3 ms·
Art -- as demonstrated by classical orchestras -- really isn't subjective at all. Talk to a professional musician, and it's all technique. Somewhere, deep down
by musingsole 5y ago
Art -- as demonstrated by classical orchestras -- really isn't subjective at all. Talk to a professional musician, and it's all technique. Somewhere, deep down there at the bottom of it all, is a squishy place where an artist's passion and poetry is burning bright to fuel everything else...but by the time you get to an orchestral hall, everything you -- specifically as a non-professional musician -- will hear is objective technique you might expect an AI to be able to grade.
It's a very different beast from popular art that holds up Selene Gomez, and even then you'd be remiss to try to explain her success as the result of subjective judgements.
- IndySun 5y agoSo, there's no objective artistic explanation for Selena Gomez; and all orchestral music played in a hall is objectively 'art'?
- analog31 5y agoThere are layers of objective and subjective factors. "What is art" is its own beast. How a particular style of interpretation is chosen, is subjective. Once that style is chosen, the performance can be assessed against many objective standards, such as whether they followed their own stylistic choices correctly, etc.
- IndySun 5y agoI'm arguing that the subjective part of art is far less powerful than the objective, almost to the point it recedes from view. You disagree? Strictly speaking, all 'art' is subjective. Or, even stricter speaking, anything at all for which subjective outweighs objective becomes more or less 'subjective', ergo, all art is subjective. Perhaps you might argue, receded from view but still significant, is that fair?