How does one defiine good/bad taste in art, if at all?

[Froge]

I'd still say that art needs to have objective value. By the following definition:

All I consider art to be is something that makes the person experiencing it feel some sort of emotion that was made with a creative intent

I would find a lot of things to be art that other people wouldn't consider so, such as my stories about ALIAS and his homosexual tendenceis.

[Kman]

I'd still say that art needs to have objective value. By the following definition:

All I consider art to be is something that makes the person experiencing it feel some sort of emotion that was made with a creative intent

I would find a lot of things to be art that other people wouldn't consider so, such as my stories about ALIAS and his homosexual tendenceis.

Yeah I'd consider those stories to be art too, they were made with a specific idea that you were trying to execute in mind and in some way or another have an emotional impact on the reader, whether that's disgust or humorous or confusion. You just mold that basic definition to what your criteria for a good work of art is and there you have your standard for what's good and bad art. But the key term there is your definition of good art, just because it's your definition doesn't mean it applies to everyone. Maybe someone thinks that what makes a great classical piece is cacophonous nonsense, by your definition that's terrible art, but if that's what appeals to them and that's how they judge that certain type of art, who are you to tell them they're wrong just because your criteria is different?

[Froge]

Yeah I'd consider those stories to be art too,

ok that works

[Kman]

Yeah I'd consider those stories to be art too,

ok that works

god fucking dammit chrono LITERALLY THE ONE TIME A WEEK I TRY TO BE INTELLIGENT AND YOU PULL THIS SHIT FUCK YOU

[7heDubz]

art is subjective

good and bad taste are objective terms

therefore there is no such thing as good or bad taste in art

/thread

What he said

[Bridge]

But technically you could consider anything to be art.

Therefore I propose that art must be something that can be evaluated using objective criteria in order to not just be anything.

This is easier with traditional classical music, where harmony creates rules for how to make pieces sound not like crap and compositions can also be analyzed structurally to determine their depth.

I completely disagree. Those "rules" do not mean anything. Ultimately, if something sounds good and it does not follow traditional "rules" regarding harmony, then it is good. The idea that classical music is objectively better because it has a bunch of rules is exactly why nobody respects it. It is a moronic assertion. Structure likewise does not mean anything. I truly pity people that listen to a composition and actively try to identify the structure and compare that to the rules they've been convinced are necessary. I mean, if I listen to a piece in sonata form then I generally know how it's going to go, and may passively think "now the development begins" or something but it just doesn't matter. It's only useful when you're analyzing pieces in order to learn from them.

Case in point: The blues is theoretically in complete violation of traditional harmony and diatonicism, what with unresolved dominant chords and blue notes. But it just sounds so good. Likewise, jazz doesn't conform to the rules of traditional harmony - it has spawned its own rules that misguided students memorize as per their teacher's orders.

[Kman]

I mean it's good to have a general guideline for what makes music good, but having a strict set of rules that something must fit to be "good" is just stupid. Like for example, generally I don't like death metal vocals or more guttural styles of harsh vocals, but with that said there are still a good few bands that I love that use that style. I still like them regardless of the fact that I generally don't like that type of harsh vocals, whether that's because I think it fits their music well or they're executed well or really if I just think they sound good in the context of the band. If I had a strict mindset of guttural vocals = bad then I'd miss out on enjoying a bunch of bands that I'd normally love.

[MyRedNeptune]

I truly pity people that listen to a composition and actively try to identify the structure and compare that to the rules they've been convinced are necessary.

Well, shit. I almost never enjoy music unless I can notice some sort of structure. Guess I'm in the contempt zone, then.

[Bridge]

I truly pity people that listen to a composition and actively try to identify the structure and compare that to the rules they've been convinced are necessary.

Well, shit. I almost never enjoy music unless I can notice some sort of structure. Guess I'm in the contempt zone, then.

That's not what I meant. He is talking about "accepted" forms of structure propagated by academics that are deemed proper. The human mind is designed to look for structures, so it is impossible to not do so. In fact, music is based on structures, so I suppose in a way what Chrono says is true. In this case, I am talking about being obsessed with classical structures. So that if a piece of music deviates from the rules you've been taught, it's of poor quality - which is bullshit. Why? Because they are completely arbitrary.

[Ghieri]

Yes, I think Thomas put it quite well on his Twitter, something about how definitions create rigidity in art.

Lemme dig up the link...

EDIT: (Related to game design, but is applicable.)

"The need to formalize gamedesign will become urgent the day we want games to be made by robots."

https://twitter.com/ThomasGrip/status/32...4575985664