Was Picasso a great painter? Why? 500 dollars if you can say this!
I'm am often baffled by the terms good and great regarding art and artists. From what I was taught in college (Art History & Theory) the art jurors consider a painting's nuances as a judging criterium. They look beyond technique or lack thereof.
They look for representation of the times, political, social, religious, mythological, personal. They look for use of color as representational also in terms of why the artist used a particular color in a particular area of the painting. They look for personal innuendo, such as a representation of the artist himself hidden somewhere in the painting or maybe out in plain view.
The artists' uses of symbolism is huge in judging his 'greatness'.
All the old masters made their own paints so this is no longer considered part of the contest (at least with the masters)
In the recent past, those who were the first to integrate computer enhanced images onto canvas were considered great at what they did but technology has allowed more people to do this so now it has become watered down in terms of uniqueness. The masters actually needed raw talent alone with no help from technology.
As far as people like Pollack, IMO his was also a representation of the times - chaos, change, rebellion. In fact, and this is true, he and I were painting the same 'splash' painting at the same time, but not in the same place. It's called simultaneious creativity. The difference is I tthought it was crap and his ego allowed him to believe it was good.
That is not art.
I am not a sockpuppet, sorry, so I don't know.
I am just stating that I am not one so I don't know.
This thread by the way is nice. In social science these days, there are movements towards subjectivity too.
yes, it used to be that you can predict behavior objectively by incorporating statistics, but now it is deeper that that. There is an intermingling of disciplines among social sciences like psych, socio, anthro, linguistics to understand deeper human behavior. Not only one discipline can understand why humans behave the way they do. it is complicated.
I had a friend called Dr Acharya in India - he just died few days ago. He killed a dog before his death. ...very complicated
I met a Ph D, Dr Acharya five years ago, she is married to an Acharya, can't remember her specialization, population or Economics, but she teaches in one of the University there. They have a beautiful daughter, she is beautiful too.
BTW, in connection to our topic one of my favorite author here has a latest hub about art and one of his hub is interesting
http://mikelickteig.hubpages.com/hub/Wh … is-Not-Art
It's strange that you too met another Dr Acharya...some Acharyas are just fake, some people just smell the dirt once fakers start speaking
I am trying to remember her first name, but she is intelligent too. She spent one semester in the University where I worked, some kind of exchange fellow.
Found it now, here..
Sanghmitra S Acharya, Associate Professor, JNU, was faculty in IIPS,Mumbai (1990-99),UNFPA Fellow,University of Bostwana (1995- 96); ASF Fellow (2005) UPPI,Manila,Philippines; and Adjunct Associate Professor,at Ball State University, Muncie INDIANA (US) during 2008-09. Her research is in the area of youth, health and discrimination.
I remember now, she is into youth population and sexuality
Do remember...Dr Acharya, before his death, just made a person brain-sick...how complicated. She is now suffering schzophrenia.
are they related, or her husbands relative perhaps?
Do you know her? As if you saw her in an image? She, her mind, is such a such a beautiful...she calls herself a dog
I worked before in a University in Manila and she was one of the fellow, she brought along her daughter I think 8 years old at that time.
Often, it's good practice to speak to cover the pain that no one understands
I don't understand what you are saying.
We have a fellow from an India University who worked for one semester at the University where I was working. I met her for one semester bec I worked there before moving here in the US.
She knows me of course by pic perhaps not by name or if she remembers my name, it is good. When she was accepted as a fellow in the University where I was working, she brought along her daughter with her. Then after one semester they went back to India.
You don't need to understand-
(are they related, or her husbands relative perhaps?)
I think that the surname Acharya is her husbands of course. Her first name is Sanghmitra. She is nice and beautiful with a bead on her forehead.
His name was Satan-Killer Acharya...don't worry, he will kill the original dog very soon.
How strange you could speak to me for so long on void
Plus, he killed the evo dog...how sweet you liked the story you never heard
That's all. Dr Acharya didn't like psycho dogs. He knew how to make them...
I was talking about internet sockpuppets. What karma applies to them?
Always good to hear from you, darkhorse. Yes. IMO, this is ongoing. It will probably always be part of the human awareness and will go in cycles. As far back (as recorded) as Aristotle, subjectivity has been the topic of discussion with regard to morality and ethics. Socrates believed in questioning everything, keeping an open mind - which goes directly back to subjectivity and the views of others.
