Jump to content

Saving the Arts with New Objectivism


RamynKing

Recommended Posts

This thread on the FDR group is the straw that broke the camel's back.


 

This is an idea that's been kicking around in my mind for long enough that I think it may have a shot at being workable in real life. 

 

Most people seem to have the emotional view that objective standards (can we call it OBSTANS?), when it comes to the arts, are anywhere between evil, and laughably useless. The defensiveness comes out so readily that it's akin to when you make an argument against the state to an average person. To me, it's a sign of indoctrination.

 

Yet although people have this view that we must never apply objective standards to art, I submit most criticisms of the arts center around some arbitrary combination of them. So we have a dissonance between what people say they want, and what they actually desire. 

 

Meanwhile, we see the arts slipping ever farther down an insane rabbit hole of degeneration, with every iteration becoming more "incomprehensible" than the last. The people in the know all pretend to appreciate it, though they've clearly been exposed as bullshitters. We even have generators for their babble now on the internet. If the average person expresses a desire for something they can appreciate, they are called laymen or instructed to respect subjectivity etc. I believe the layer of fear this creates has effectively pushed said laymen aside and let the elite run roughshod over the arts, finally transforming them into yet another vehicle for expressing their toxic anti-human values.

 

Now of course I admit that art is ultimately subjective, and I greatly appreciate that very necessary aspect and have no desire to change it. But a pile of loose bricks is a lousy wall no matter what the intent or interpretation. It takes the application of OBSTANS to make sure that the bricks become something more and better. In turn, you can only churn out so many blank canvases and say its about racism before people are fed up.

 

One argument I've heard is that the objectivists tried this with art already, and it didn't work. If anyone can elaborate on that point, I'd be grateful, as my studies in this realm are somewhat immature.

 

I can see some sticking points though. Art is naturally ever-evolving. People's tastes seem to change very rapidly. The moment you write out some OBSTANS for an artform, they start becoming outdated. You seemingly have to base your standards on great works of the past, which may not provide any insight to the future. Moreover, there may be a mechanism in human taste whereby the next generation summarily dismisses any established standards no matter their objective value. Therefore, purposefully assembling more good things in one space is simply dooming good things to the trash more efficiently when the next generation comes and wipes the slate clean. Maybe art has become a game of not outmaneuvering this mechanism.

 

But after letting subjectivity play out, we do see obvious problems of degeneration becoming painfully apparent. Nobody wants to be that dick who blames subjectivity, but there it is. A big fat correlation that is screaming for somebody to say, yea, it's causation as well. It reminds me of how triggered people become when they hear Ann Coulter's single mom stats. Pushing back is obviously a monumental task, but we do have to stand up and call out the problem in the first place.

 

I'd like to propose a new approach to building OBSTANS. The key here is creators being OK with short-term failure, and with consumers not being chained to the actual OBSTANS.

 

A creator would lay out their best list of standards and work with them in mind. If competition comes along and seems to be poaching interest away, you must evaluate if it is because they used a better set of standards. If so, then incorporate those into your own. But if they are gaining popularity by other means, such as bribery or marketing, then stick to your guns in the face of this setback. Looking at today as an example, if somebody was to create the objective equivalent to the original Star Wars, and Red Letter Media has exhaustively broken down those standards as a gift to us all, there would be singing in the streets. 

 

As a lay consumer, your role is to.. not consciously worry about objective standards! In a free-market, artists depend on your business, so they will need to serve your whims.

 

As an elite consumer, like an artist who also consumes art, your job is to hold other artists' feet to the fire; criticize them for trying to sell trash to the people under false pretenses.

 

I'd like to add a lot more to this, but I'm mostly out of energy. I hope for responses so I can make this thing actually robust, or scrap it in the face of good arguments.

 

I realize we have bigger fish to fry than "fixing art," but this could possibly tie into the big picture. It could be that art is a refection of a society perverted by the state, and has become an arm of that state as well. If so, then taking art away from the ruling class could be a step in delegitimizing the state. Like the imminent fall of the mainstream media, we could cut another major line of propaganda, and of course begin using it to our own ends. Look at how integrally the Rap industry is tied to the continual destruction of the black family. What a victory that would be for Humanity to blow up that death star.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't see the thread you linked to. Can you give me a TL;DR version? Or is it contained in the first part of your post? 

 

I think there is objectivity in art, but I think the push back against it is from people who don't like it, or who see it as pointless. Which, that's fine. You don't have to like art. But, that doesn't mean that applying objective standards to art is "evil".

 

Let's see how this topic goes. Art topics on this board seem to fizzle. I posted a while back asking where "Favorite colors" come from as it seems weird to me that someone could have a favorite color. It got some responses, but nothing close to what I wanted. Which maybe that was on me, but I think a lot of people don't want to discuss things related to art. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't see the thread you linked to. Can you give me a TL;DR version?

 

ZtMkLgH.jpg

 

:laugh:

 

I mean it wasn't the most in-depth thread. I had just really been building this urge for a while.

I've spent a ton of forum-time approaching this topic over the years, and seen the same circular, self-defeating discussions rolling out.

 

A sampling of the comments from the thread:

(no offense to the posters! great people. great group. all discussion is appreciated.

 

 

--- I wouldn't say music today sucks, the music industry definitely does though. There are plenty of Beatles songs with horrendously repetitive lyrics and boring arrangements, but they still were considered amazing.

 

As for the producer thing, the 4 producers are all probably masters of audio engineering specifically at this point: one for the arrangement, one for the mixing, one for the mastering, and one to polish it off as an agreeable almost guaranteed millions of dollars hit.

 

Honestly the writers have no excuse though, but it's what people want. or think they do. I listen to a lot of newer music that's contemporary classical and ambient, along with some rap, but in the end it really does come down to personal taste and what you enjoy.

 

I wish the days of Kitsch 80s pop music would return I miss those synth patches so.

 

 

-----Dude, check out synthwave. It's exactly what you are asking for.

 

Top picks:

 

Mitch Murder

The Midnight

Kristine

Lost Years

Carpenter Brut

Perturbation

Botnit

 

 

 

Yet other comments alluded to possible OBSTANS such as:

• lyrics that promote making smart decisions; Thinking about the consequences of actions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what you are showing above in those two images with Beyonce and Freddie Mercury is the difference between something that is mostly a product and something that is mostly art. Hence the increased number of producers and writers. It's a factory assembly line. Not the work of one guy who wants to tell a story and sing a song. 

 

Now, there isn't necessarily anything wrong with that Beyonce song, though giving it a listen I wasn't blown away, and it certainly has some artistic elements, but it is mostly a product to be consumed. 

 

If anything, this type of "Art" actually helps to create a contrast for things that are much more art and much less product. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The final objective standard for art is time. There have been Beyonce-level famous artists during Freddie Mercury's lifetime, Mozart's lifetime, DaVinci's lifetime, and so on.

Why is this important to you, though?

What would a highly accurate objective standard for art achieve?

Will it result in more superior art being made? No.

Will it result in less crappy art being made? No.

Unless of course your aim is to make people enjoy certain things and not enjoy others at gunpoint. Then I would imagine you could make quite the profit under the guise of "providing a service".

 

 

As a side note Trump in his book said how much he loved modern art. He said it's an homage to salesmanship because you really have to be phenomenally good at it in order to sell that crap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no reason to believe IQ and appreciation for fine art isn't correlated. The democratization of the means of art production has enabled masses of previously unqualified people to produce 'art', and the profit motive of selling them to more masses of untrained consumers drives the cultural force to abstain from any quality standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.