I disagree with the assertion that art is subjective. Art - in my opinion - can be defined as something expressive made through the love and passion of its creator and which is a reflection of its creator. The argument that art is subjective comes from the assumption that what makes something art or not is how it’s interpreted, which I vehemently disagree with. I am very much opposed to the individualist thinking behind “Death of the Author” and similar ideas. Art has meaning to it; it’s given a purpose by the person making it. It exists for a reason and has a reason to exist.
Slop is devoid of reason. The creator is not saying anything through it; they are trying to make money - or in the case of AI specifically are just doing what they’ve been programmed to.
I disagree with the assertion that art is subjective. Art - in my opinion - can be defined as something expressive made through the love and passion of its creator and which is a reflection of its creator. The argument that art is subjective comes from the assumption that what makes something art or not is how it’s interpreted, which I vehemently disagree with. I am very much opposed to the individualist thinking behind “Death of the Author” and similar ideas. Art has meaning to it; it’s given a purpose by the person making it. It exists for a reason and has a reason to exist.
The artists can appreciate their art but it is in that engagement that transforms it into art. If somebody who is not the creator appreciates something as art does it cease to be art because the artist has decided what they produced did have not love or had passion in it? If “death of the author” could have an individualist take then what does collective interpretation of a creation, even against the artist’s intention, do? Could that collectivist action nullify the individualist interpretation (of death of the author)?
Art is a relationship of the consumer (insert better term there) and the creation - that relation is real but is borne out of the material conditions of the class society as it stands today. The art of the artist does not exist in a vacuum and it is this relation to the world that dismantles any invidualist take of what is an artist and what is art. The objectivity is in that real relationship.
I would strongly recommend Georges Politzer’s Elementary Philosophy, not necessarily to convince you of dialectical materialism but at least understand convincingly what it is about. One understands relations but has an objective reality. It is not positivist.
Death of the Author does not negate the love and passion to create art but to understand why one must understand how one sublimates individualist takes without resorting to reaction; dialectical materialism is how one sublimates this - it is very much a collectivist understanding.
The artists can appreciate their art but it is in that engagement that transforms it into art. If somebody who is not the creator appreciates something as art does it cease to be art because the artist has decided what they produced did have not love or had passion in it? If “death of the author” could have an individualist take then what does collective interpretation of a creation, even against the artist’s intention, do? Could that collectivist action nullify the individualist interpretation (of death of the author)?
That isn’t how it works. Neither the artist nor the viewer’s interpretation of something makes it artistic. The art itself comes from the time, energy, and labor poured into it. The investment of that time, energy, and labor is a reflection of the creator’s passion even if the creator isn’t aware of it or in denial of it.
Art is a relationship of the consumer (insert better term there) and the creation - that relation is real but is borne out of the material conditions of the class society as it stands today. The art of the artist does not exist in a vacuum and it is this relation to the world that dismantles any invidualist take of what is an artist and what is art. The objectivity is in that real relationship.
Completely disagree. Art, as a reflection of its creator, is defined by the passion of that creator in its production. The consumer and their interpretation of it is an irrelevant factor here. Art is not created to be consumed; it is created to express. That expression can occur without any consumption taking place. Art is not an economic transaction but the manifestation of a person’s whole self through a different medium.
I would strongly recommend Georges Politzer’s Elementary Philosophy, not necessarily to convince you of dialectical materialism but at least understand convincingly what it is about. One understands relations but has an objective reality. It is not positivist.
Death of the Author does not negate the love and passion to create art but to understand why one must understand how one sublimates individualist takes without resorting to reaction; dialectical materialism is how one sublimates this - it is very much a collectivist understanding.
I am a Marxist. I know what dialectical materialism, thank you very much.
art itself comes from the time, energy, and labor poured into it.
Maybe consider if anything else had those three factors but would not be considered art. Could someone produce something with passion and still not be art? (If so, why?) Or is all passionate production art?
The consumer and their interpretation of it is an irrelevant factor here
By definition the artist has to consume their own art and is not excepted by this.
The consumer and their interpretation of it is an irrelevant factor here. Art is not created to be consumed; it is created to express. That expression can occur without any consumption taking place.
This is hyper-individualism. It is anti-social. Not withstanding the artist consumes their own art.
I am a Marxist. I know what dialectical materialism, thank you very much.
If art is subjective, isn’t it by defintion a relationship with its viewer? Wouldn’t that be the more dialectical approach?
I disagree with the assertion that art is subjective. Art - in my opinion - can be defined as something expressive made through the love and passion of its creator and which is a reflection of its creator. The argument that art is subjective comes from the assumption that what makes something art or not is how it’s interpreted, which I vehemently disagree with. I am very much opposed to the individualist thinking behind “Death of the Author” and similar ideas. Art has meaning to it; it’s given a purpose by the person making it. It exists for a reason and has a reason to exist.
Slop is devoid of reason. The creator is not saying anything through it; they are trying to make money - or in the case of AI specifically are just doing what they’ve been programmed to.
The artists can appreciate their art but it is in that engagement that transforms it into art. If somebody who is not the creator appreciates something as art does it cease to be art because the artist has decided what they produced did have not love or had passion in it? If “death of the author” could have an individualist take then what does collective interpretation of a creation, even against the artist’s intention, do? Could that collectivist action nullify the individualist interpretation (of death of the author)?
Art is a relationship of the consumer (insert better term there) and the creation - that relation is real but is borne out of the material conditions of the class society as it stands today. The art of the artist does not exist in a vacuum and it is this relation to the world that dismantles any invidualist take of what is an artist and what is art. The objectivity is in that real relationship.
I would strongly recommend Georges Politzer’s Elementary Philosophy, not necessarily to convince you of dialectical materialism but at least understand convincingly what it is about. One understands relations but has an objective reality. It is not positivist.
Death of the Author does not negate the love and passion to create art but to understand why one must understand how one sublimates individualist takes without resorting to reaction; dialectical materialism is how one sublimates this - it is very much a collectivist understanding.
That isn’t how it works. Neither the artist nor the viewer’s interpretation of something makes it artistic. The art itself comes from the time, energy, and labor poured into it. The investment of that time, energy, and labor is a reflection of the creator’s passion even if the creator isn’t aware of it or in denial of it.
Completely disagree. Art, as a reflection of its creator, is defined by the passion of that creator in its production. The consumer and their interpretation of it is an irrelevant factor here. Art is not created to be consumed; it is created to express. That expression can occur without any consumption taking place. Art is not an economic transaction but the manifestation of a person’s whole self through a different medium.
I am a Marxist. I know what dialectical materialism, thank you very much.
Maybe consider if anything else had those three factors but would not be considered art. Could someone produce something with passion and still not be art? (If so, why?) Or is all passionate production art?
By definition the artist has to consume their own art and is not excepted by this.
This is hyper-individualism. It is anti-social. Not withstanding the artist consumes their own art.
Cool.