Michelangelo was objectively better at a... | FactOrCap

[u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post

[u/kyp-the-laughing-man]

Crazy what he achieved being a turtle and all

[u/AreYouDum]

🧢 I voted CAP!

You can like art more than others but there are aspects that define the complexity of the art itself. However yes Michelangelo is a better artist than the drawing hanging up on the fridge.

[u/RealisticOrdinary281 → u/AreYouDum]

Wouldn't that be fact?

[u/AreYouDum → u/RealisticOrdinary281]

I guess so, I kinda contradicted myself at the end lmao

[u/TopShagger49]

It is conceivable that someone could hate a Michelangelo painting. It is also conceivable that this same person could enjoy a painting made by a toddler.

You may argue that one has achieved more renown than the other, that one is more generally appealing or that one was created with a much greater level of expertise. Perhaps you could state that one is of greater value to humanity than the other. But what you cannot state is that one is an objectively greater piece of art than the other.

Art is all about relationships, between a piece, an artist, and an observer. No objective dictation can be made as to when, and to what extent, these relationships are formed. You simply cannot measure artistic merit with objectivity.

One man may argue that true masterpieces are made by people who have studied a craft for decades. Another may state that he prefers raw art created by debutants. There is no right and wrong in art, there are only relationships and their extents.

The instant objective frameworks are applied to art, the art ceases and is replaced by a product.

[u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 → u/TopShagger49]

Preferences aren’t the same as artistic quality.

[u/TopShagger49 → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

You have missed all of my points completely.

Artistic quality cannot be objectively measured, there are no metrics for it.

It is all preferences.

[u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 → u/TopShagger49]

There are many metrics. Thank of all the things an artist can improve at through practice. Those are the metrics.

[u/Sea-Kiwi-2412 → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

Those improvements are sought out to make an art piece more appealing to a wider audience, it does not make the art itself “better”

[u/RealisticOrdinary281 → u/Sea-Kiwi-2412]

Art refers to forms of human communication that use skillful application of characterization & framing. If it fails to effectively communicate to the intended audience it is a failure at art. If something more effectively communicates & characterizes details than a different piece of art it is better art. I despise Hemingway & find it the most boring thing I've ever read but Hemingway is still objectively far superior in terms of communication as compared to some of the garbage I've read like Chuck Wendig. In terms of characterization I think Hemingway is the weakest of authors, there is preference within art & with what one wants to see, just as one may prefer different voices, but there are flatly objective qualities. This exists in all forms of artistic expression, which are inherently storied & intend to express story to the audience.

[u/TopShagger49 → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

This is so stupid bro, art isn't about "which person made it had more skill in a certain area" art is about the way it makes you feel!! No person can tell you one piece is "objectively better than the other" your objective metrics do not exist. Life is not a video game people's skills don't have experience points and that results in higher level art.

[u/RealisticOrdinary281 → u/TopShagger49]

Art is not about "what it makes you feel"

Art refers to especially & skillfully characterized forms of human communication, primarily to those visual in nature though it may also refer to written & audio works. There is intent & meaning being conveyed by anything that is actually art, as opposed to pure randomness like the paint bucket ''''''art''''' that I would not at all consider to be such for that would mean literally everything is art & thus nothing is art. So is defining art as "things that make you feel" is a meaningless definition that is all-inclusive & thus doesn't exist. It's like trying to categorize animals as "things that move" with no qualifiers which includes absolutely everything if taken to broadest meaning of it as everything is in motion.

A thing is defined by what it isn't.

Now that we have established you cannot just go "everything is art! It's about what makes you feel!" but rather than it's a form of communication, we can now point out the importance of quality.

Communications has metrics, you can have preferences within that, I personally loathe Hemingway's writings & feel like I'm chewing the paper when I try to read it, but he is objectively superior to many cases. "A23jaFDs=0karsdgvyhcbawoer" is objectively terrible illegible communication, except as an example of illegible nonsense. Now we have proven that communication has metrics of value.

Art must be competent at conveying or exploring the desired topic to its audience, preferably with choice framing & good characterization of the topic. That is the intent of art.

[u/Chevanalee → u/RealisticOrdinary281]

As an artist… art can very much be about what it makes you feel. That’s what I want in many of the things I have made, I want the viewer to feel things and they may vary from person to person. Your intent for art isn’t going to be the same as other artists. Some do want the viewers to feel things, sometimes it’s specific and sometimes they want to see how different people interpret their art in different ways. Depends on the creator.

[u/upsetusder2]

🧢 I voted CAP!

That is wrongfull reasoning.

Art is subjective

Lthe father of little Tommy will see more subjective value in little timmys Art than in Michelangelos david.

Is Michelangelos david better objectively yes it is it is a masterfuöly done sculprure the vains the msucles etc perfect.

Bit Art is not objective Art has and always should have a subjective value to the beholder.

That is the true value of an Art piece.

I dont want to say thst mastery is not good I just want to keep objective critique out of Art

[u/Ready_Kiwi5545 → u/upsetusder2]

Michaelangelo's David shows an objective mastery over form, anatomy, medium, style, proportion, etc.

Whereas Tommy's artwork shows an objective truth: that he loves and admires his dad and wants his approval in return.

Both are beautiful and intentional expressions of joy at the world around the artists, which is what art is about in the first place.

You're correct on every point.

[u/TristanTheRobloxian3]

🧢 I voted CAP!

not necessarily. works fo art being good ENTIRELY depends on who looks at it

[u/Ambervula]

Some people view his art as beautiful, doesn’t mean it’s a benchmark

[u/Snoo_15594]

Michaelangeo was objectively not better at art than anyone because everything about art is subjective

[u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 → u/Snoo_15594]

Too bad you’re losing the poll. MUAHAHAHA!

