" and once experienced is subjective. But I am willing to accept other possibilities.

Doesn't the result of statistical analysis indicate a degree of truth? Of course the blond man is a one off and doesn't get counted but there are many to use in the analysis.

John Cage's Zen Joke is clever... can we respect the zen impact of art objectively. I think we can. Of course,
educating the audience to comprehend such a non-sensical experience has a huge impact o the results.

We could model a lot of this analysis and potentially train and AI to do the work. Overtime the model could help an artist or better yet... just replace the artist and improve the results like Deep Blue got better at Chess which is a decidedly objective human activity with a ratings system. Who wouldn't want to be a certified Grand Master artist?

Poof dream over. That was totally weird. Almost like a Metaverse experience.

LinearLineman

Then there’s the position of the observer/listener… is it in only one position that the objective art, if there is such a thing, is objectively beautiful? If you move to the left or right, closer to further? Is the David equally beautiful from the back? Is the symphony equally beautiful when you’re sitting on the extreme left in the concert hall?

Bottom line, what difference does it really make if something is objectively beautiful? So much of the “real” world is in pursuit of objectivity in the form of precise measurement, like the measurement of a second by an atomic clock. The precise color of a diamond by a gemologist. The frequency analysis by an audiologist. But, similar to Xeno’s Paradox even scientists cannot reach their “objective” because a more precise measuring tool is always possible. Atomic clocks measure time to billionths of a second, but, for sure, the quintillion clock is just around the corner.

So maybe a better question is… if we had a piece of art that was objectively beautiful what would it mean?
If there was one… would there be others? Would those be equally beautiful? If we had one thing that EVERYONE agreed on could that be used to improve things in some way… like a universal Kumbaya moment? I’m guessing the answers are no. Most importantly, why should we even care?

palms

@LinearLineman well said!

you've brought the most interesting point to the conversation, imo: Why in the world would anyone desire for beauty to be objective. The subjective nature of experience is what makes it interesting. the relativity of experiences and objects.

has someone ever baked the most perfect casserole? who's to say? There are likely billions of people who don't like casseroles. But to those who have enjoyed one, each person's favorite casserole is likely bound up with nostalgia unique to only their own subjective experience.

A casserole spinning in space with nobody to experience might indeed be an object (although surely it is debatable as to whether objects actually exist independent of one another), but without someone to experience it with indifference, or love or hate, it is just another insignificant speck.

LinearLineman

@palms said:
@LinearLineman well said!

you've brought the most interesting point to the conversation, imo: Why in the world would anyone desire for beauty to be objective. The subjective nature of experience is what makes it interesting. the relativity of experiences and objects.

has someone ever baked the most perfect casserole? who's to say? There are likely billions of people who don't like casseroles. But to those who have enjoyed one, each person's favorite casserole is likely bound up with nostalgia unique to only their own subjective experience.

A casserole spinning in space with nobody to experience might indeed be an object (although surely it is debatable as to whether objects actually exist independent of one another), but without someone to experience it with indifference, or love or hate, it is just another insignificant speck.

A perfect rejoinder @palms! We are in subjective communion. 😍😎

ervin

Objective beauty is in the eye of the objective beholder.

McD

@LinearLineman said:
A perfect rejoinder @palms! We are in subjective communion. 😍😎

Do you get wine and a wafer with that?

Krupa

Isn’t the whole intricacy of the functioning universe beautiful in some objective manner? Then, the subjective bit comes when an entity makes a decision based on its viewpoint…

McD

Do you know why something sounds harmonious? It's math, baby. And complex, elegant math is downright beautiful... objectively so. So, the beauty can be objective... mathematically correct (within some margin of error for tempered tuning).

But the art? The art is probably orthogonal to the beauty and more of a cultural artifact.

NoiseHorse

@Tarekith said:
At first glance I thought your post said that people liked to argue if something was a fart or not. I was like "really?".

😂

Don’t be gaslighting this poor thread.

espiegel123

@McD said:
Do you know why something sounds harmonious? It's math, baby. And complex, elegant math is downright beautiful... objectively so. So, the beauty can be objective... mathematically correct (within some margin of error for tempered tuning).

But the art? The art is probably orthogonal to the beauty and more of a cultural artifact.

Are you saying this tongue in cheek?

If not: Elegant math is objectively beautiful?

How so?

What is beauty?

What are the criteria for determining beauty?

McD

@espiegel123 said:

@McD said:
Do you know why something sounds harmonious? It's math, baby. And complex, elegant math is downright beautiful... objectively so. So, the beauty can be objective... mathematically correct (within some margin of error for tempered tuning).

But the art? The art is probably orthogonal to the beauty and more of a cultural artifact.

Are you saying this tongue in cheek?

If not: Elegant math is objectively beautiful?

How so?

What is beauty?

What are the criteria for determining beauty?

It is intuitively obvious... and "yes" my tongue is stuck in my cheek.

Math made visible so the limited human mind can grasp at the fringe of
infinite beauty:

https://forum.audiob.us/uploads/editor/kc/op62o4gctz00.png

MrStochastic

uh oh, beating a dead horse maybe but …

@NeuM said:
Objectivity is an illusion. Everything in the realm of human experience is experienced subjectively.

I almost agree with this except instead of “illusion” I’d say we infer objectivity. So we might infer “objective” greatness in art/music if enough people, whose opinions we value say so. Then we’re at least willing to give it a chance.

But, on the other hand, I like Jung’s idea of a “collective unconscious” - a strata of the psyche that we all share on some deeper level and experience archetypes that are common to us all. Maybe some artist/composers discover a way to bring these archetypes into their work.

Then we are not all just trapped inside our own individual bubbles; there is something that connects in us. Is that objective?

echoopera

For me, at the end of the day it is not important whether or not there is an Objective Reality beyond our perception or not. This is a wonderful debate to exercise the intellect and further refine one’s discernment in life. The hope for me is that more Wisdom is the result.

What matters to me are the choices i make and the actions i evoke. To love others and uplift our spirits is my mental/psychic/model and an anchor of faith in ”my” life…which no one will sway me from. I know my path and purpose in this precious life I’ve been given.

Some see a universe without purpose or meaning and for them this is their chosen path in life.

Yet others see nothing less than splendor and majesty in the dancing of the stars.

For most people i would like to imagine that we perceive reality somewhere in between…to hope is to dream…and to dream…to dream is to imagine the impossible birthing before my very eyes.

Without Belief where would one be? We are the result of what we think about most of the time imho. So i strive to guard and prune and prep my thoughts wisely.

I was unknowing before i was born.
I am born anew as spirit incarnate, and when i fade from this life…that which awaits me on the other side will be something i only hope to comprehend…🙏🏼💕

LinearLineman

I think I found it….

echoopera

I think this is the best metaphorical example of everything we’ve been discussing…to expand on what @LinearLineman has discovered.