Exactly like truth and falsehood but the OP question pertained to the existence and/or validity of criteria used in judging paintings.
Perhaps among those who go to school for arts, maestro or teachers -- they have criteria on how to judge works of students of arts.
But for laymen, it is subjective.
I can absolutely agree with you there. The beauty of art is subjective throughout the field, even among the masters. A patron who commissioned a piece didn't care whether he imposed his own secret agenda onto the painting. They just wanted something beautiful, subjectively judged by the aesthetic of the times.
we are the only one answering back and forth here in this post, LOL.
Somebody with an artist mind or interested should chip in. I am also interested in the answers in your OP
LOL? I guess the dog is showing her character somewhere?
To be honest, I really don't understand what you are talking about.
If you are talking about sockpuppets, they have reason on their own if they like to be one. Only that they should not create havoc, they are just fooling themselves if they do that.
pdh - many like the venom in the political, economic and religious forums. Those wouldn't be bad if they would stick to the facts with backup. I'm better at forums of art, ethics, philosophy. Forums where I have to think for myself. Of course, we can rarely lay claim to being original thinkers.
This forum is actually sane. Well, except for the psychodog.
Me too, I don't join the religious forums because I am a Christian and I don't want to quarrel with the non Christians.
"yes, it used to be that you can predict behavior objectively by incorporating statistics, but now it is deeper that that. There is an intermingling of disciplines among social sciences like psych, socio, anthro, linguistics to understand deeper human behavior. Not only one discipline can understand why humans behave the way they do. it is complicated."
-search this thread and find...good luck
...neurotic pleasures? Hurt others' feelings? Does that dog think it will be freed?
...a person talking so long on void that does not affect its feelings
something is called conscience
PW - you probably have some interesting thoughts but I'm only able to grasp parts of them. It would be helpful to discussion if you would write out your complete thought so we can interact. Not a slam, just interested.
Go through this forum post, you will learn a great deal about sockpuppeting- http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/85441
May that Enlighten you...about the human character...and how some people are just just dogs.
oh My that forum, I wasn't able to respond, I think they closed that one already??
So let's bring Freud into the mix. If subjectivity is to be applied to all arts, it's fair to assume that what we determine to be good or bad art is governed by our 'programming' from infancy.
could be, your upbringing, emotions and influences from the culture you are in plus desires perhaps
It is complicated
And even the time of life you are viewing the painting. I may hate a painting at age 17 but as I mature in layers, over time, if I begin to understand what the artist was trying to say or portray, even the work and skill involved in the creation, I may like the painting more, even if I don't think it's beautiful.
Did I say I was pointing at you? I wanted someone to see where sockpuppeting can go...nothing else
I and Evo Guy are not one. Period. I want to answer that but I think they closed it already.
you're right. And how you received the message the painter want to impart
"If you are talking about sockpuppets, they have reason on their own if they like to be one."
-Please explain why and how are you saying this. That is not defending sockpuppets I guess?
by danmayerisgod 8 years ago
Is reality subjective?If two people observe the same object or event, will they disagree on what exactly they are looking at? If so, why and how does this happen? Give examples. This is a social/philosophical theory I am working on, and I'd like to see if anyone has had similar experiences to my...
by emrldphx 11 years ago
For those who are interested, I am putting together a primer on the difference between subjectivity and objectivity. Much of the disagreement in this forum is due to confusion between the two. We'll start with a comparison of the definition of the terms.SubjectivitySubjectivity is a personal...
by fallenangel666 12 years ago
I do not pigeon hole myself as a Creationist, Agnostic or Atheist, but rather as a person who attempts to retain an open mind. Any talk of proof either way is simply delusional. Kurt Godel, the greatest logician who ever lived, prooved beyond doubt, within the strict boundaries of mechanistic...
by CC 4 years ago
There is good and evil, right and wrong. KLH may object, as do many materialists. God gave us a conscience to help guide us. It is one of the main things that make us human, that separates us from animals.
by Peter Leeper 10 years ago
Nuance Vs. Objectivism, can anything really be explained without subjectivity?Some beleive certain questions have one absolute answer while others believe that there can be many layers required to truly get to the bottom of things. Can even the "simpleist" questions ever be answered...
by pburger 11 years ago
A science paper is supposedly objective truth. But if language is the medium of expression, and all language is subjective, how objective the language of science?
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|