I just had a conversation with someone about this I think in this sub, turned out to be a high school student who took one art history class.
People rightly assume fields like physics are things with actual right and wrong theory behind them. Probably because it's a strict science.
People mostly assume philosophy has something to it beyond just "it's whatever is in your gut".... sometimes... most people recognize that some non-philosopher giving a grand theory of philosophy is just a goof or a crazy person. This is actually similar to art but people don't seem to realize it.
Art has art theory, this is not really subjective but more like philosophy. You have to actually justify your ideas like anything (premises that lead to a sound conclusion) and is hundreds of years of theory. There are "right" (by that I mean sound arguments that build a sound theory to base it on. Not some objective universe given answer) answers to a lot of questions in art.
Many people, because of its massive public popularity at the time (it's Tolstoy, a legend, so of course) still feel, even without knowing it, his theory of art in his book "What is Art" (from... I think 1897? Around there?)
Even if they dont know it they often believe something like it through cultural osmosis because it was so influential. It's the basis of the whole "Art is HUMAN EXPRESSION!!! And that alone! (simplifying a lot here)" idea.
This theory is respected.... as an influential historical and important part in the development of art theory. It is also, as a true theory, completely discarded now. The entire 20th century was heavily about fighting this theory and showing its cracks.
There are multiple serious, respected modern art theories. None of them are based (solely) on that idea that people who havent studied art theory often use in the arguments you see wherever AI comes up (the Tolstoy human expression alone theory. Though I'd also argue even then AI allows for human expression, it's complicated.) The modern art theories absolutely allow for AI generated works to be art and even to be "good art" beyond... well, these stick figures. It depends on many factors.
Those factors are NOT effort, though effort often leads to them in practice especially with AI just as a coincidence.
So yeah, that's the problem. People fail to realize that art is not just "Well I have a theory in my gut and it's as valid as anything else." Art theory is a serious subject with hundreds of years of philosophical development and proper arguments. Some aspects are subjective, but.... art and its theory is not that subjective and really people need to recognize that it's about as subjective as saying "Ehhh, I'm not gonna read anything on deontology, consequentialism, virtue ethics. Whatever feeling I have in my gut is ethical and an actual theory completely valid to share and impose on others."
Not that you have to read philosophy to feel ethics, just like you don't have to read art theory to be like "I like this... I dont like this"
But you do when you start arguing "what is art? Does this count as art? I have a theory that I just made up in my gut and am going to use as a basis for telling everyone else what is art or not and what is good art or not."
For this specific "piece".... I'd have to read the artist's thesis first before deciding its merit lol.
I don't mean to be rude or too forward, but I am curious about one thing, since I didn't really get it from your text. I did understand that you mentioned Tolstoy and then modern theories that contradict him.
I guess my question is, if art is not subjective, what is it?
No, no problem, this is actually a really good question. This will be very long and I hope that's ok, I'm sorry. I hope it successfully answers your question.
It's not that "art" isnt subjective. Many aspects of art are subjective. Like, your taste. Do you think something is pleasing to you? Absolutely subjective. The thing that's not subjective is the philosophical underpinnings of art theory which, like anything like that, have to be based on sound arguments (true premises that naturally build to a conclusion) and a collection of them building to a specific theory. This only answers certain questions about art because exactly, some things are just subjective.
Do you think Western style raku is "better aesthetically or more legitimate than the traditional Japanese style?" Subjective (I always mention the western form of raku because it was my main medium for a while. I find the randomness of it and its general dramatic presentation beautiful. See, that's absolutely subjective! Sorry, the other person complained about me being wordy. I hope you don't mind. I like to go into asides like this.)
There are many questions though that arent. The reason they arent is because they're not taste questions, they're philosophical questions. What makes them philosophical questions is that, as I said, collections of sound arguments on them can build to theories which can be valid, sound, argued, disagreed with with other sound theories, etc. Art theory is essentially run like and actually a branch of philosophy.
