Music isn't subjective

Sure, fag. Habe tun listening to the cave nigger you call mc ride shouting in a microphone while jerking it to how alternative you are.

Come back when you know real muisc

>Come back when you know real music
lmao literally as bad as the wrong generation kids

[citation needed]

Holy shit you have a serious superiority complex.

Citation: Reality.

Open your eyes, try to not look through hipster vision for once, FAG.

So ? I'm in the right, why should I care ?

They are pretty much the same as mu: special sknowflakes who identfy themself with their music taste and their urge to be different , only mu delves Into obscure garbage, while they glorify dadrock.

isn't that Cred Forums in a nutshell?

Cred Forums doesn't even seem to glorify dadrock anymore. it's either Death Grips, Kanye or something so obscure it can only be found in the lowest nether regions of the shitstorm that is "trendy/unique" shit tier "music".

They being lewronggenerationers

>Im in the right
Of course you think that you fucking retard
Why would someone argue for something they dont actually believe?

Literally
Source: Me

>mom lurking Cred Forums for the first time

Prove me wrong !

>haha you must like the death grippers
>listen to some REAL music
Cred Forums core is the trampoline from which we jump from, not the place we end up.

>death grip is bad
>shouting is bad
>jerking is bad
>alternative is bad
>real music

Ahhhh that's why mu jerks over the same albums over and over , got it. There is nowhere to jump higher in hipster music. FAG.

>They are pretty much the same as mu: special sknowflakes who identfy themself with their music taste and their urge to be different , only mu delves Into obscure garbage, while they glorify dadrock.
hmm this is actually not wrong at all, even if you are just trying to stir shit up

Yes, caveman noises do make for alternative, but not real music

>Cred Forums is the same people

>the three threads I've ever seen are reflective of everyone
None of my favorite albums are Cred Forums core besides SOE and Laughing Stock.

Do you know what an average is, faggot ?

I know I'm right, thanks.

>real music
too abstract, can't be 'true'

sure they are

It's simple:

>Shouting and banging on sticks and stones

not real music

>instruments, melody, composition, singing

music

@67968306
>Do you know what an average is, faggot ?
Are you stupid? Do you really not see the point or just trying to meme for (you)'s?

>implying there isn't a continuum of newfags entering Cred Forums and getting wet over the same Cred Forumscore albums and oldfags leaving this place forever
>implying an average means anything on an anonymous imageboard
>implying you aren't COMPLETELY talking out of your ass
>implying all Cred Forumscore is bad

give me your top 5 albums and i'll tell you why they're shit

>>Shouting and banging on sticks and stones
>not real music
>>instruments, melody, composition, singing
>music
Why? I don't see what makes it so other than your concepts/opinion.

he said:

>Cred Forums is the same people

impying that everyone on Cred Forums is an idivijul and you can't generalize

I replied:

>Do you know what an average is, faggot ?

Stating, that I can generalize the average Cred Forums-user based on the average Cred Forums post.

So what's your problem you fucking spastic ?

>>shouting and banging on sticks and stones
>not the epitome of musical achievement

melody, instruments, composition and singing are all completely unnecessary for the production of music

>Stating, that I can generalize the average Cred Forums-user based on the average Cred Forums post.
>So what's your problem you fucking spastic ?
You not seeing a simple point. Embarrassing.

You sir, are officially to dumb to read:

According to your gay ass I'm

>>implying all Cred Forumscore is bad

by saying:

>Aeroplane and most mucore is objectively cancer

Fuck off you whiny, autistic cunt !

They're necessary for good music with some type of substance

Grade A response, shout your mouth if you're proven wrong and fuck off. There is a average Cred Forums-user and he's cancer.

Complexity, Substance and technical infirmity are objective

It's not, music is a term. It's a word with a definition making it objective. A person liking something or not is subjectivity.
An objective discussion is on whether or not something is or is not good/bad or [genre] so on. A subjective discussion is "I like this".

Modern is a period of time that has long since passed. You may as well have said that Medieval music fans disagree.
What an individual personally thinks is subjective and their scope is subjective. Distancing yourself from something and analysing it with respect to what it is, what it intends to be and how well it accomplishes it is objective and that's how you gauge quality.

