4 ms·

> The Mona Lisa is objectively better than anything I have ever painted. No it isn't. If I saw one of your paintings and liked it better, there would be no way

by bccdee 2y ago

> The Mona Lisa is objectively better than anything I have ever painted. No it isn't. If I saw one of your paintings and liked it better, there would be no way for you to prove me wrong. My opinion might be highly unpopular, but that wouldn't make it objectively incorrect.

ericmay 2y ago
How would you compare the two?
mcswell 2y ago
Then substitute one of my drawings (or paintings, if I painted) of a person. There's no way in the world that anyone--anyone!--would think mine were better. That's because mine are truly awful.
- bccdee 2y ago
  Even then, that's just an opinion that everyone shares. Objectivity isn't when everyone's subjective experiences align—it's when something exists independent of any subjective experience. If there were no humans at all, "beauty" would be meaningless. It's an inherently subjective property which humans ascribe to objects. Conversely, the Earth would still orbit the Sun, because gravity is objective.
  - ericmay 2y ago
    In the same way I can state as an objective fact that Patrick Mahomes is way better than either of us at being a quarterback, I can say that any painting I've ever done isn't as good as the Mona Lisa.
    - bccdee 2y ago
      A better quarterback wins games. What does a better painting do—win art contests? Judged by what objective criteria? Art doesn't have rules the way football does. A painting can't "win at being art"; each individual audience member either likes it or they don't.
      - ericmay 2y ago
        > A better quarterback wins games. Well, no, a better quarterback is just a member of a team. They don't dictate whether the team wins or not, they just contribute to it if they are good. Though we can't say whether a given quarterback is good or not because we don't have objective criteria to determine that. It's all relative and arbitrary - as I'm sure you'd agree with. > What does a better painting do—win art contests? Maybe? Why not? > Judged by what objective criteria? Art doesn't have rules the way football does. Football rules are arbitrary criteria, not objective. > A painting can't "win at being art"; Why not? The Mona Lisa has the most viewers so maybe that means it is the best art?
        bobbylox 2y ago
        There are many artists whose work was 'objectively' (that is, by consensus) bad until later when it became objectively good.
SamPatt 2y ago
Some elements of beauty are objective. As in, they are hardwired into our brains. Some cities are more beautiful than others. Prague is more beautiful than Detroit.
- Cthulhu_ 2y ago
  And yet, it's not as clear cut as that. There is some hardwired stuff in our brains (see e.g. the "bouba / kiki" effect [0]) but most people will agree that what is considered pretty, good, etc is cultural, not to mention changing over time - like architecture trends as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, but also painting styles. That said, a few posts back a commenter mentioned that the Mona Lisa is "objectively better" than anything they made; while I won't comment on aesthetics and appreciation, the assertion that the artist is more skilled in the arts than the poster is something definitely objectively true, simply because of education and experience. That's no guarantee that the outcome is better, but still. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouba/kiki_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouba/kiki_effect
  - ericmay 2y ago
    To your point, though, I think as you look around at McMansions and Wal-Mart there's nothing architecturally redeeming about those structures besides efficiency in building and internal climate control. We know the architectural styles are bad and there are (again to your point about skill) scientific ways we can measure this (Ann Sussman's work). If you look at historical architecture patterns (mostly pre-WWI) they mirror how art has changed over time. It's not that Impressionism came about and Renaissance became shit, it's that both are good and important stylistic contributions. It's not that Gothic architecture came about then all the Romanesque stuff sucked. Both were good and unique. We run into the same problem as "all art is equal" when we tend to express the belief that because we live in the time period we're complaining about that if only we waited a few hundred years we would recognize that our current building patterns are actually really good. That's just not the case.
- bccdee 2y ago
  What would you say to an idiosyncratic person who prefers Detroit to Prague? "Actually most people disagree because of their brains?" That hardly makes the Detroit-liker's opinion "incorrect."

by bccdee 2y ago

ericmay 2y ago

How would you compare the two?

mcswell 2y ago

Then substitute one of my drawings (or paintings, if I painted) of a person. There's no way in the world that anyone--anyone!--would think mine were better. That's because mine are truly awful.

bccdee 2y ago
Even then, that's just an opinion that everyone shares. Objectivity isn't when everyone's subjective experiences align—it's when something exists independent of any subjective experience. If there were no humans at all, "beauty" would be meaningless. It's an inherently subjective property which humans ascribe to objects. Conversely, the Earth would still orbit the Sun, because gravity is objective.
- ericmay 2y ago
  In the same way I can state as an objective fact that Patrick Mahomes is way better than either of us at being a quarterback, I can say that any painting I've ever done isn't as good as the Mona Lisa.
  - bccdee 2y ago
    A better quarterback wins games. What does a better painting do—win art contests? Judged by what objective criteria? Art doesn't have rules the way football does. A painting can't "win at being art"; each individual audience member either likes it or they don't.
    - ericmay 2y ago
      > A better quarterback wins games. Well, no, a better quarterback is just a member of a team. They don't dictate whether the team wins or not, they just contribute to it if they are good. Though we can't say whether a given quarterback is good or not because we don't have objective criteria to determine that. It's all relative and arbitrary - as I'm sure you'd agree with. > What does a better painting do—win art contests? Maybe? Why not? > Judged by what objective criteria? Art doesn't have rules the way football does. Football rules are arbitrary criteria, not objective. > A painting can't "win at being art"; Why not? The Mona Lisa has the most viewers so maybe that means it is the best art?
      - bobbylox 2y ago
        There are many artists whose work was 'objectively' (that is, by consensus) bad until later when it became objectively good.

SamPatt 2y ago

Some elements of beauty are objective. As in, they are hardwired into our brains. Some cities are more beautiful than others. Prague is more beautiful than Detroit.

Cthulhu_ 2y ago
And yet, it's not as clear cut as that. There is some hardwired stuff in our brains (see e.g. the "bouba / kiki" effect [0]) but most people will agree that what is considered pretty, good, etc is cultural, not to mention changing over time - like architecture trends as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, but also painting styles. That said, a few posts back a commenter mentioned that the Mona Lisa is "objectively better" than anything they made; while I won't comment on aesthetics and appreciation, the assertion that the artist is more skilled in the arts than the poster is something definitely objectively true, simply because of education and experience. That's no guarantee that the outcome is better, but still. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouba/kiki_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouba/kiki_effect
- ericmay 2y ago
  To your point, though, I think as you look around at McMansions and Wal-Mart there's nothing architecturally redeeming about those structures besides efficiency in building and internal climate control. We know the architectural styles are bad and there are (again to your point about skill) scientific ways we can measure this (Ann Sussman's work). If you look at historical architecture patterns (mostly pre-WWI) they mirror how art has changed over time. It's not that Impressionism came about and Renaissance became shit, it's that both are good and important stylistic contributions. It's not that Gothic architecture came about then all the Romanesque stuff sucked. Both were good and unique. We run into the same problem as "all art is equal" when we tend to express the belief that because we live in the time period we're complaining about that if only we waited a few hundred years we would recognize that our current building patterns are actually really good. That's just not the case.
bccdee 2y ago
What would you say to an idiosyncratic person who prefers Detroit to Prague? "Actually most people disagree because of their brains?" That hardly makes the Detroit-liker's opinion "incorrect."