Reminder

Bottom looks like just another WoW clone

>unnecessary shadows and lights
>cleaner

I miss EverQuest.

look up Pantheon

...

>top actually art
>bottom le lets copy blizzard cartoon trash look

It's cleaner because they removed the black guy yeah

top 10/10
bottom 0/10

Never Ever.

Don't bother trying to explain how art is subjective to Cred Forums. These people are a bunch of austists and literal teenagers, they can't handle such ideas.

Seriously, look at how much console/pc warrioring alone goes on in Cred Forums, its so fucking cringeworthy.

>"muh art is subjective"

despite all those women
only the dragon excites me

37 year old curator for the Knoxville Museum of Art here to tell you that you're full of fucking shit.

I make my (rather substantial) living based solely on the fact that the quality of art is objective.

bc art looks like shit god.

So, EQ turned into WoW?

>art museum curator
>in Knoxville
>rather substantial living
Why go on the internet and tell lies like this?

>needing to state your credentials before simply telling someone their wrong

Reddit is more of your website friend. Thats where that meme started.

is he going to use his skull?

>art is subjective
It's okay to like shit that looks objectively worse. You don't have to be afraid to admit that you just don't know anything about art. Lots of people have shit taste. Just accept yourself for who you are.

>Don't bother trying to explain how art is subjective to Cred Forums. These people are a bunch of austists and literal teenagers, they can't handle such ideas.
The irony is that the absolute MAJORITY of people around here actually believe art is "subjective", as the absolute overwhelming majority of people who don't know anything about art. It's quite literally the go-to default opinion that does not actually require to understand or explain anything, the vapid golden truism that let's people without knowing anything feel like their opinions is somehow still relevant.

Top:
>Focus on realism. High level of detail, designs have thought put into them, good use of colour, light and contrast to accentuate the space of the scene and give it depth. You can imagine yourself being in the world of the picture.

Bottom:
>Focus on "epic fantasy". Nothing but exaggerated shit designed to look as big and powerful as possible to stimulate children. Looks like a cartoon. No thought put into balance or colours, shit just looks like a mess. Characters look like they were photoshopped in after the fact.

Yeah well, nobody ever said Cred Forums was smart. Look niggers, one's tastes are subjective. There are objective measures for art, literature, vidya. Learn the fucking difference.

First of all, read more carefully, because I'm actually arguing AGAINST artistic subjectivism.

Second of all, no, you are wrong too.

>There are objective measures for art, literature, vidya.
No, there really aren't. There are normative measures. There is very little objective about them, certainly not their cores.

Art is normative, not subjective or objective. It's based on value-attribution, arbitration. It's not subjective: it happens on an intersubjective level, as part of complex processes within social networks, it's a product of joint cooperation of multiple people and it has non-subjective implications, but it's also not a matter of measuring the organization of matter: it's still purely a social process and notion.

First of all, you read carefully. You're talking about the majority of people here and I'm telling you we're idiots.
Secondly, you're fucking wrong. There aren't disciplines of Art and Literary Criticism for no fucking reason, you post-modern cuck.

There are things which can be objectively measured in art, but they are not a measure of quality. They can, however, indicate quality within a certain framework, which is itself subjective.

Did you misquote the post? Is this supposed to be a reply to ?

If yes, then:
>There aren't disciplines of Art and Literary Criticism for no fucking reason
Yes, they are a perfect example of a social cooperation leading to a value-attributing institutions. A bunch of people with certain levels of authority cooperate together to arbitrate and define notions of quality and value, and then judge other works based on these criteria THEY established and defined as important and relevant.

However, there is no objectivity in the attribution of value itself. Value is a matter of preference, preference is a matter of potentiality, it speaks about how things COULD BE IN FUTURE, not how the matter is arranged right now.
That makes those institutions normative. Which actually does not make them any less important. Normativity is absolutely essential social mechanic that should never be disregarded as irrelevant.

>There are things which can be objectively measured in art, but they are not a measure of quality.
Which is why they tend to be largely irrelevant to anything. Any discussion about art is a discussion about quality - value, more precisely. Some people will argue that some objective qualities are indicative of value - actually a very reasonable assumption to make - but the association of those particular objective qualities with the notion of them being valuable (and therefore relevant to art) is normative: it's a decision made by an arbitration of a group of people who poses the necessary authority to make such decisions.

Thread dead?

imagine being this stupid

Kinda. Wish Daybreak didn't go that way. Would have loved EQN. Had potential but now it's nothin but a pipe dream.