Philosophy Now Forum

"The difference between objective art and subjective art is that in objective art the artist really does ′create,′ that is, he makes what he intended, he puts into his work whatever ideas and feelings he wants to put into it. And the action of this work upon men is absolutely definite; they will, of course each according to his own level, receive the same ideas and the same feelings that the artist wanted to transmit to them. There can be nothing accidental either in the creation or in the impressions of objective art.

"In subjective art everything is accidental. The artist, as I have already said, does not create; with him ′it creates itself.′ This means that he is in the power of ideas, thoughts, and moods which he himself does not understand and over which he has no control whatever. They rule him and they express themselves in one form or another. And when they have accidentally taken this or that form, this form just as accidentally produces on man this or that action according to his mood, tastes, habits, the nature of the hypnosis under which he lives, and so on. There is nothing invariable; nothing is definite here. In objective art there is nothing indefinite."
- Gurdjieff
http://www.satrakshita.com/gurdjieff_on_art.htm

+

Most collaborative works would be objective art, according to these definitions.
Examples: architecture with blueprints and cinema with storyboards keep all the creators on the same page.

According to these definitions, a composer who first hears the melody with the mind ear, and then transcribes it to notes, creates objective art. Like deaf Beethoven.

The composer who noodles out a tune creates subjective art. The Grateful Dead.

Q: What do the fans say at a Grateful Dead Concert when the pot runs out?
A: This music sucks.

Excellently explained, David.

I agree about Fadayev. He is basically saying that great art is the only art. It's just a matter of labels with the interesting aspect being that some art can touch us deeply. However, not universally. "One man's meat ..." and all that.

Why draw an impossible line of quality, where only the great works qualify as "art", as though only few people's abstract expression of life is of worth? The most precious of pundits (like Nick) seem to divide those engaged in the arts as a few geniuses producing works of art and makers of stuff unworthy of the lofty title "art". If that's where the line is drawn then the terms "great art", "good art" or "beautiful art" become tautologies.

It hardly matters in the real world. I'll continue producing music and visuals and don't much mind what people call it, as long as some enjoy it.

It's impossible to define art because art is one of those concepts that extend throughout what Wittgenstein called a family of meanings.

If by 'art' the OP intends to evaluate then we need to decide on the criteria which we will use for evaluation.

Some examples of criteria:-

skill

expression of feelings ; emotivism

formal balance

nice to hang on the wall or as background decor e.g.nice mood music; nice for decoration

rarity

social truth

metaphysical or religious truth

social utility e.g. object to inspire worship or belief

monetary investment e.g. the fame of the artist

snob value e.g. it came from a posh art gallery

historic value

not a natural sound, or not a found object, but a deliberate artefact

made of precious materials

not made for monetary profit

historical accuracy;e.g. proper Renaissance orchestra, e.g. old pipe organ not a 19th century one, The Beatles original not someone else's version.

Davidm

When asked for examples of objective art, you cite the Sphinx, the Notre Dame cathedral and Da Vinci’s painting The Last Supper. What connects these three? You don’t say, other than that: “They are all based on objective principles we are only beginning to understand.”

What are those objective principles? But you just admitted that we don’t understand them! Or that we are only beginning to understand them — but even if we are only beginning to understand them, then you yourself do not understand them by definition, so your claim is empty. We would have to go beyond your “beginning” and actually understand them for your claim to have force. But actually there is nothing to understand. Nothing ties together your three examples, except that all are manifested expressions of the human intellect and imagination. And that is all that visual art (and art in general) is. There is nothing beyond that.

We have a major disagreement which cannot be resolved now. I believe in objective values as expressions of universal laws. You only believe in subjective values invented by Man. This is why objective art which can arouse emotions associated with objective values and the awareness of objective conscience is nonsense for you.

Objective art is based on the knowledge of vibrations and their effects on the human psyche. If an artist who has experienced the emotions of objective values has the skill to transmit his experience via a work of art and a person experiences this quality, then objective art has occurred. But how many so called artists have been free of their egoism long enough to feel such quality of emotion much less have the knowledge of vibration necessary to create an objective work of art? That is why objective art is rare.

Aivazovsky bores you. Do you consider yourself a greater judge of art than all these people at an exhibition? Perhaps they feel something you do not in the light, the sea, and the sky.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkxKRv4krbU

You have not provided an answer to what you quoted from me. I’m asking you what makes the sphinx, Notre Dame and The Last Supper “objective” art, as opposed to –- what? Can you give some examples of subjective art which, by your lights I suppose, are not really works of art at all?