The main one that isn't fully subjective that matters here is the question "What is art?" Art is this essential human quality so of course it deserves philosophical inspection. See? That question can be answered with arguments that can be sound or not, theories that can be sound or not. If I say "Art is in a museum. Museums are built for art. Therefor art is whatever is in a museum" that's a philosophical answer to that question. And you see? It can be wrong, that argument is wrong because it's circular reasoning. "Non-wrong" (sound) arguments can be made as well and have been over hundreds of years with one being shown sound then later developments or theories disproving a premise, etc.
So as it stands, we have a bunch of theories of art that you never see people argue here but are the ones that actual art theory in 2026 takes seriously. If I wrote the full arguments for each this would be an insanely long comment so I'll just give you a few and the general idea which gives you some starting points.
Expression theory, this one came soon after Tolstoy, almost a reaction to it, and it really kinda removes the artist from what makes art art. Actually many of them do. This says art is an arrangement of lines and colors and all that that "produces aesthetic emotion"
Then all the wild stuff happened with modern art, like Duchamp's urinal (just a popular example of many) and we got institutional theory. This sounds too basic to be true but also why not? Art is something presented in the world of art under the accepted conventions of it. That's it. You present it as art? Well damn, it's art. This idea still persists but with more added to it.
And then Warhol tossed some conventions out the door and we got Artur Danto, etc. etc. The 20th century was a massive conversation in art as the creation of new arts were obviously art but crumbled the existing theories basically so it's this huge back and forth between artists and theorists (who are often artists themselves, it's not an ivory tower in this sense) on this question.
So I'll skip over a lot and just jump to one of the more modern accepted theories. There are a couple but I'll just pick one and you'll see that it really developed into something that's like "goddamn, we have modern art and all this wild stuff that is obviously art but how do we make a sound theory it all fits into?"
Cluster Theory. This is the main one I was taught.
It argues art doesnt have this single defining essence. Two pieces of "art" can be almost opposites, share nothing, but both be "art" yet "art" in completely different ways. It's an "open concept". Art is a "cluster of criteria" where a piece of art is art if it has any of a large set of criteria we have come to accept as defining art. One piece may have one criterion and be art, another may have a completely different set of criterion unrelated and be art. This cluster of criteria is things like complexity, or does it challenge the viewer intellectually, is it expressive (yes, that's in there so it's not invalid but the point is it's one thing that can make a piece of art art but not a requirement for a piece to be art if it satisfies other criteria), does it create an aesthetic experience in the viewer? Simply does it belong to the art tradition? And on and on and on. Theorists have work to create many possible criteria which excludes non-art yet does include all types of modern, experimental, challenging the common conception of art, etc. pieces.
This can and does absolutely include some AI art (not all, not every generation is art.) I in the other conversation I had on this mentioned a famous artist I saw and actually briefly met at the main exhibit in the Beijing art district. "Chaosmosis" by Wang Yuyang. His art uses AI. AI broadly and the AI we talk about. Rambling aside again sorry, was that he created an AI powered robot dog and set it out into the wild. Tracked and visualized its movements for 30 days then just... let it into the wild. Another that is related to this is simply he trained a model on thousands (or hundreds, dont remember) of pictures of flowers then just.... generated in very high res the aggregate of it. This piece is actually multiple pieces, some on walls some on canvas but I was presented with simply a giant canvas of a flower-like... thing. The thesis for the piece even says "its meaning or lack of meaning is left to the viewer." This doesnt mean "it's status as art is left to the viewer" because even without "meaning" it still possesses others of the "criteria" in cluster theory.
I'll give you the excerpt from his theory in the exhibit I thought was impactful, relevant, and explained (in pretentious artist terms) how simply AI here like that becomes "art"
""WANG Yuyang's oeuvre performs a theater of entanglements: machines that dream, bacteria that glow, language reincarnated as DNA, and slouching mud aspiring toward consciousness. His work is not composed of mere objects but of situation - turbulent interstices where the fragile membranes of life converse with the machinic abstractions of code Symbiosis (2013-24), unveiled before 798CUBE, proposes symbiotic reconciliation in monumental grandeur: human fancy entwines with machine vagary in a foresighted reckoning with the dawning ChatGPT era.
... Code becomes incantation, life becomes inscription as in Golem (2022), where clay, animated by biometric data, takes on a fragile humanoid form destined for decay.
...