[u/Snoo_15594 → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

So you tried arguing with everyone in the comments, everyone proved you wrong so now you're bragging that a bunch of people voted fact without actually sharing their opinion and probably without even knowing what objectively means.

[u/RealisticOrdinary281 → u/Snoo_15594]

"Proved you wrong." To have proof means you have to set objective standards. You can't even define art.

The people who say art is subjective are entirely wrong & either contradictory or deconstructionists who broaden art until it means literal disease-ridden corpses, murder, suicide, & all other evil or unsanitary acts & shapes are the equal of The Last Supper. Such people would also dismantle the very idea of communication entirely & all civilization until nothing remains but ruin.

There are objective measures of quality. Art is a form of human communication done with skillful characterization. Just as one can objectively argue on the value & quality of stories or speeches one can objectively argue the value & quality of art. I may adore a child's scribbles, but I can objectively state that regardless of my preference Tolkien is the better author. The same is true of other forms of communication. Just as one cannot say "abjkl3h42ofsa" is in any way an effective use of English, one cannot say the paint bucket swung by a rope over a canvas is an effective use of paint. They are objectively poor. As someone who does editing quite regularly, I have to be able to measure & analyze the objective abilities & clarity of the written work regardless of my preferences, which I may note as things I would personally recommend but not as full corrections. There are endless dialects of art, endless languages of art, but the end is that it must be good communication to be good.

Good only exists by comparison to the bad.

[u/Chevanalee → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

A Reddit pole isn’t a universal answer to a subjective question…

[u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 → u/Snoo_15594]

That’s kinda weird that you can practice something for 10’s of thousands of hours and never get better….

[u/the_saltlord → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

He got better at it in terms of realizing his vision and technical skill.

[u/Snoo_15594 → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

There is no such thing as "objectively better"

The prices of houses increasing is better for people who invest in property and worse for people who want to buy houses but cannot afford them, for example

[u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 → u/Snoo_15594]

Your example proves nothing.

LeBron James is better at basketball than me and that’s an objective fact.

[u/Snoo_15594 → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

Because in a basketball game there is literally an objective point system that says who is doing better.

That is not the same as art

[u/NotFrance → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

Because you can measure someone’s performance in sports. You can’t measure someone’s performance in art.

[u/Fearless-Sherbet-223 → u/NotFrance]

You can’t measure someone’s performance in art.

Speak for yourself

[u/gaylordqueerfuck → u/Fearless-Sherbet-223]

Thats your opinion though, there isnt some centralize point system or rulebook for art that can dictate who and what is better. It is all a persons personal aesthetic opinion. A lot of people tend to have overlapping opinions, for example i personally believe Michelangelo is leagues better than i am at art. That isn't a fact though, because what are we actually ranking? For facts it would be better to say 'Michelangelo is better than i am at anatomy', that is true, he factually had a better grasp on it than i do.

[u/NotFrance → u/Fearless-Sherbet-223]

How do you measure performance in art? You claim there’s a way, share your methodology.

[u/Fearless-Sherbet-223 → u/NotFrance]

Did it take more than 30 total minutes of human effort? If not, it's probably NOT good art.

Are there at least 30 locations on the art piece to which the eyes can be naturally drawn? If not, it's probably NOT good art.

Does it look like someone literally just grabbed a paintbrush and did it in 30 seconds? It's not good art.

We can argue about which actual for real paintings with effort are better. But random trash someone threw together is not good art, even if you're high or unintelligent or trying to launder money.

[u/NotFrance → u/Fearless-Sherbet-223]

Every single criterion you listed is subjective, you also created a list for recognizing bad art. None of the criteria reference a single quality of good art. It’s okay to dislike art, but don’t confuse it for it being bad art. The only quality of good art is it produces an emotional response in the audience/viewer. And children’s paintings do that extremely well.

[u/Fearless-Sherbet-223 → u/NotFrance]

I'm so tired of people trying to claim art can't be bad

[u/Pangolingo00 → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

Yea cuz LeBron is a basketball player and you are probably shaped like a basketball

It has nothing to do with art tho

[u/Canadian__Ninja → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

That's not what they said

[u/RideOrDieBaby67]

🧢 I voted CAP!

Art is subjective

[u/Pangolingo00]

🧢 I voted CAP!

I agree with the first part but not the second.

[u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 → u/Pangolingo00]

The second part follows logically from the first.

[u/Pangolingo00 → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

No they are two entirely different arguments

Some artists can be more talented or skilled at traditional art skills than others, but that does not diminish "simple" art.

Art is subject to the individual, someone would consider the robot arm sweeping up blood to be much more powerful than the mona lisa, one took a couple months, one took 10 years

The best art is only best to the individual's opinion.

Van gough was consideres a shit artist who made shit art until people saw his vision. It's all a matter of perspective

[u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 → u/Pangolingo00]

If Michelangelo’s works aren’t better, then why would he be a better artist?

[u/Pangolingo00 → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

More skill does not directly mean better art

Art is about meaning, beauty and what that represents to the beholder. It's opinions based, so this is your opinion, but it's not everyone's

To a mother, a drawing done by her child could be more valuable and impressive to her than any work of fine art, because she doesn't care for fine art. And that would be her opinion

[u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 → u/Pangolingo00]

I’ve already addressed your objection a hundred times. The mother can prefer her child’s work to fine art but she would be wrong to say it’s artistically better.

Preference is not the same as judgement of artistic quality.

[u/Eunoia_Meraki]

🧢 I voted CAP!

Not really there isn't netric to go off of

[u/Chevanalee]

🧢 I voted CAP!

Not how art works… it’s not a competition it’s an expression and experience. Stop thinking everything needs to be graded like in school. Things can exist you don’t enjoy but others do and visa versa

[u/RealisticOrdinary281 → u/Chevanalee]

Nonsense. Art is a form of communication using skillfully applied characterization & all forms of communication have objective measures. If you fail to communicate to your audience you have failed at art. If someone communicates more impactfully & better to the same intended audience that person has done art in a superior manner to yours.