In terms of language and culture, objectivity is important and actually discussing it requires a certain amount of knowledge. In terms of the real world beyond ideas and culture it really doesn't matter at all ever.
If you like something then just like it, no one cares. If you're involved in any sort of critical or creative industry and work with the intention of making something 'good' then objectivity is really important.

The real difference is in how you discuss it. "hey I really like [something]" is always fine, but when you say "[something] is good/bad" without any real critical understanding of how or why it is then you're in trouble.
It becomes amazingly apparent when you see people discussion art or design on Cred Forums or whatever.

>>implying you aren't COMPLETELY talking out of your ass

shocked your taste is shit ?

Top 5:

1. Ave Maria - Bach
2. The Division Bell - Pink Flyod
3. Greatest Hits vol. 2 - Queen
4. Helvetios - Eluveitie
5. Point Blank - Nailbomb

>Complexity, Substance and technical infirmity are objective
Never said that's wrong.
>Reading comprehension of a 16 year old

Yes, I know I'm being vague - if you were worth having a discussion with you wouldn't have been posting brainless shit like

>Grade A response, shout your mouth if you're proven wrong and fuck off. There is a average Cred Forums-user and he's cancer.
(and the rest of your posts)

So maybe it's time for you to leave now.

being this new

so you're NOT gonna list your top 5 so i can shit on them? you some kinda fag or somethin

Are you completely and utterly retarded ?!

It did it literally 2 posts after the one you quoted you fucking imbecile

I believe subjectivity has gone too far, in that sense that it's now used by the complacent and lazy to hide behind when they're either unwilling or simply unable to justify their beliefs. People don't want to really think about what they hold to be true, because society is teaching them that it's all equal and that no opinion is more developed than another. This is a beautiful ideal, but produces a reality wherein intelligent, thought out argumentation holds zero value to anyone, because there is no underlying, cultural motivation to take subjectivity seriously--so people don't.

??

Obviously both extremes are bad - as has always been. As is most of the time - the truth is in the middle, but the human brain tends to think only in extremes

>All that cussing
>mentioning Grade A
It all makes sense now. Fuck off freshman and go get some education instead of fucking around in Cred Forums whining that the music you don't like is shit because you think so.

Or maybe it's time for you to accept defeat and accept that there is a average Cred Forums-user and that' he's completely cancerous.

You refuse to provide reasons why Cred Forums is the only social subculture that can't possibly be average and still talk shit like you're some kind of big boy, just fuck off or defend your goddamn position.

>Being this fucking, unbelievably new

>music is subjective

MUSIC IS ART, ART IS NOT OBJECTIVE, DON'T SLAP A NUMBER ON MY ALBUM!!!

>>Being this fucking, unbelievably new
>being this retarded

art is objective you gigantic retard

It can be averaged, but averaging it serves no purpose. You are as cancerous as any average Cred Forums poster. It's like you're averaging a bunch of first graders - little usefulness can be found in doing it.

agreed

Does he know, that "Grade A" doesn't have anything to do with the youtuber ?

Are you really this fucking retarded ?!

Let me help you:

>GRADE: a number or letter that indicates how a student performed in a class or on a test.

> Grade A: f the highest quality

I used it sarcastically because is response was shit. In case you not only not now what a grade is, but also don't know about sarcasm:

>sarcasm: the use of remarks that clearly mean the opposite of what they say, made in order to hurt someone's feelings or to criticize something in a humorous way: "You have been working hard," he said with heavy sarcasm, as he looked at the empty page.

You are the dumbest person I have every met. If the first thing that comes to mind when hearing the word "grade" is a youtuber, you should leave the house more often.

You gigantic FAGGOT !

Music quality is subjective, but one's can make objective statements about their and other's axioms derived from subjective experience. Ie.
>Op has shit taste and should feel bad
Is valid but always open to dialectic.

>Citation: Reality.
No you made a claim of knowing the intent of the art.

Need a citation for that.