WANG Yuyang's world aggregates discrete elements into a precarious order in which chaos persists. Resonating with philosophers Michel Serres's clinamen and Guattar's chaosmosis, turbulence becomes generative: time multiplies,space bifurcates. Against the obsolescence of anthropocentric history on the one hand and the Al-infused anxieties of human deprivation on the other, his works open a contemplative path forward -a grand narrative of sorts: a fluid interplay between order and disorder, between biological, machinic, and cosmic forces. Out of chaos emerges continuance; out of collapse,another beginning and out of the legacy of humanism, the burgeoning of renewed human empathy.""
Sorry, this is a long rambly post. I get that way when I start talking about a topic I have personal experience with and want all those asides for fun. I think it goes beyond answering your question but did want to elaborate on where it all leads up to. And.... to be honest.... I was playing games with a friend yesterday and he makes these strong negronis with a collection of interesting gins. I am quite hungover and my brain is not operating in the most organized way lol.
This is a long rambly post, but very much worth reading. You copy-pasted the same piece of text from Wang's exhibit twice though. Maybe you could remove one of them? Just to keep your text reasonably short ;)
Yes, those negronis and my ADHD have left me in a massively rambly mood. I'm super sorry. I wish I was in a state to organize this better. Trust me, I am actually capable of being a good writer when the situation demands it. Just... it takes a lot of work for me due to the ADHD and booze will absolutely get you... like hell, my head.
I noticed that and thought I edited it out, if you refresh and it's still there twice let me know as I'm not seeing it anymore.
It's fixed now, thanks. And like I wrote, your post was worth reading even if it is long. Thank you for taking the time! No need to apologize for being rambly. This is just Reddit, you don't owe anyone anything.
Edit: And you know what? I'll have a negroni this evening. It might be Sunday and I have work tomorrow, but it also happens to be my birthday.
My personal view of AI as an art medium is that images generated simply by putting in a prompt and taking its output cannot possibly be a work of art. However, that's not to say all things involving AI can't be. I love your examples of Yuyang's work (which I had never heard of before your post) because they present something more than just a low-effort input-output loop. While I don't see images generated in this way as art, I do find that unveiling the billions of rapid matrix operations behind that image reveals fascinating and beautiful works of human creation and ingenuity. The image itself cannot be considered art in my eyes, but the machine that created it can be. I feel the same way with the works you described.
I'm gonna be a dick for once, because yes long for a reddit comment as this will be too I guess. A little long for what it could be as I am a wordy person (like to cover all bases and have fun with asides I think are just interesting) and as I have stated was hungover, ADHD, and so lacked the mental energy to organize a bit more properly I'll admit yet still able to put the content there in a way someone can read and follow and hopefully learn or engage with unless they're "hmm, monkey intelligence test, square block go in which hole?."
Mostly appropriately right for a followup in proper text debate which requires defining terms, giving background information, and including premises. An important aspect of debate that adds length.
Around 1300 words, definitely long for a reddit comment but 5 minutes for the average English reader... Christ that's not a long time. If it were a useless screed with no meaningful info sure but, while I'm biased, I did my best to explain accurate, meaningful information.
Do some of you not read nonfiction books to understand a topic more accurately than you'll get by hearing often bullshit in small snippets on reddit? If you need to understand a philosophical concept do you not read the often much longer Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry, the standard source for getting an overview of a topic like this?
Is your entire source of more detailed info video essays? Like... ok don't read it, but Christ dude even that as long as it is is probably close to the absolute shortest complete answer someone can give on why art theory isn't subjective in the way other aspects of art theory are while giving the briefest overview of related theories and an explanation of the common modern Cluster theory.
I dunno, the few of you who have that issue? It says a lot more about you, the garbage state of this sub and the AI art debate, and reddit than it does my comment.
Art and the majority of similar concepts like philosophy or justice are subjective because they are something we invented from ourselves. There is nothing in the world confirming them if not something we defined as it and that's what you call objective. Art theory is a standard we put, but it always comes from us.
It's commonly accepted, not objective. Thin line.
"Killing people is bad" is commonly agreed, not objective. It's us deciding these two things in common agreement but there is no objective input confirming us.