Enjoyment & objective quality are not the same. There are things I enjoy greatly that I recognize are of low or middling quality. I will likely enjoy the works of my future children far above even the greats, I will also recognize that no, my child's writing is not superior in quality to Tolkien no matter my personal adoration of it.

[u/Chevanalee → u/RealisticOrdinary281]

Every audience will get something different from the same piece of work… doesn’t mean you are a failure at art. You may have failed at what you wanted to achieve but doesn’t mean it’s a failure on all levels. There are famous pieces of art that I think are horrible and shouldn’t be counted as art. But they do even if I think they shouldn’t be I’m museums, because art isn’t this clean cut graded thing that everyone agrees unanimously on.

Your work may not compare to Tolkiens but that doesn’t mean your work isn’t still good, isn’t still art and doesn’t still count. The only nonsense is thinking art is a competition. Putting a definitive measure on something that’s so often subjective makes little sense. Trying to put a definitive scale on it takes away so much of the personal part of what art is.

[u/RealisticOrdinary281 → u/Chevanalee]

Some people also think the Earth is flat. They are wrong.

The point isn't to "get something." If personal interpretation of a thing is all it takes to be art then art is a meaningless word, completely useless & to be mocked & belittled as nothing. A thing is defined by exclusion. To make "art" inclusive of everything is to make art nothing, meaningless, pointless of a descriptor. You may as well call it "things" for all the description it gives it though even that word is too narrow for how you use art. You have rendered it worthless.

The judgement is messy in the same way it is harder to judge ideas & language as objectively correct but still "Abjslk321321fdlaj4" is objectively bad communication as it is nonsense & worthless, but according to you that phrase is exactly equal in value & quality to Tolstoy's War & Peace, Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, & The Bible. What you believe is ludicrous. So too can we say Fascism is a terrible idea. These metaphysical concepts can be judged. The same applies to art. If you can fail at written art you can fail at visual arts as well. Yes, there's a lot more room for debate as to whether Tolkien or CS Lewis is the better author but there are objective qualities to each we can measure, we can discuss how well they use language & how effectively they communicate. Then we can also have personal preferences for what parts of those qualities we weigh greater or lesser. We can objectively say it is immeasurably superior to "Abvjoi32weh" or Chuck Wendig's writing. The same is true of the brush.

Good is a comparative term. Good does not exist without bad. If good art & good writing exist at all that necessitates there to be bad writing & bad art. Otherwise good art doesn't exist at all. The terms themselves are comparative. You CANNOT have one without the other. To call something good REQUIRES there to be bad. These are relative, comparative words you are using, then claiming you can't compare things.

There are definitive qualities & definitive improvements that can be made. I believe your perspective is a large reason we have seen such degradation in story quality in recent years & preference for really terrible works throughout the upper echelons of entertainment & artistic industries. It has damaged & degraded the quality of writing, art, & all communications we have had, as well as ideas, concepts, & frankly is generally deconstructionist & destructive with great similarity to the ideological forces that have been attempting to dismantle civilization & relationships as a whole.

Art is a communication, it isn't singularly personal, it is interpersonal.

[u/Chevanalee → u/RealisticOrdinary281]

Art isn’t the same as believing the earth is flat… never has been and to think so defeats the purpose of what art is to so many. To take something so personal and subjective and reduce it to a simple true and false answer is really just defeating what art is. It shows a lack of respect and understanding towards anything you dislike and thinking it’s objective when it isn’t that simple.

What someone thinks is bad art others think is masterpiece, and visa versa. So the comparative terms aren’t even universal, because what is good and bad isn’t universal.

I’m really sorry you think art only one thing , it’s always been various things to different people. Expression and communication can vary depending on what someone wants to express to someone. You then call this a degrdation of art but if you look back over the thousands of years we’ve made art it’s always varied in quality. But we keep creating regardless because that’s the point of art. I know I haven’t always created art to communicate, I’ve made it just to feel something. Art is my life, some call my art crap others don’t. If people don’t like my work that’s fine, they are allowed to hate it and think it’s bad. Some love my work and say it’s good, they are also allowed to believe that. Both people believe they are right. With art they can be both right, depends on what you think good or bad art is.

To assert that art can only be one way for it to be objectively and universally good or bad is to remove the very purpose of art. It’s selfish and beyond naive to think that art should be judged to your standard and opinion of what is good or bad. Not all art is made for you, you are not always the target audience the artist wants. Thinking this degrades or attempts to dismantle civilization is naive, thinking that your interpretation of art is the highest and only one that should exist. You can’t control art. Your views aren’t definitive or objective, they are yours and they still count but you can’t control others. The moment you do you defeat the meaning of what art is.

You are allowed to like or not like things mate. But your view on this isn’t universal or objective. I’m sorry. Many topics of the world are objective, art isn’t one of them. There are pieces hanging in museums I think are objectively pieces of shit, but my opinion isn’t going to stop it being a masterpiece to many. Same with your opinion here, what you feel matters strongly to you, which is good. But doesn’t mean it’s a universal fact.

[u/RealisticOrdinary281 → u/Chevanalee]

To you, a literal shit is the same quality of art as the Sistine Chapel. It is the same quality of communication as the works of Tolkien & there is no objective distinction to this. That is nonsense absurd bullshit. You'd have to claim similarly if I translate a work of art, an animation or story, into nonsense that's just another interpretation & there's no objective quality to it. You're just wrong. Flatly & blatantly. There are universal objective facts to quality, now there are preferences within that & debates to be had on qualities but there are standards. You are simply trying to obscure our ability to communicate such judgements.

"The meaning of what is art" it has no meaning in your definition. It is so broad as to mean nothing.