>Ave Maria - Bach
Are you fucking kidding me? You, kind sir are a fucking joke. Ave Maria is composed by Schubert originally named "Ellens dritter Gesang". It has nothing to do with Bach, except the Bach/Gounod shit. Fuck off you fucking pretentious cunt.

Are you retarded ?

It is useful in the sense that I can attest Cred Forums and it's userbase being enourmous, pretentious, hipster faggots. Which is the point of my original post.

economics: Demand Supply (Hipster Shit)

>art
Colour me triggered.
I do art, I show in galleries and I really do enjoy how people who have no idea what it means throw it around like they have some sort of perfect understanding of the term.
It's like walking into Bio-Chemists office and telling them that the ceiling is a bio-chemistry because you decided it is.

Art is objective, the term refers to a job/career/field/profession/industry/et.c. There is absolutely a thing that is 'art'.
Music is music. Art can be made with music but when using the word art properly - and not as a synonym for 'thing' - it is in identifying a work that has been made to primarily be 'art'. Music is primarily made to be music for the most part so calling it art is sort of completely pointless.

And to the guy trying to criticise Neutral Milk Hotel and Death Grips, it's important to note that both of those bands belong to a list of musicians who could be argued to have made works of art through their music. No idea why you'd bother being such an idiot so openly.

>>Op has shit taste
That's subjective, not objective. Nice try though

>67968634

u are wrong

>The Division Bell - Pink Flyod
>Greatest Hits vol. 2 - Queen
>"true music"

It is good music, have you even listened to it ?

This thread is what makes people dislike Cred Forums

>economics: Demand Supply (Hipster Shit)
Not a citation of the artist's intent.

Try again.

>It is useful in the sense that I can attest Cred Forums and it's userbase being enourmous, pretentious, hipster faggots. Which is the point of my original post
Look, this is the post I'm trying to talk to you about Sorry for not making it clearer.

By the way this is your post, right?

I win

its bait boys, confirmed.

Of course I have. Untill I found actually good music you faggot.

you boyo, are reeeally hilarios

>mentally challenged teen hasn't developed past an 8 year old kid's thinking

In more simple terms, for retards:

Demand: Cred Forums-fags want obsucre, "alternative" music to differentiate themselfs from the people they got bullied by

Supply: Death Grips, NMH, etc. magically cater to them because that's where the money is at.

You can't deny that:

1. The "New Wave of Gay Hipster Music" spawned a huge amount of wanna.be alternative artists that specifically cater to hipster. It OBVIOUS

2. People like money

3. The huge amount of pretentious music is undeniable linked to a economic movement

it is

>until I became a butt blastet hipster fag

FTFY

Glad you admit to your flaws. I love you no matter what, bby

>mentally challenged teen doesn't understand the meaning of the meme arrows

I do, it was a jok eyou fag

>what I think about the music is...

Not relevant.

You made a claim that an artist had a certain intent. Your views of an audience is not relevant to what the artists actually intended.

Try one last time.

>pretentious
Oh do you know them personally?

I don't have to , I logically explained that the intend of 99% of those artists is to make monies by exploiting hipster fags.

>"New Wave of Gay Hipster Music"
>new

also, some of what you say is true, but not for your reasons. short-sighted look. go back to Cred Forums and listen to your un-hipster, un-pretentious Ave Maria

That would still be a high-level concept. Damien Hirst does that and he's the most famous living Artist in the world.
You're completely wrong anyway, but I wanted you to know that you are wrong on all sides.

haha i was joking too what a coincidenc

nah, mane

>>until I became a butt blastet hipster fag
>Ave Maria - Bach
Fucking this. Stop being an edgy faggot and get to know some real classical you shit.

>I don't have to
So you admit you have no citation of the artist explaining the intent of their art?
>I logically explained that the intend of 99% of those artists is to make monies by exploiting hipster fags.
Not really. One artist literally broke up when they started become popular, the other stole their record contract advance and gave the money away and canceled their tours. Both facts show they don't care about money.

>exploiting
this is true but not for the artists Cred Forums praises

>Not really. One artist literally broke up when they started become popular, the other stole their record contract advance and gave the money away and canceled their tours. Both facts show they don't care about money.
No, but he has to be right, he's the ultimate redpilled gentleman!

