Well, here's a topic to discuss since I'm bored.
Feel free to chime in. Agree to disagree, or begin a mildly entertaining opinionated convo.

The saying "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."
It's somewhat ruining art. No specifics, or anything.
It's an alright statement if it refers to almost anything except art.
Think about it, if EVERYONE is an expert on the concept of art, there can't be such a thing as a critic. Without critics, or true experts on the subject of art anyone with an opinion can be classified as an expert. A homeless man that has no idea what art IS becomes an expert.
We now have modern art pieces of sculptures of police women urinating in public, portraits of a pile of food, and various other ridiculous things we now call "art".

Just throwing this out there. Not really looking to get down to the nitty gritty on details in this topic. Just looking to see how everyone feels on the saying, and kill the monotony I guess.

Art is the unfettered mind. All standards are relative. All aesthetics are arbitrary. All statements are born from selfish desires. In the end, that may be all we really have...

So there's me trying to be deep.

I know this might a tad off topic but may I ask what your artistic preferences are. I personally don't put much thought into art but I do like the more modern anime styles of the recent years.

When it comes to modern art, I could probably go for whatever.

Are we really going the trust THIS with art?

media.wizards.com/2014/images/dnd/newtodnd/Beholder_3E.jpg

What if I data mine all the non-expert opinions for metrics?

If you do, I promise to eat my hat.
It's 100% cotton fibre.



I'm not picky, but if we're talking anime I suppose I favor the styles that came from Hayao Miyazaki.
If we're talking about my personal preference when it comes to art in general, I honestly don't have any true favorites. I know what in my opinion is good, and what isn't. I'm not an expert in the field of art, but I have an idea of what might constitute something being higher in quality than "the rest". pls dont take that as the pot calling the kettle black ;-; my opinion has next to no value compared to actual experts. I do study film, so I guess I can be qualified to judge some stuff from that that art form.

Aaaanywayyys, I know that standards are somewhat relative. That doesn't change the fact that there is definitely "good" art, and "bad" art. With that being said, there must be some type of guidelines that seperate the two. If we all go by "Art is in the eye of the beholder" there isn't any guidlines. Just chaos, and framed pictures drawn by children with crayons. :<

I see that statement more as how much a person likes an artwork. It doesn't say anything about the quality of said artwork.

I'm going to have to disagree with you. You're oversimplifying things here.

Art, be it paintings, drawings, sculptures, movies or theatre, is subjective. There can be a hegemonic understanding of what is fine art and what is not, but it is by definition subjective. Everyone can have an opinion on art. You don't have to take a bachelor's in creative writing to have an opinion on a book. You don't need to study five years of art history to decide whether or not you think a Jackson Pollock is good.

I want to contextualize by mentioning that I study film as well, but with your stance I'd say you're delving into elitism here. Sure thing, there can be experts on art. You gain the title of expert by being knowledgeable in a given field. Roger Ebert is considered an expert on film because he has studied film extensively. His eyes are open to a lot of facets most people don't notice. That doesn't mean that Roger Ebert is the end all source of knowledge on what is good or bad. We all have different preferences. You might enjoy md/fs, Cradily might enjoy fd/ms. I love haigure, Lillytank might despise it. Art will appeal to some people, while failing to appeal to others. That doesn't mean people with opinions are ruining art.

So no, I'd like to say there are actually no standards of what is "good" art and "bad" art. Appreciation of culture is rooted in culture. Since Europe took over the world, most of the world has been taught to regard European culture as the finer arts. We valued melody over percussion, we valued a certain type of acting. In our cultural context we consider art to be of a certain value, but if we had been born into another region in another time, chances are we'd consider contemporary film making to be awful.

That's my bag of spare change. Hope this can spark some interesting discussion.

When I read this part, I was scared for a moment. I thought you had ESP or something. XD

Maybe they do, and wiped the thought from your head! You can fight back, but IT'S NO USE!

While your premise intrigues me I must ask: ...Why would it be no use?

<<youtu.be/hx6a6kjtg7k|IT'S>>
<<youtu.be/v8K3EuLDIxg|NO>>
<<youtu.be/d4_hsimXKWc|USE>>

...

a creature with such ridiculously high standards that even a slight deviation is considered an abomination and must be destroyed? yes.

In all seriousness, though, "Beauty" doesn't mean "good". as for your argument about content, it's always been that way.

This: images1.browardpalmbeach..../a1saucebyralphgoings.jpg for instance, is art not because of the content, but because it is a painting that looks photorealistic.

and this: www.carrotmuseum.co.uk/photos/stilllifelge.jpg is from the 1500's.

Honestly, a lot of "art" is just what we're told is art - simple as that.