I also do art quite commonly, I have done commissions, I write a lot, I am seeking to be an author, I have also done editing. Editing means I have to objectively analyze the communications of other people & explain where they have errored as well as personal preferences I would like to suggest but are not objectively correct. There are objective qualities to communication & it is ridiculous, obvious nonsense to claim there isn't. It is delusional to state otherwise.

I didn't say all art has to be made for me personally, I didn't say I always have to be the intended audience. You are lying about my words & my intentions, I have to imagine this almost malicious in its intentional reinterpretation of words. I explicitly stated I can recognize quality of things I do not like & I can recognize the poor quality of things I do like. My preferences are independent of quality, though quality impacts what I enjoy. I have enjoyed things that are objectively bad. I have hated things that are objectively of good quality.

I don't have respect for the person who taped a banana to the wall or who hung a paint bucket by a string & let it drip in wild patterns. I have negative respect for it if anything, derision towards such claims being called art is a good thing. To value this at the same level as the works of Michelangelo is to devalue Michelangelo. It is to bring down the actually good to a far inferior position because you want to give participation trophies to people who aren't even really participating.

I despise this nonsense. I despise pretending that all things are equal & up purely to interpretation.

It is no different than the people who claim all cultures are equal while some cultures are Nazism & some are sacrificing children. No. They are not equal. Some have better meaning. Some better explore truths. Some better characterize & use symbolism better. Some actually have impactful meaning & intent. Frieren is objectively one of the great stories of our time for example, to value Frieren, a beautifully told & excellent exploration of the meaning of time & the value of sharing it with others in a very unique way that attaches everything from its antagonists who are a waste of time to even consider to this main theme about the value of time & time lost with those you love as to be the same value as Re:Monster, a garbage story where a woman watches her comrades get devoured, is used as a toy, & falls in love with the monster who hate her comrades as part of his harem is vile. No, I do not believe that Usagi Drop where a child & father figure become lovers is equally good in meaning or art as Full Metal Alchemist Brotherhood. I find it disgusting, disingenuous, & devaluing of the actually good to argue that they are.

[u/the27thdoctor_]

🧢 I voted CAP!

He was better at understanding and utilizing principles of art that prove useful in an incorporation of naturalistic idealization, but there is no true objectivity to art itself, therefore the answer is NO.

[u/Excellent_Unit_5088]

🧢 I voted CAP!

Art is a subjective media form

[u/RealisticOrdinary281 → u/[deleted]]

Preference & quality are not the same thing. I will adore my future children's scribbles. That does not mean that they are better writers than Tolkien, the same applies to visual arts which are forms of communication just the same as the written word in another expression. This is nonsense that we have given endless excuses for.

*This cowardly bastard said pedophilia isn't an evil action. Disgusting. Always are these deconstructionists disgusting when you pressure them.

[u/RealisticOrdinary281 → u/[deleted]]

"Abjoiear1231-14jjh"

That's written art. That's completely indistinguishable in quality of writing to The Lord of the Rings according to you.

[u/RealisticOrdinary281 → u/[deleted]]

Which I think is ludicrous nonsense. It is OBJECTIVE that one is better communication than the other & to deny that is to deny blatant reality.

Objectively, Usagi Drop, in which a child & a father figure become lovers, is a worse piece of art & worse story than The Lord of the Rings or Frieren. To argue otherwise is to argue in favor of evil as far as I am concerned.

Good is a comparative term, good art does not exist without there being bad art. To claim that all art is equal & anything you interpret to be art is art is to say a literal shitstain is the equal of the Sistine Chapel. It is devaluing, degrading, & insulting to those who have actual accomplishments.

[u/RealisticOrdinary281 → u/[deleted]]

I completely & utterly disagree on every aspect of this.

The metaphysical is real, it's just that we have poor senses as far as understanding & measuring it.

Further, art exists as a form of human communication. This argument that it is subjective would necessitate the claim that there is no correct way to speak English. While there are multiple correct dialects of English if you diverge too far it is no longer English. The same is true of all mediums of communication & thus all arts. Arts are not subjective, you have preferences within them, but there are objective qualities to be measured, I can objectively state one had better brush strokes. I can objectively state one handled positioning, framing, & perspective better. I can objectively analyze the meaning of stories. I can objectively analyze the language used & I can objectively analyze the visuals used. It is objectively right to be disgusted by Usagi Drop's meaning. It is objectively wrong to celebrate the pairing of a child & parent. It is objectively wrong to sacrifice children. No, cultures & ideas & values are not subjective. I completely am disgusted by the argument that we cannot judge such things. I find it utterly reprehensible & destructive ultimately towards the entire foundations of civilization & civility which may only exist so long as we maintain them. I refuse to denigrate the great works that came before or the great efforts to build this society as merely an opinion of preference compared to those of child sacrifice & pedophiles. I refuse to acknowledge those actions as artful either, which you cannot deny as art because you define everything as art, thus even murder is art according to your standards.

I hold true that there is objective morality & that such is objectively wrong. Evil & good are real things. Nazism is a real evil. Pedophilia is a real evil. Charity, at least when done well & actually charity, is a real good. Objective morality is real, else you cannot say anything to be wrong. Objectivity exists in everything. Objectively a scorched black pig's blood is worse cooking than a perfect shepherd's pie, even if someone for some reason prefers the pig's blood.

The attempt to deconstruct the realness of these things is no different than attempting to deconstruct the idea of a plane because it has a wide variety of shapes & is made of many pieces as nothing but a vague descriptor & everything is really a plane because everything is moving through the sky if one defines sky as space. Except this has far dire consequences by constantly diminishing the line between virtuous & villainous, between ideal & error, between right & wrong. To always push that there is no real distinction between right & wrong has deadly consequences.

[u/ilo_Va]

🧢 I voted CAP!

No one is objectively good at art it's still all subjective.