Just wanted to say, that every single one in this fucking thread is new as fuck.

How the fuck could you not realize that he was baiting like crazy all while talking about how fucking smart you are.

aaaaaaaaand it's bait

>what is meta b8ing

Not what went down here.

What if I told you everyone in this thread was baiting, and U just fell for it.

what if he isn't baiting though?

Actually literally, yes.
If you didn't know that then even mentioning 'art' was you automatically flagging yourself as wrong.

I saw it was bait pretty instantly, and really pathetic bait at that, but I also saw a thread full of responses and feel obliged to post anyway to protect the besmirched name of 'art'.

For me, it is. I didn't read the whole thread though.

What if I told you I was phon ?

makes you think

>94 replies
>still on page 1

whew, caught a lot today.

more like
>start off as bait
>start putting real opinions in it, getting lost in your own bait
>get btfo
>haha it was bait bois!

gud job

nah man, taste is subjective and everyone who even attempts to argue anything else is retarded.

You could argue about compositional and technical qualities as well as the (justification of) subjective reasons for liking a piece of art/music though.

I wasn't talking about OP's post. Everyone can see it's made to get replies. This is the post I'm talking about

I know and I made it.

Then explain how one person can like it and another person can hate it.
Literally impossible if it's objective.

Oh man, you put in way too much effort then. What's the point of the bait when you write as much as the 'fish'.

>Then explain how one person can like it and another person can hate it.
Because their perceptions are irrelevant to the artist's objective reality.

>I was only pretending to be retarded
I'm sure these decisions are going to get you far in life.

>Then explain how one person can like it and another person can hate it
Well liking and disliking is subjective, while the thing itself - the object - is objective and made for a reason, with an intent and is to be analysed with regard to this.

so if the artist thinks it's good, it's objectively good? riiight

Half of it wasn't even me

>I'm sure these decisions are going to get you far in life.

Okay, dad, thanks for giving me advice on life... on Cred Forums

>Well liking and disliking is subjective, while the thing itself - the object - is objective and made for a reason, with an intent and is to be analysed with regard to this.

We all know ! Of course we are not talking about the object itself; we are talking about the impression it leaves you giant fucking gobshite.

>good
Not relevant.

I think this board should stop ripping on Death Grips just because they got popular.

Hipsterism is in the end a big part of Cred Forums culture

Nothing other than good or bad is relevant to any art.

>We all know ! Of course we are not talking about the object itself; we are talking about the impression it leaves you giant fucking gobshite
That, as a statement, doesn't make sense.
I literally responded to a comment asking how art is objective you buffoon.

Here's an explanation:
Person make a thing for a reason in a medium.
The medium n question is chosen as it is best suited to getting across the idea.
The finished piece may be liked or not, but it is objectively good or bad depending on how well it can effectively communicate its intended message and how well it was carried out in relation to the presentation it needed to communicate that message.
That is how you objectively analyse Art.
Music is different, of course, you analyse that based on musicianship.

Makes sense why Kanye is so rated here - out of all 'world stars', he's most hated

wtf ar you on about?

Not him, but it's true, think about it.

If you don't know, you probably shouldn't be posting on a board dedicated to the arts
How's your study of music theory coming?

>Distancing yourself from something and analysing it with respect to what it is, what it intends to be and how well it accomplishes it is objective and that's how you gauge quality.
t h i s

>That, as a statement, doesn't make sense.
I literally responded to a comment asking how art is objective you buffoon.

Yes it does, because you're not understanding, that everyone in this thread argues about the objectivity/subjectivity of the impression art leaves (good / bad).

I didn't specifically state that, and called it "subjectivity art" because I didn't sense that some autistic wise ass is going to lecture me about obvious shit for it.

Everyone know that a song can be described objectively, we are talking about the interpretation of art !

taste is subjective

bad music is objective

>Distancing yourself from something and analysing it with respect to what it is, what it intends to be and how well it accomplishes it is objective and that's how you gauge quality.