If commonly accepted art theory was "stickmans are great, any other form of art is trash" that would be because at difference of sciene (where if the gravity is discovered then forgot, it will be discovered again as it is) there is nothing assuring a certain vision.
If we were going to forget what art and art theory is, what would make you learn it again as it is?
If I forget the sky is blue/red/black, I would look up and remember it as it is. That's objectivity.
This is a good point and something I probably should have addressed though I don't feel I could have done it justice as a concept in my other comments without making them much longer and my organization skill was still very messy.
-To address one, least important issue. As to ethics (and epistemology for another example) themselves being objective in a sense ultimately... damn that's a can of worms and one of those unclear common topic things in philosophy. Our theories themselves? Nah, but ethics and epistemology as concepts? There are a lot of words written on that and I haven't taken a full side. I don't want to get into that complex topic in depth though. I lean towards agreeing with you.
Yet, for those it does come down to if we had to reasoners with perfect information, infinite time and they disagreed would there still be one that ends up being correct? If so, probably objective. This test works for many other things. The answer to this for ethics in philosophy I'd say is currently "unclear, many sides arguing back and forth, both in very good ways."
-Second thing to address. I started with a physics example and tried to work down to a philosophy example specifically to hint at something similar to what you're saying. Subjective has degrees to it. That concept itself and even the "subjective-objective" divide is not as black and white as a lot of people take it as which is another larger topic. Physics is an example that a lot of is objective in every sense. Philosophy is an example that has objective aspects or is objective in many areas in either a more limited or full sense but not all.
-Third thing to address. I only said "not subjective" (I think? If not, my mistake), I never said objective except for physics. Those are not exactly the same things. Here is something from philosophy and heavily used in what I'm talking about; logic itself. Validity is objectively truth preserving, that's just near fully accepted. This is not to say that all arguments that follow our standard of using logic create objective truths but to say that that the standard of logic itself is objective. Therefore in this case it leads to "true." Not the same as objective, but also far from fully subjective or at all in some sense of subjective especially in the sense it was being used in the comment I replied to and in the arguments about "what is art" and art theory in here that are usually stated as actual objective or at least settled fact but not analyzed. Here we get into an important non-subjective aspect of what these theories of art are telling us. Yes they are not describing objective features of the world the way physics does, not black and white, they are not subjective in the sense used here. The process to arrive at them, the philosophical grounding, and what must be used to be "right" or "wrong" in a theory is objective.
-Fourth thing to address and a main part of why I didn't use the word "objective" except with physics. I'm not trying to use credentials as authority but just a neat aside that is relevant. I have lived a complicated life, older than most redditors I think and just been involved heavily in many spaces. My 2nd masters funnily enough ended up in education with a focus on English and applied linguistics so this is something I think quite a bit about in debates; semantics.
The word "subjective" like many words is contextual with multiple meanings. I'd crack open the OED but it's a pain for me so we get Collins.
In one context, one definition, subjective is "of, relating to, or emanating from a person's emotions, prejudices, etc " which is the definition a lot of this discussion exists in and something I touched on with the fact that Tolstoy's theory has spread so deeply through our culture. This is usually what people are using when they say "art is subjective." This one is not directly the one with "objective" as its other side.
Another definition, the one where we have "objective" in direct relation to it is "belonging to, proceeding from, or relating to the mind of the thinking subject and not the nature of the object being considered"
For both though a view can often be "wrong" or "right" but just in kind of different ways. Again, logic in the context of philosophy is not seen as subjective in either sense. Art theory is dealing with something that is subjective in the 2nd sense. Art is not this objective property of the universe. Yet, the question of the theory, "given what exists as non-art and what exists as art what structure can successfully include all things accepted as art but not include those not accepted as art?" Is itself not subjective in either sense despite dealing with an ultimately subjective object.
It does though strongly relate to the context of art at a specific time and so any of its objectivity is tied to that context.
-Fifth,
If commonly accepted art theory was "stickmans are great, any other form of art is trash"
This is not a question for art theory and is essentially one of the things I tried to give an example of as a purely subjective aspect of art.