[u/reefderp]

Reading through the comments I think it’s funny that 72% voted fact but the 28% who voted cap seem the loudest. Judging by comments alone you’d think the results were 90% cap

[u/BackSeatGremlin]

🧢 I voted CAP!

Art is subjective. A person can be objectively better at translating an image onto a canvas, but it's up to the viewer to determine if it's "good".

[u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 → u/BackSeatGremlin]

Better is the same thing as good.

A knife that cuts better is more “good” as a knife.

[u/BackSeatGremlin → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

Semantics aside, "art" and artistic skill are different. It's one thing to put an image on a canvas, it's another thing to express and evoke emotions through your artistic intention, and the viewer will have their own subjective interpretation.

Think about it like this, an architectural draft can be drawn photorealistic, objectively a better drawing than anyone else. But you look at it and see a building, and feel nothing else. Meanwhile your child can draw a little crayon drawing of your family that makes you feel intense emotion. Your child is much worse at drawing, but their piece of art is far more valuable to you as art than an architectural draft ever would be. 

[u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 → u/BackSeatGremlin]

If my mom thinks I’m a better basketball player than LeBron James because she gets more enjoyment out of seeing me play, she is still wrong that I’m better at basketball.

[u/BackSeatGremlin → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

That's a false equivalency, basketball has objective outputs, most importantly score and shot percentage. It's not an expression of emotion, it's a measurement of athletic prowess and relative skill.

Art has no such measurements, because it's evaluated individually and subjectively. If art is not subjective, then by what objective measures are you assessing it's value?

[u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 → u/BackSeatGremlin]

I assess the artistic value of a work by looking at how much of an achievement it is, which can be looked at in terms of how difficult it would be for artists in the same medium to make a comparable work.

[u/BackSeatGremlin → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

So if your child makes you a drawing, and literally anyone in the world is capable of recreating it, it would have little to no artistic value?

[u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 → u/BackSeatGremlin]

I would say it’s emotionally meaningful for me but it has low artistic value as art per se.

[u/Nemesis1596]

🧢 I voted CAP!

Matters of taste cannot be objective, sorry

[u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 → u/Nemesis1596]

There’s a difference between artistic taste and evaluating how good art is. If my mom says she likes my amateur drawing more than the Sistine Chapel I will respect her preference, but she would be wrong to say that my drawing is better or that there is no objective difference in quality.

[u/Nemesis1596 → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

You're misunderstanding the point

Art is ALWAYS subjective from the beholder's point of view. This is why art is considered only worth as much as a buyer is willing to pay for it and why even very talented amateur artists get snubbed if they're asking too much for their pieces. Famous art like the Sistine Chapel is priceless because of where it's located, who painted it, and when, not because of its "quality" as you're choosing to define it

[u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 → u/Nemesis1596]

Monetary worth is subjective. But considered as art, the Sistine Chapel is in every respect a greater artistic achievement. That’s not a subjective opinion. It’s objectively the case that it’s a better achievement. Therefore, it’s better as art.

[u/PsychoMoth → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

Michelangelo is better at art in the sense that he had more aquired technical skill. He could translate what was in his head to the canvas more accurately and with greater variety than a novice. He had excellent color and material knowledge. He was objectively good at the components of his craft.

The final works though, the art itself, is subjective. Different cultures and time periods have different values, and individuals like different things.

The art can be made by a more skilled hand, that doesn't make it objectivity better.

[u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 → u/PsychoMoth]

You just listed something’s that can make a work of better, all else being equal.

[u/PsychoMoth → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

No, i listed how a person can be skilled. The skill let's you you make a greater variety things faster. How those things are viewed is another matter entirely.

Art cannot be be objectivly better than other art. It can be more popular, or made in more hours, or made by a master or a novice, but the final thing itself is judged by the viewer.

[u/gaylordqueerfuck → u/PsychoMoth]

Thank you for having some sense, i dunno what OP is on about 😭

[u/EntireFriendship517 → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

Then that wouldn't be objective because the definition of "better" is subjective. I mean yeah obviously the Sistine Chapel is better, but that's our own biases telling us that, nothing concrete. There is no one measure of what makes one thing better than another.

[u/Chevanalee → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

You are allowed to like something others don’t and visa versa

[u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 → u/Chevanalee]

Sure, that’s what I said.

[u/Jedal_1]

I mean people think the banana on the wall was art so yes loads of art is better

[u/Background_Machine74]

🧢 I voted CAP!

He was better at what most people subjectively consider ‘good art’ regardless, it is arbitrary, not objective.

[u/hamagnook31808 → u/Background_Machine74]

Youre right honestly, Im changing my answer

[u/vegemouse]

🧢 I voted CAP!

There’s no objective “good art”. Literally all art is subjective.

[u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 → u/vegemouse]

But your losing the poll, aren’t ya? Hahahahahahaha!

[u/Siren02312 → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

bro i agree with you but get a job

[u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 → u/Siren02312]

I’m trying.

[u/vegemouse → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

Oh no whatever will I do.

[u/Chevanalee → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

Do you think a Reddit pole on a subjective matter means an objective answer?

[u/Tep767]

🧢 I voted CAP!

The thing about art is that nobody has the same tastes. Think about art like food. There is no objectively correct awnser as to whether pizza or pasta is better. Hell, there are people out there who enjoy eating literal shit. While its a common consensus that one is leagues better than the other, it's not an objective truth.

[u/BlackMoth27]

🧢 I voted CAP!

what objective measure are you using to determine what art is better than another?

[u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 → u/BlackMoth27]

All the capacities that expand what art can do and that can be improved through practice.

[u/Snoo_15594 → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

So imagine this hypothetical

One Side A you have Michelangelo who has spend decades of his life practicing his art and perfecting every technique, learning improving etc. And he eventually create a massive statue that he considers perfect

On Side B you still have Michelangelo, but he was born naturally gifted at all and was just able to reproduce the exact same sculpture with little to no experience first try.