This is the way most art should be "consumed"

>bad music is objective
How so? How do you determine this, since it's based on taste?

taking the bait again

What do you mean?

There are a couple of problems with this

The Artist doesn't dictate whether the art is good or not.

its bait, bad isn't objective, he knows it, he want to get you mad.

bait

Whether the art is good or not is not relevant.

He never said it was objective. Just a valid opinion to have.

Don't you think he has a slight influence on how the art looks in the end ?

JK, I know what you mean

>he want to get you mad.
Then his bait is failing, and you shouldn't worry about it. I like discussing this.

I read half of you post and stopped because you're not even baiting, you're actually just an idiot.
I'm actually involved in the arts, I wrote
I actually know about this and I'm not some teenager who came onto Cred Forums hoping to spout all the cool buzzwords they heard from their new college friends.

If you plan on replying to someone, make sure to understand how to read within a context.
If you plan on discussing something, make sure you actually know enough about it to actually discuss it.

>but one's [sic] can make objective statements about their and other's axioms

Stop posting any time

Have fun agrueing a mute point

Do you think art is a moot point?

sure, big boy. Glad you're so smart ;)

It is though; when you're discussing if music is subjective or not.

no, arguing about whether or not the opinion of some dipshit on the internet is gospel is.

See Whew! Luckily that's not my argument here!

>people still unironically replying

>It's a word with a definition making it objective.
It can't be fully objective if there's no agreement on the criteria of 'good'. Why is there no 'perfect' piece of music?

So this objective discussion -
>An objective discussion is on whether or not something is or is not good/bad or [genre] so on
- can only be based on some abstract 'ruleset' of what makes a piece 'good'

So you can objectively say -
'This piece has complex composition'.
'The singer on this piece follows the melody perfectly'

But saying this is what makes a piece good can only ever be subjective (if that's the right word)

Look, I don't study art, I'm not even that into music. If you have the answers to this, though, I'm interested in learning

this reminded me of the skull of 'apocalyptica'. since i think they and their albums are shit, your image deeply upset me

I'm sorry you're so pathetic. Hope whatever cool, backwards cap friend you're trying to impress by being a kewl troll pats you on the head tomorrow mate, makes all your hours of posts worthwhile.

It's easier with art because Art, in practice, is communicating a concept so you can sort of measure how well some has done that.

Music is trickier, but only because of linguistic semantics. I take music and film and everything else like I approach Art and just read for ideas because I see everything else as worthless, so I may not be the best person to speak on Objectively analysing music, but since music is a concrete term there has to theoretically be an objective scale of perfect to completely shite.

Whether or not anyone is capable of a perfect analysis is one thing, but as long as music is music then there has to be good and bad.
I wouldn't worry too much about it though.
Most music should be categorised differently anyway as regards what it intends to be. I'm sure Pitbull's output is not with the intent of being 'good music', you know?
There aren't too many people making music who would even care about 'music' primarily.

>but since music is a concrete term
If you research what constitutes "music" you will find it not very concrete at all

Oh, I didn't realise that when you say 'art' you meant /ic/ stuff.

But yeah, generally this is the thing If there's no agreement on what is even music, how can you say something is objectively 'good'?

>I'm sure Pitbull's output is not with the intent of being 'good music', you know?
Do you think that makes Pitbull a good artist/musician?

>Do you think that makes Pitbull a good artist/musician?
Does he actually make the art? What instrument does he play?

I don't know. He must be involved in some way. He probably tells them - 'put a boop there, and a beep here'

>He probably tells them - 'put a boop there, and a beep here'
Does he though?

I'd have to ask him. At worst he's simply a vocalist and lyricist (the latter still debatable)

Art means Art, though. /ic/ is a board on Cred Forums that I avoid.
Whether or not members of the public propagate ideas that a word means something else, that word still always means what it actually means, there just exists a section of society that is confused.
Art is art, music is music. Art can be made with a sounds and so can music, something can constitute both but the two are separate.

>Do you think that makes Pitbull a good artist/musician?
I wouldn't class him as either, which is my point.

