Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Merlion" data-source="post: 3129542" data-attributes="member: 10397">My point is, objective things cannot be meaningfully disagreed with. You can claim that rocks are soft, or that water runs uphil, but EVERYONE is going to assume your kidding. You say that my definition of objective is too narrow...well the thing is, objectivity is a narrow area, because few things are truly objective. For something to be totally 100% objective and true it must be able to be proven physically and empirically. Thats why I find applying the concept to art to be a little odd, because art by nature is outside the realm of objectivity. Now you say there has to be objectivity in art in order to actually discuss it, and thats a valid point in a way. But to me the objectvity comes in the form of the works physical factual aspects. A book says the words it says, and a painting is what it is. Thats the basis for people to then discuss their *opinions* of that work, and how they percieve its nature and aspects. Now yea, if someone says that a painting of a red rose actually depicts a white bunny, then thats a bit out there. But if they say that they think the rose's shading and lines are great, and you disagree and think they are poorly executed, those are both valid opinions, but neither of them is objectively true...each however is true for the individual.Its when people start trying to turn those types of *opinions* into facts just because a lot of people hold the opinion, and start saying anyone who disagrees with the opinion of the majority just has "bad taste" that I have a problem. That and anyone trying to claim a work is worthless for anyone but themselves.</blockquote>

Verification