FUCK AI THINK FOR YOURSELF HERE'S SOME ART PHILOSOPHY

All sentiment is right; because sentiment has a reference to nothing beyond itself, and is always real, wherever a man is conscious of it. - David Hume

Here is my proposal; we perform the various aesthetic activities of perception and investigation for the sake of our involvement in the activity of seeking correct judgements, rather than for the sake of actually having made correct judgements. - C. Thi Nguyen

CJ The X: Visual Essay “Subjectivity in Art”

https://youtu.be/GPrNWuppMcc?si=JFPqj168CYsr2P8E

I’ve watched this video like five times, it’s a fantastic essay on how art critique works and where it fails depending on the critic’s philosophy. The essay covers A LOT.

CJ is a very fast talker and jumps straight into their ideas from the start of the video. Beginning with a discussion of what their opinion of “review” versus “critique” is, and what they consider to be valid reasoning for negative critiques. They also talk about how “taste” works, citing David Hume and Anthony Fantano.

Then, CJ talks about the difference between an artist’s intent and outcome being the goal versus the purpose, and how we can critique based on that information. Thi Nguyen’s work might be really interesting to you, some of which is cited in this section of the video, as well as parts of an interview with Nguyen himself.

At 37:28, the video gets into number rating scales for a bit, which you might enjoy as well. CJ mentions that not only can we not accurately quantify our feelings about a work of art into a number, but also, the scale itself is open to interpretation. For example, a 5/10 could be received as a D, like getting 50% in school, a very bad grade. Or, it could mean that the viewer enjoyed about half of the work, the work is average and worth experiencing, that it meets the requirements and is not a waste of time. Not to mention, are we rating the work on a subjective taste gradient or an objective taste gradient? Assuming that the reviewer has enough experience or knowledge about the work to give it an objective taste rating at all. Or, is it an aesthetic testimony? Are we looking at the piece and trying to decipher if other people might like it? Regardless, the number scale is still a claim to aesthetic truth, and we can go from there. If we disagree about our number rating, we can then open a conversation about the art work and look at it closer and look at our own opinions closer to find why each other thought differently about the work.

The next section is about what art actually “is”, including discussion of intrinsic and extrinsic value. CJ has a fascinating bit, “what if art doesn’t reside in us, the subject, or in the thing we’re engaging with, the object? What if art is something that happens when those two things interact?” They talk about the story of Vivian Maier as a case study into what art is and what it can become once it becomes perceived.

CJ The X: Visual Essay “Objectively Bad Art”

https://youtu.be/sqjzauX2DAQ?si=X8Tje4QfSbyipk6U

This video is also amazing, and delves into even more art philosophy than the last one. CJ goes into what a negative critique or review might mean, quoting Simon Frith, “What do people want from music? What is it they’re not getting when they describe a song or performance or work as ‘bad music’?” Was the intention that the artist had not reached? Did their intentions not line up with the end product’s communication? How can you decide what was being communicated by the work, let alone whether that communication was effective? Does art have to be “useful”? Is a given piece useful in generating value? Are there different ways to generate that value? And are there different kinds of value to be generated?

CJ the X defines two aspects of negative artistic critique that I think about all the time. Art is bad because it’s wrong, or art is bad because it’s stupid. This relates to the production versus effect argument.

Effect (when art is “wrong”): it’s bad because it’s evil or ruining our society - not the art itself, but a critique of the people who made it and their failings in creating something that fell short. Bad art is responsible for bad things. It’s a personal critique, the artist is  destroying things we love ie. the sequel or remake sucks because you loved the original, but we don’t talk about the actual reasons we didn’t enjoy it, we’re too busy feeling personally and directly hurt by the piece. Ie. punk rock, street art and graffiti, Piss Christ, any art that is pushing boundaries of the previous art movement. This art will create bad things that people who view it as “wrong” don’t want to take hold in greater society.

Production(when art is “stupid”): When we don’t like art, but we’re not seeing moral issues, we’re not getting something from the piece that you wanted from it. It becomes “stupid”. We weren’t able to grasp what the art was trying to communicate, and often (depending on the complexity of the piece) we don’t see that as our, the viewer’s failing, but as the artist’s. Hence, the work is stupid because I should’ve gotten it and I didn’t, but that’s not my fault it’s the artist’s. I came here for something (like catharsis) and I got nothing.

Concensus defines effect - your intended effect is nothing compared to what the consumers of your work agree that the effect is. It overshadows what you intended easily, which makes it very lonely to be a successful artist, your messages are subject to mutability by the fans of your work.

Objectivity and subjectivity are both tools that can help us appreciate and critique art, but the best tool of all time is curiosity.

Liking stuff is cool, but it’s more important to know why you like it.

If we consider objective critiques of art as basically using quantifiable science about pleasure and preference like the golden ratio and colour theory while also employing a level of constructive acknowledgement of the work’s meaning and communication of that meaning, I think we can reach a critique that is useful.