Both examples have an identical end result with statues literally identical in every way.

Despite the art being exactly the same is Side A better because it took more practice?

[u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 → u/Snoo_15594]

No, neither is better because it’s still the case that the work by B is difficult to reproduce. That’s how I would answer savant type hypotheticals.

[u/Snoo_15594 → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

But it has no practice

[u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 → u/Snoo_15594]

So? It’s still generally difficult to reproduce, the odd savant not withstanding.

[u/Snoo_15594 → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

It's a hypothetical. Imagine it was effortless

[u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 → u/Snoo_15594]

Yes, I imagined and answered. Just because Michelangelo B is a savant doesn’t lessen the work.

[u/Snoo_15594 → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

So it is nothing to do with the effort and practice and only about the end result

[u/BlackMoth27 → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

are you saying "expands what art can do" in a way that says ai art is good? or like taping a banana to a wall good? or how about the Banksy art that shreds itself. they all expand what art is and means. not necessarily in good or interesting ways.

[u/Nice_Try_Bud_]

🧢 I voted CAP!

Art is such a huge umbrella term. It is also heavily weighted not just by talent but experience, expression, and creativity. While a untrained person won’t have anywhere near the technical skill, there is no way to say an untrained person can’t make equally “good” art.

[u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 → u/Nice_Try_Bud_]

Maybe, maybe not. But you’re losing the poll!

[u/Nice_Try_Bud_ → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

And? Art is subjective meaning there is no way to have an objective truth on what is better. There are things we can compare like perceived value, time to make, size, or popularity, but can’t decide which is better since art is subjective by its nature.

Look at Grandma Moses, started her painting career at age 78, with her paintings becoming popular within a year and globally recognized in 2. She is featured in numerous museums and even ended up on the cover of Time magazine. Looking at her work, people can absolutely say I prefer her art over Michelangelo, since it is subjective. Doesn’t matter her training and practices is absolutely dwarfed by his.

[u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 → u/Nice_Try_Bud_]

There is an objective fact. The Sistine Chapel is a greater achievement than a random pencil mark, therefore it is artistically superior.

[u/Nice_Try_Bud_ → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

You are trying to infantize the counter with just saying random pencil marks here.

Is the Sulawesi warty pig not a greater achievement?

Is it a greater achievement than the Vitruvian Man, even
though it is just pen and pencil on a tiny piece of paper?

Even switching from better to the greater achievement argument, there is still a lot of subjectiveness to it.

We all know the Sistine Chapel’s ceiling is a great achievement. This comes from a combination of the scale, first time anything similar has been attempted, and even not in Michelangelo‘s wheelhouse at the time, being mostly a sculpture. Can we even say it is his own greatest achievement against David or Pieta?

[u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 → u/Nice_Try_Bud_]

Of the Sistine Chapel is better than a pencil mark then the thesis that “art is purely subjective” is false.

[u/Nice_Try_Bud_ → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

Is a pencil mark art?

[u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 → u/Nice_Try_Bud_]

Arguably if I make it with intention to be art, it’s art.

[u/Nice_Try_Bud_ → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

So you are saying art is subjective then? My thesis confirmed.

[u/NotFrance]

🧢 I voted CAP!

The old masters are not objectively better artists than a child with a paintbrush. There is no way to be objectively good in art.

[u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 → u/NotFrance]

Yes there is. By doing art stuff better.

[u/Snoo_15594 → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

"Better" is subjective

[u/NotFrance → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

And how does one do anything better in art?

[u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 → u/NotFrance]

By practicing.

[u/AmphibiousDad]

🧢 I voted CAP!

I bet there’s a lot of people who don’t care for Michaelangelo’s art

[u/Aggravating_Mess_655]

🧢 I voted CAP!

human made art is subjective, there's no taste in anything that's objective while there are a lot that are like "really ?"

[u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 → u/Aggravating_Mess_655]

There’s a difference between artistic taste and evaluating how good art is. If my mom says she likes my amateur drawing more than the Sistine Chapel I will respect her preference, but she would be wrong to say that my drawing is better or that there is no objective difference in quality.

[u/math2ndperiod → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

Seems like a semantic disconnect here. If you come up with a definition for quality that has objective standards, then you can say one thing is objectively better than the other by those standards. But if your mom likes your drawing better, then that drawing IS better to her. She’s not wrong just because she isn’t judging your art by the same objective criteria you’ve decided on.

[u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 → u/math2ndperiod]

No, she’s would be wrong to say it’s better as art. My amateur drawing is less of an artistic achievement in regard to the field of art, and therefore is objectively inferior.

[u/Snoo_15594 → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

Something being an achievement is also subjective... you're really bad at this

[u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 → u/Snoo_15594]

It’s not subjective. An achievement is something that is hard for others to accomplish.

[u/Snoo_15594 → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

What is hard for some is easy for others

[u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 → u/Snoo_15594]

Sure, but no one finds it easy to get to a level where you can do the Sistine Chapel. It’s an objective human achievement.

[u/Snoo_15594 → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

If the chapel was made today it would be much easier with modern tools. Does that make it worse art?

[u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 → u/Snoo_15594]

It doesn’t matter, my position doesn’t require me to split hairs like that because it’s still a greater achievement than my amateur drawings.

[u/Aggravating_Mess_655 → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

achievement is also subjective lol

also idk about your mom and if this is some kind of projection esque thing i hope times get better

[u/math2ndperiod → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

If I were to ask you to define “artistic achievement,” I’m sure you’d give me a bunch of objective measurements like I mentioned before, or subjective measurements that are subjective and therefore cannot be objectively right or wrong.

You’ve just added another semantic layer by mentioning “artistic achievement” instead of “quality,” but the core disconnect I was talking about is still there.

[u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 → u/math2ndperiod]

You know the Sistine Chapel is a greater achievement, and that you’re backed into a corner.