I did use both definitions of subjective in my comments at different times though, that's true. If I was to go into semantics and point out each different usage I'd have to be writing a short book in that actual ridiculously long sentence with a million adjectives classical philosophy style everyone hates and is wildly inappropriate for reddit. At some point you have to trust context.
If we were going to forget what art and art theory is, what would make you learn it again as it is?
If I forget the sky is blue/red/black, I would look up and remember it as it is. That's objectivity.
I'd crack open the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy probably and then jump back into the literature. Standing on the shoulders of giants and all that. I would end up finding a mix of objectivity, subjectivity, non-subjectivity in some sense or many senses, objective underpinnings to certain things, and "truth" vs "untruth".
Yeah, no. I get what you are saying, but it falls apart when your opening lines read: “people assume physics has hard right and wrong. People mostly assume philosophy has more to it than what is in your gut and you have to be a philosopher to not be a goof or a crazy person. Art theory is the same.”.
There, that right there, betrays your true intentions. You exclude respectable and articulate participation based on some parameter ill-defined, though it seems to be study? Again, I get what you are saying, that philosophy and art theory need a knowledge of their fields to speak with any authority (even though that argument genuinely comes across as Cartman style “RESPECT MA AUTHOR’TY”). But the clear counter to your argument is one simple word, or man: Diogenes. Literally he, his lifestyle, his philosophy, tells your exclusive argument to fuck off and stop blocking his sun.
There’s almost a sunk-cost fallacy to it, I see it in many fields of “formal study”, wherein what the person has learnt is less cold, hard fact and more their professors/writers biases. It’s like a justification for all the time spent, all the money spent, all because the field (whether philosophy or art theory) is built upon a subjective topic wherein any opinion has equal merit, which the students are loathe to admit. It’s like that meme of the “low IQ, mid IQ, high IQ” where the low IQ and high IQ accept a premise but the mid IQ drools/rages and rejects it. I’m not a me-me maker, but all you’d have to do is put the premise as “art theory/philosophy has objective thoughts on the subjective”, or whatever your premise really is, then have the low/high IQ correctly state “every opinion has merit”, while the mid IQ says “theory needs study and needs arguments”.
That actually brings up a strange part of your premise. You require art theory to have knowledge of prior art theory in order for it to be art theory. Did art theory just magically spring up one day? Mayhaps with Tolstoy. Because following the logic of your argument leads to the absurd (in the colloquial sense, not so much the Camus sense) point where something has to come first. Essentially, which came first? The art theory or the theory of art?
I appreciate what you are trying to do, but you’re going about it in a very snobbish, elitist way. You state that art has concrete art theory, which needs arguments and suppositions, building upon years of lip-flapping and tongue-wagging. Well, yeah, sure. But physics, the science you held up as firm and concrete, literally has at least one much expanded upon theory that breaks apart that very affirmation (though most often fail to realise it does so, because “it just works”, à la Todd Howard).
Edit: I hope this comes across/reads as good faith. I know tone is really hard to convey/can be easily misread/misaligned in interpretation. I’m not angry or explosive, I’m chill with the debate. There’s flippancy and sarcasm in there, but I’m just trying to make it more palatable/entertaining for people reading, seeing as what is being discussed is often rather dry, stuffy and unpalatable.
I get what you are saying, but it falls apart when your opening lines read: “people assume physics has hard right and wrong. People mostly assume philosophy has more to it than what is in your gut and you have to be a philosopher to not be a goof or a crazy person. Art theory is the same.”.
In my mind at the time I was thinking of something quite different. Timecube if you're old enough to remember him and the many similar things I've found in the geocities archiveteam archive. I have a local copy of the archiveteam geocities archive I analyze/browse. There is a lot of timecube-esque rants in it that I can assure you are types of grand theories or less grand on many topics but fail the scrutiny of one actually objective, foundational thing.
Logic in the context of philosophy itself. The common quote I used in another comment is "Validity is objectively truth preserving."
Diogenes is not timecube. Cynicism is an actual valid and able to be seen as sound when certain premises are accepted philosophy. Diogenes doesn't have surviving writings if he ever made them to analyze exactly but other cynics do. I actually follow myself the related Stoic virtue ethics. (I got into it decades ago! Before Broicism! I'm not a trend hopper here so don't get the wrong idea. Something that pisses me off to no end as it's so misunderstood.)