Pitbull is an entertainer, he's in the same category as a clown or a birthday magician, his trick is just talking over a beat. I'd also say he's pretty bad at it, but he's great at being a person who has made money. But he's not really making anything that should be analysed in terms of music.

>Whether or not members of the public propagate ideas that a word means something else, that word still always means what it actually means
That's the thing... in it's meaning there is nothing that allows you to judge what is good music and what is bad.

Do yu mean to say that the more 'analysable' a piece of music is, the better it becomes? I can sort of see that.

>there is nothing that allows you to judge what is good music and what is bad
There is. There's always something that is absolutely bad or definitely good and then there's always stuff in the middle that people debate over.

>Do you mean to say that the more 'analysable' a piece of music is, the better it becomes?
As far as from a art criticism standpoint, that's a big part of how you rate something. Musically I dunno, but in terms of what a recording 'artist' wants to accomplish with their music, especially in a post-modern world, I'd say yes.

>here's always something that is absolutely bad or definitely good
How do you determine that?

I'll give you an anecdotal, second-hand example of an extreme case, because I'm about to eat and it's an easy one.

So there's an exhibition, a student one. Standard fare. One of the pieces. A KitKat wrapper.

It literally isn't anything.

Before you respond, I know the person who did it and they literally just didn't understand anything about anything and were just trying to look cool. It was like a 70 year old woman as well.

And, you know when something is good.
Have you ever heard of Philipe Parreno [sic]?
He's pretty reliably good for fine art. And music -wise I'm sure you know of a tonne of examples of objectively good music.

>There's always something that is absolutely bad or definitely good and then there's always stuff in the middle that people debate over.
I think it depends -
For example - if you're talking about, say, footballers, you can say 'he's a good footballer because he runs fast, passes accurately, scores many goals' - there's no denying this, that's what a footballer must do to be good. It's objective
In music's case - what exactly is that thing that makes it good or bad? It's nothing but subjective

>And music -wise I'm sure you know of a tonne of examples of objectively good music.
The criteria has changed over times - so there's nothing definitive

You didn't seem to answer my question. Try again.

I smell a nirvana fan

has this thread just broken Cred Forums?
kek almighty

>turns from baitfest to some actual discussion
it has literally everything

I don't have an example of music because I don't subscribe to music criticised as music, I said that already. I just said that so long as music is a classification that there theoretically is good and bad music, regardless as to whether or not any individual is qualified to decide that.
Most music should be classified otherwise anyway, since the pursuit of musicianship is not present in most contemporary music and most practitioners seem more intent on conveying ideas like those within the world of art.
I already wrote all of that though.
I'm not qualified to criticise music, I don't care about musicianship outside of knowing how well someone might need to be able to play to get across ideas in specific instances.

I like Julia Holter because, from an art analysis perspective, she's pretty good and I dislike [I forgot the name of the band: some metal band I don't like anyway] despite them allegedly being excellent and accredited musicians - according to a friend of mine who cares about that. - but that's subjective because it's me liking things.

RAPE MEEE
RAPE MEEE

yeah

>that there theoretically is good and bad music
There isn't because you can't define the terms.

You're hard to talk to, honestly.
I can't play the drums at all.
I can sort of play guitar, but haven't for years.
I can't play the French horn.
I can't play the clarinet.

If I was to record me playing those it would be bad because I can't play at all - insofar as music criticism goes.

If someone who knew how to play them all with a complete knowledge of the instruments and how the are played and was competent enough to compose something and play it with them then it would, at the very least, be 'good' music because it is music played well.

Deciding if it is better than another thing that is played well is a different issue.

wasn't me btw

>If someone who knew how to play them all with a complete knowledge of the instruments and how the are played and was competent enough to compose something and play it with them then it would, at the very least, be 'good' music because it is music played well.
Ah now we are getting somewhere!

So punk rock, Velvet Underground and minimalist composers aren't good?

That's the thing and that's where it gets weird.
Do you analyse Punk as music or as a genre unto itself within post-modern society?
I think Velvet Underground needs to be specifically viewed as a post-modern thing and not music specifically.