You quoted but did not address my main point, which I will now repost:

What are those objective principles? But you just admitted that we don’t understand them! Or that we are only beginning to understand them — but even if we are only beginning to understand them, then you yourself do not understand them by definition, so your claim is empty. We would have to go beyond your “beginning” and actually understand them for your claim to have force.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Jun 24, 2017 5:35 pm Aivazovsky bores you. Do you consider yourself a greater judge of art than all these people at an exhibition?

Yes.

I should probably expand upon the Ninth Wave.

First, unlike you, I propose to make no distinction between “objective” and “subjective” art; and certainly no distinction between “this is art” and “this is not art.” Any such distinction is necessarily subjective, and hence self-refuting; no one in the world – including you – can explain why the sphinx, Notre Dame and The Last Supper are “objective art,” as opposed to something that is not. You yourself concede the point when you say we are only “beginning to understand” what makes a work “objective art.” But we are not beginning to understand any such thing, because there is no “objective art.”

Reproduced below is a link to the Ninth Wave, followed by a link to a late work of Cezanne (I tried to embed the images in this post with img tags, but received a message that the images were too large to embed):

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/BxpvQGvW3aU/maxresdefault.jpg

https://classconnection.s3.amazonaws.co ... icoire.jpg

I’ve already stated what I like about the Ninth Wave – technically it is superb. Why, then, does it bore me? In evaluating works of art, we have to remember the time period and context in which they were created. The Ninth Wave was painted in 1850, and was an exemplar of the art of that time. Obviously this means it came before the revolutions of impressionism and later post-impressionism, and later still the advent of modernism.
Cezanne’s painting is a post-impressionist work, a very late work of his circa 1900. Just for now – I’ll write more later on this – having the historical experience of impressionism, post-impressionism, and modernism, I am unable to be stirred by a painting like the Ninth Wave. Cezanne (as well as many others) never fail to stir me. I could gaze at Cezanne’s mountain forever; the Ninth wave – not so much. But both are certainly works of art.

Art seems to reside in a totality without any noticeable demarcations. The universe itself is art as identified in the pictorials of Hubble with, no doubt, much more to come. Everything in nature can be denoted as objective art since we didn't create it but can nevertheless wonder at it. The other side of the coin is what we create which can be anything from porn to what is generally regarded as pinnacles of human achievement. Never having surrendered to oblivion or its semi state, they remain forever contemporary as additions to the collective accomplishment of generations. It is our individual responses to these which remain subjective, we being merely mirrors which contain their own distortions which often requires a generation or two to average itself out.

Davidm

You have not provided an answer to what you quoted from me. I’m asking you what makes the sphinx, Notre Dame and The Last Supper “objective” art, as opposed to –- what? Can you give some examples of subjective art which, by your lights I suppose, are not really works of art at all?

We do not know who built the Great pyramid, the Sphinx, or the original Cathedral of Notre Dame. Those who did were objective artists. They understood the power of vibration on the human psyche. These structures were designed in such a way so as to transmit the experience of objective emotions. We know that the Golden Ratio for example affects our emotions but why? There is a great deal about the power of vibration and its affects on human being we don’t understand. An artist with knowledge of vibrations and the skill to depict them creates objective art. All else is subjective.

If you are going to post a link to the Ninth Wave at least post the entire painting

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... roject.jpg

Can you see the story in it and contemplate it on several levels? It depicts the struggle for survivors but at the same time the struggle of humanity for survival. The light represents necessary help from the light of grace and hope for survival. I could show you how the Ninth Wave is also based on Pythagoras’ Law of Octaves. Is the evolution of hope as an aspect of human evolution really cheap emotion?

I remember when I was young attending an exhibition in NY on Russian art. They had several great paintings by Aivazovsky, Shishkin, Repin, and others. Then I entered the next room featuring post revolutionary Russian art which in comparison was embarrassing. I really was shocked Communist inspired art. That day I learned a valuable lesson on art. I’m sorry but Cezanne does nothing for me.

If you’ve had a hard day and wish to mellow out before going to bed, watch this video. It will take an edge off and invite you to contemplate this quality of reality that is hidden during the activities of the day. What is this reality? Does Cezanne inspire the question?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xwyZvcViE0

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:26 pm I could show you how the Ninth Wave is also based on Pythagoras’ Law of Octaves.

Thank you for not doing.

I could have predicted that Cezanne would leave you cold.

There are no “vibrations” and there is no “objective art.”

You still have given no reason to classify the sphinx, Notre Dame and The Last Supper as “objective art” outside of mere assertion. I am also confident that when you draw your exclusionary circle and claim that the stuff inside the circle is “objective art” and the stuff outside the circle is “subjective art” or not art at all, that the stuff inside the circle is all stuff that you like and the stuff outside of it is all stuff that you dislike. IOW, entirely subjective!