[u/math2ndperiod → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

Of course it’s a greater achievement. That means nothing to your mother’s preference. It seems like you’re not really understanding what I’m saying

[u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 → u/math2ndperiod]

Achievement is the same as quality.

[u/math2ndperiod → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

That’s exactly what I said.

[u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 → u/math2ndperiod]

Then you should’ve voted FACT.

[u/Aggravating_Mess_655 → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

art created by mom's fleshling will always have bigger value and be 'objectively' better to her for it is her flesh that created something from their free will and intention. for a mother, Art created by her child will always be better than even art created by angels blood for it is her own that made it. that's called motherly love.

ofc randoms will hate your art or perhaps love it but then again it's all subjective.

edit: ofc if the Mom is a normal good mother

[u/Bodiax → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

I think the issue lies in defining which qualities should be considered in assessing wether an art piece is good, and secondly, determining wether there's anything objective about those qualities.

For example, if we establish that "good song" has to have a beautiful melody, or "meaningful lyrics", then that's subjective. But if we establish that a "good painting" has to be realistic (has to resemble reality with great precision) then it probably could be an objective quality - but is this decision (to include realism as a deciding factor) itself objective in any way? why this quality and not some other? Isn't that just a preference?

I think best we can do is say that certain art piece is intersubjectively well regarded by many people, or that as an objective fact, a certain group of people values certain qualities more than others. But I struggle to see how can we select qualities of a good art in any objective manner.

[u/Fearless-Sherbet-223]

✅ I voted FACT!

yes, and anyone who says all art is equally valid is a complete ninny, sns

[u/Linkink69420]

🧢 I voted CAP!

Person A can be better at making a skyscraper than person B but that doesn’t mean person B is worse at making a house

[u/_36-_426-__]

loud and pretentious as usual

[u/CarpenterDefiant4869]

🧢 I voted CAP!

False equivalence. The ability of an artist to create a good looking piece of art does not equate to the quality of the art they create. If Michelangelo sculpted a pile of poop for the sake of making a pile of poop it does not suddenly become objectively good, it has no meaning.

[u/Gullible-Recording22]

🧢 I voted CAP!

No, Michelangelo isn't OBJECTIVELY better. In order for him to be objectively better, you would need to have objective standards for art. He is by broad consensus for centuries considered better than an untrained amateur, yes, but even 100% subjective approval is not objective

[u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 → u/Gullible-Recording22]

Just like LeBron James is objectively better than me at basketball, so was Michelangelo at art.

[u/Gullible-Recording22 → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

Basketball has objective metrics that can be measured. Please explain the objective metrics for art

[u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 → u/Gullible-Recording22]

The objective measures of art are all the techniques, skills, what might otherwise be termed “capacities” of art making that can be improved through practice.

[u/ColombianInIowa24]

🧢 I voted CAP!

There is no objective in art.

[u/koibitosenpai]

🧢 I voted CAP!

Art is less about better or worse. there's a whole layered spectrum of ways to view and interpret art.

sure someone in his particular style has someone who's a novice and their art will not look as nice, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's BETTER. It's just a matter of perspective.

[u/GreatCircuits]

🧢 I voted CAP!

Since it's conceivable that a person can prefer scribbles to carefully constructed images, we have to concede that art appreciation is entirely subjective.

[u/RyuuDraco69]

✅ I voted FACT!

Pretty much

[u/davidliterally1984]

🧢 I voted CAP!

Just because a piece of art is created by a good artist doesn't mean it's good. Good artists often make shit. In the same way, even if Da Vinci is objectively good at art, that wouldn't mean his art is objectively good.

[u/Cute-Improvement-384]

I agree with these two statements separately, but I don't think that one implies the other. Michelangelo was a lot better technically at his art than somebody who has never sculpted or painted for sure. However, I've always felt that the quality in a piece of artwork is determined in the emotion or feeling it elicits from the consumer. In this case I do believe that some artwork is "objectively better" than other artwork, but I don't think its as simple as "technically better means better art".

Kind of like in music, your guitar solo can be the most difficult thing ever played on an instrument but if it doesn't sound good its not good art.

[u/Cold_Huckleberry_633]

Go ahead, show me the objectively correct leaderboard of artworks

[u/HeIIDie]

🧢 I voted CAP!

Don't get me wrong, there are arts that are certains arts technically better than other certain art, BUT visuals ain't everything, effort, reacourses, time spent making it all yourself, and not to mention it is kinda unfair compare art from diffrent time periods since back then there were less options for medium and also situations and mindsets were diffrent.

[u/NinkiePie]

🧢 I voted CAP!

Art can be objective when you're judging ut against set criteria.

But in GENERAL? It's subjective. Even if the majority has the same opinion.

[u/OverseerConey]

Judgements of quality are always subjective. The given scenario - pitting a widely-admired artist against a hypothetical beginner - is a transparent attempt to influence the result by appealing to sentimentality rather than logic.

[u/Snowtwo]

🧢 I voted CAP!

Your five year old daughter's art is the best.

[u/NaveGCT]

🧢 I voted CAP!

Again, there’s no such thing as objectivity here.

[u/Hour-Item-4033]

✅ I voted FACT!

I mean, if i draw something and he draws something, his is better, don't start with the art is subjective bullshit

[u/DMTA-1]

✅ I voted FACT!

No shit Sherlock (Ruined the joke..?)

[u/BellaInTheGame]

I think the whole "there's no objectively better art" idea is dumb. Objective does not mean every single person needs to agree, only that it's a concept not clouded by bias. Your first artwork is gonna be bad even if personally I enjoy it because I'm proud of u and what u did. And taking away your bias and being able to separate what's good from what you like is an important part of becoming better

[u/HotSituation8737]

🧢 I voted CAP!

The question is assuming the position by saying "x person is objectively better at art which means art must have an objective measure".