Punk rock is supposed to be 'bad' musically, right?
Where does D-Beat sit on this discussion? I think they belong to their own category because their objective is not to present well-played music.

It would help if they spoke up about themselves more though. I'm really happy with my sly use of 'objective' there though.

You're a fucking idiot. The term "art" can absolutely apply to music. It sounds like you spend your whole day jerking off to paintings you fucking faggot.

>banana isn't instrument

>implying

>Do you analyse Punk as music or as a genre unto itself within post-modern society?
It is organized sound, it is music
>Punk rock is supposed to be 'bad' musically, right?
No. Are you saying it's bad, then?
>It would help if they spoke up about themselves more though.
They have. Just research it
>their objective is...
And now you've stumbled upon my point: THIS is the only true objectivity of art, the artist's objectives. Your perception of them is subjective and good/bad is not relevant (unless it ties into the artist's objectives)

So art is just for the artist?

Art is for everyone to experience (if the artist intends it), if that's what you mean

Nice attempt at an argument friend.
Art means art, music means music. Something can be both, but one does not constitute the other. As someone who actually understands this, responding to someone who obviously has no idea about anything, I'd like you to know that you're a bit of a fool, there.

Also, Paint is, again, it's own thing. A painting is a painting. A painting can also be an artwork but isn't necessarily (and in most cases it isn't - in fact paint as a medium within art has been dead for a while now and has only recently come back). Don't try to speak with authority about a topic you don't know anything about.

Was your final point there supposed to be a point of contention?
I'd say, in terms of music that Punk is typically bad, but bad on purpose, yeah - intrinsically so.
I'd still be wishy-washy on the term art in a lot of cases. Velvet Underground came out of an Art studio, so they obviously carry artistic sensibilities.

I'm digressing...

Objectively, in art, you objectively look at it as what it is meant to convey and how well it does that. More variables appear during that analysis, typically, but yeah that's the beginning and end of it. Something is successful (or good) if it does what it is meant to. It's Bad if it's vapid shit. You see a lot of it when you're in the middle of it.

Sometimes it is, oftentimes its a selfish endeavour. It's presented to an audience, though. What audience it is intended for can vary. Generally speaking, contemporary gallery boys aim for the educated because they're the only people who show up these days anyway, as an example.

>Was your final point there supposed to be a point of contention?
It only is if you don't understand art
>you objectively look at it as what it is meant to convey and how well it does that.
>Something is successful (or good) if it does what it is meant to
This is the answer I was looking for. Why didn't you say it in the first place?

I did, it was in my first post.
That was an actual discussion - born from a bait thread. It's almost like an accomplishment.

>I did, it was in my first post.
Where?

here, though I hate to admit how long I've had this thread open.
>What an individual personally thinks is subjective and their scope is subjective. Distancing yourself from something and analysing it with respect to what it is, what it intends to be and how well it accomplishes it is objective and that's how you gauge quality.

OK

Subjectivity is objective

Aeroplane is meaningful art you autist. Have you ever listened to it?

>Objectively, in art, you objectively look at it as what it is meant to convey and how well it does that. More variables appear during that analysis, typically, but yeah that's the beginning and end of it. Something is successful (or good) if it does what it is meant to. It's Bad if it's vapid shit.
This isn't objectivity.

>Aeroplane is meaningful art

Why isn't it?

>Objectively, in art, you objectively look at it as what it is meant to convey and how well it does that

For each person in an audience, isn't their experience of the art still subjective, even in the sense of conveying an idea? One person might have the idea conveyed very effectively to them whereas another person with a different perspective might not, even within a specific, target audience.

It depends. An audience member targeted by the work should easily interpret it. It's a matter of education/culture for the most part.
If someone doesn't 'get it' the fault is typically moreso on the viewer and only insofar as they just aren't conditioned in such a way that allows them a proper reading.

Like, I've a friend who throws the word art around all the time and has absolutely no understanding of it at all. I brought him to a gallery and it was a pretty horrible experience. It's not the fault of the work that he doesn't get it, you know. There's a level of viewing where you remove yourself from the act of viewing that you typically achieve when engrained in the arts. It sounds pretentious as fuck, but it's true.