I’m different. I don’t like Renoir’s work. His colors are too sickly sweet for my taste and his bourgeoise subject matter bores me. But I know perfectly well that he is a very fine artist and I know why he is. For me it is possible to dislike art that I know is great. This kind of thinking must be outside your artistic authoritarianism.

What post-Revolutionary Russian art are you talking about? There are two distinct kinds, the Russian avant-garde movement exemplified by such movements as supermatism and constructivism, which was then quashed and replaced by hideous Socialist realism. The avant-garde that was snuffed out produced some brilliant works. Socialist realism was and remains grotesque (it is still practiced in North Korea). Such art is little more than glorified propaganda posters, though of course it is still art.

Of course I understand the story being depicted in your Ninth Wave. The story and the symbolism are just obvious — one of the reasons I don’t care for the work. Such emotional manipulation is facile. Also, because of my education in modernism in the visual arts, I am disinclined to favor visual art that tells any stories at all. Understanding this is one of the keys to appreciating Cézanne and those who came after him, so many of whom he inspired. I think it is fair to say that Cézanne, Van Gogh and Gauguin were the three founding fathers of 20th century art. I also think it’s fair to say that you don’t like 20th century modernist art. Am I right?

The Cézanne painting I linked to is one in a series of increasingly nonrepresentational paintings that Cézanne made of the mountain and the landscape and village at the foot of it. For me, these mountain paintings are like a transitional fossil between different artistic species: the species represented by your Ninth Wave, and the species of the modernist art to come after Cézanne. There is, for example, a direct lineal line from Cézanne’s mountains to Braque and Picasso’s Cubism.

Cézanne’s achievements in the mountain painting(s):

He abandons storytelling. Unlike in your Ninth Wave, there is no story here, facile or otherwise. It is just the art speaking for itself and brilliantly so. The mountain and the village are not actually the subjects of the painting.The subject is the paint itself, arranged in a pattern on a two-dimensional surface. Cézanne abandons illusion — the idea that art consists, or should consist, of fooling people into thinking that they are looking at reality when they are just looking at paint. This insight, btw, goes back to Socrates, who wondered about the usefulness or efficacy of representational art.

He abandons local realism. There is no attempt to slavishly copy reality here; he interprets the reality before him and transfigures it in the service of his free, creative visual genius.

He abandons local color. His colors are a symphonic orchestration of his own free visual imagination; they have contact with the real color “out there” to be sure, but mainly the colors are invented. He thus brings visual art closer to its nearest relative, which is music.

He flattens the picture plane. Foreground, middle ground and background are essentially as one, the mountain barely distinguishable from the sky! When one squints one’s eyes down while looking at the painting we see at a glance the birth of nonrepresentational art, the rise of the Modern. It’s a beautiful thing to behold.

What Cézanne, Van Gogh, Gauguin and others of that era did was to liberate art from the shackles of brute realism, of slavish representationalism. They free it like a bird from a cage, so that art can soar. Your Ninth Wave painter brilliantly depicts water pouring off surfaces — it’s great technique — but it’s also fundamentally enslaving to bother depicting that in the first place. One marvels at and yet is bored by the result — all this artistic talent, to depict water realistically? But he was an artist of his time, and we live in much different times.

davidm wrote: ↑Sat Jun 24, 2017 11:00 pm What Cézanne, Van Gogh, Gauguin and others of that era did was to liberate art from the shackles of brute realism, of slavish representationalism. They free it like a bird from a cage, so that art can soar.

It's just paint on canvas and, despite the level of technical skill involved in putting it there, it's value is purely a matter of subjective opinion. "Art can soar", good God!

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Jun 24, 2017 11:43 pm

davidm wrote: ↑Sat Jun 24, 2017 11:00 pm What Cézanne, Van Gogh, Gauguin and others of that era did was to liberate art from the shackles of brute realism, of slavish representationalism. They free it like a bird from a cage, so that art can soar.

It's just paint on canvas and, despite the level of technical skill involved in putting it there, it's value is purely a matter of subjective opinion. "Art can soar", good God!

Of course I agree with you that it's a matter of subjective opinion. That's my whole point! "Objective art" is an illusion. Even Nick can't support it absent vague allusions to nonexistent "vibrations."

The soaring is a metaphor. Modern art freed artists from the dogma of representationalism and allowed then the freedom to explore painting as an end in its own right, not as a means to an end (depicting the external world). Historically I think it no coincidence that this change occurred with the rise of photography. For the first time, there was a method other than painting of depicting the external world.

All art is metaphor which each person translates differently....and that's all there is to art. Aside from that it has no value whatsoever.

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Jun 25, 2017 12:19 am All art is metaphor which each person translates differently....and that's all there is to art. Aside from that it has no value whatsoever.

Well, that' s nice to know. Thanks for an extensive, thoughtful analysis.