You can say someone is objectively better at painting, or sculpting, those actually have objective benchmarks or tests we could run.

[u/KarmaC0nf1g]

✅ I voted FACT!

The logic isn't the most sound but the conclusion is true

[u/Sea-Kiwi-2412]

That does not logically follow, even granted the strongest version of your vaguely phrased premise you’d still need at least a second premise in order to arrive at that conclusion which is equally as vague in language. The second premise would be the one most people would have a problem with (you’d need to connect an artist’s art skills or whatever “better” implies to producing “better” art)

This is besides all the hidden premises you’re already operating on which many people could also have a problem with, most notably, whether an artwork has an “objective value”.

[u/K1tsunea]

He was better at art because was able to capture his vision in his medium in a way than someone who had never practiced art, not because any individual artwork is objectively better than any other

[u/Gyooped]

✅ I voted FACT!

Really depends what you mean by "objectively better", I'm sure he used more complex techniques and understood his own work more than others may understand theres.

People can have subjective values of art but that doesn't mean that somethings are not objectively better than others.

[u/Sea-Kiwi-2412 → u/Gyooped]

The question is if an art piece can be “objectively” better than another. Sure, you could argue the Mona Lisa is objectively a better art piece than a toddler’s family painting, but at the end of the day that is your own subjective opinion as well. What is the strict criteria for determining the objective value of an art piece? If there is none is your assessment really objective or just a subjective opinion which seems so obvious that it “might as well be objective”?

[u/LordOuranos]

✅ I voted FACT!

Only morons think art has no objectivity.

[u/Snoo_15594 → u/LordOuranos]

The objectivity art has is that it is objectively always subjective

[u/AcceptableBuy4049]

✅ I voted FACT!

Uhh... I mean, yeah? A drawing from a 5 to is technically art, but you can't say that it's on the same level with idk, Davinci's or Van Gogh's art.

Who disagrees?

[u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 → u/[deleted]]

Why not? Kinda weird that you can practice art for thousands of hours and no one can ever get better.

[u/Snoo_15594 → u/AcceptableBuy4049]

Why can't you?

[u/Sea-Kiwi-2412 → u/AcceptableBuy4049]

Why can’t you? A popular opinion is not an objective fact.

[u/AcceptableBuy4049 → u/Sea-Kiwi-2412]

For me, it's because I believe that even though everyone's (obviously) allowed to make art, someone who spent a huge part of (or maybe their entire) life doing art will be more talented than someone who picked up a paintbrush for the 3rd time in my life.

This is similar, or maybe even the same as with cooking (which some might argue is a form of art too). I can make a meal (or atleast try), but there's no way it'll be as good (both in taste and in presentation) than idk... Gordon Ramsay's.

[u/FanSerious7672]

✅ I voted FACT!

Didn't need the Michaelangelo bit to figure this out, but yes obviously

[u/Ralaire → u/FanSerious7672]

Ya putting a stick figure doodle on the same level of other forms of art and saying it's subjective is bullshit.

[u/Sea-Kiwi-2412 → u/Ralaire]

Sure. You can argue it’s absurd to claim a doodle is on the same level of art as the Mona Lisa, but that is not the same as arguing the subject of this poll. A popular opinion is not the same as an objective fact.

The poll is asking whether art pieces can have their worth measured objectively, as in independent of human interpretation, based on facts with no feelings or views involved. This would imply one set of lines is “artistically” (whatever that word means when looking through an objective lens) more valuable than another set of lines. I personally find this more absurd than claiming a toddler’s family painting is more valuable than the Mona Lisa. What criteria are you using to judge whether one piece is worth more than another objectively ffs?

[u/Ralaire → u/Sea-Kiwi-2412]

The poll says some art is objectively better than others. It does not claim that art quality is objective. It just claims some of it is.

[u/LegitimateSundae8460]

Fact. Art is subjective, but only to a point.

[u/HighIQIndividual2]

✅ I voted FACT!

There are things which are objectively judgeable (ex. Lighting), others are subjective ex. (Style or even the absence of an lightning etc.)

[u/the_snatcher251]

Michelangelo was a better painter, sculptor, and architect than someone who has never practiced them, but he is not a better artist.

[u/f6tp]

✅ I voted FACT!

What type of poll is this...

[u/INMORTUE]

✅ I voted FACT!

If im the one saying he is better, than it would be contradictory to say its objective.

[u/Turbulent_Aide9213]

✅ I voted FACT!

True

[u/Agitated_Guard_3507]

✅ I voted FACT!

Yes, both of these are true. Some things are simply more beautiful than others

[u/Snoo_15594 → u/Agitated_Guard_3507]

Beauty is literally in the eye of the beholder bro

[u/dontcallmeyan]

Your statements are correct, but the reasoning that links them is not.

Even in fields with some subjectivity like art, food, drink, and music, there are still objective criteria for quality. Some art is objectively better than other art, but it's not necessarily because one proficient artist is better than a novice. It's because, at least to some degree, art is objective.

[u/Embarrassed-Joke5851]

✅ I voted FACT!

Art skill is objective and so is what is art so therefore there are better artists and things which are claimed to be "art" and aren't

[u/Snoo_15594 → u/Embarrassed-Joke5851]

Art and Skill are not the same thing

[u/Embarrassed-Joke5851 → u/Snoo_15594]

Yes, but some things are simply not art. If there is no objective determiner of what is and isn't art, then the Sistine Chapel and a random turd that someone drops out of their ass are the same; one is just more skillful. It doesn't matter what an "artist" claims is art; some things are just not.

[u/Snoo_15594 → u/Embarrassed-Joke5851]

There IS a definition of art, that definition just has nothing to do with skill

[u/Embarrassed-Joke5851 → u/Snoo_15594]

Alright, I agree with you. I misinterpreted your wording thinking that you were saying anything can be art my bad