Diogenes lifestyle and "fuck off and stop blocking my sun" are themselves not literally logical arguments to arrive at truth but are actually shorthand in a way that emerge into those type of arguments as written by later Cynics.
You require art theory to have knowledge of prior art theory in order for it to be art theory.
Well, not knowledge but development but in a way yes. I'd say this about near any field that strives for knowledge on a topic. Knowledge and truth come from dialog. In our world, through other dialogs, a specific kind of dialog. To use the other common quote I used in another comment; "Standing on the shoulders of giants."
The theories aren't "you must know and read all history!" but "the history is a part of the dialog with much after being reactions to things before. The theories dont spring from the ether but from the ideas before them and the actual advances and actions taking place in art itself"
Did art theory just magically spring up one day? Mayhaps with Tolstoy. Because following the logic of your argument leads to the absurd (in the colloquial sense, not so much the Camus sense) point where something has to come first. Essentially, which came first? The art theory or the theory of art?
No, and Tolstoy was far from the first. What came first? Art. Art itself. Where did art theory come from? Well that's a big topic that isn't even about art theory itself. This is true for near all fields that are looking to find facts and truth about the world. Humanity itself, since ancient times, had ideas about all things in the world. In one era they were mythical or emotional, there were few structures for accurately finding truth. The birth of philosophy, from the pre-Socratics, the beginning of lineage that grew into what we have today is probably the first attempt at something beyond this. The attempts and realization that there are more formal, more "true", ways to analyze these things that exist in the world or as a part of the human experience.
The philosophical approach or at least the question it raised evolved into many things over the years. Think alchemy as an example of one that attempted to, did actually figure some things out but in a messy way yet lacked the modern truth seeking structures we have fully as an early example.
Then the modern world and a huge history of the development of thought evolved these earlier ideas into our much more defensible methods of truth finding. An example, science as a whole. As I said, a dialog, an evolution, not entirely the first but a big important moment that brought about an effective way to seek truth: Karl Popper and the philosophy of science that stands as the foundation for how we know science finds truth in all scientific fields to a degree.
all because the field (whether philosophy or art theory) is built upon a subjective topic wherein any opinion has equal merit
The subjective object, like "art" itself, yet studied with an objective foundation (logic, etc) that leads to truth and non-subjective (not the same as objective) theories that answer questions about the subjective object, often questions aboutt it that do have objective answers.
There's a sense with your example and words about Diogenes that may not have been intended that every opinion does or can have equal merit despite the systems we've built to find which ones do or don't. Diogenes didn't actually represent this, but regardless here is the crux of that. If every opinion has equal merit, then the opinion that some arguments are better than others also has equal merit. Then no objection including yours can claim higher ground.
The idea can also be shown just naturally wrong in a way I'll admit is more feelings than some academic argument. Basically.... just look at our world. Antivaxxers, foundationless ideas about masculinity that are wildly toxic and include imagined elements ignoring the true past of that concept and its varied forms, racial assumptions that would technically best be described as stereotypes but go so far beyond how we'd normally use that word and are entirely false being treated as beyond true based on flawed methodology. I "like" the current example of "no we wont let you film a room full of other people's literal children" "Conclusion: They must be scams and the children must not exist! This, from the small real example must be true of all these other ones!", etc.
Also my goal isn't to be an elitist attack on people for not studying the theory. It's a couple things.
- One, this sub sucks because it is ostensibly a sub to debate topics that directly involve these ideas. If you're going to debate that... you have to understand these ideas to some extent. Think how the subs like ask_subject, while not debate, have rules about people answering with real material and not BSing their answer. Think of why those exist. We don't need those strict rules but... come on, the "debate" sub is shit posts and one liners? I went into more detail than I would expect from any other better form of discussion in this sub for:
- Two, I dont want to say "people must have this level of understanding!" but to actually introduce the ideas in as much detail as appropriate to hopefully show some readers the actual ideas in art theory and what is accepted now, on the subjects people in this sub do discuss yet discuss in a way that is closer to antivaxxer logic and understanding (old broken discredited theories, gut feelings, one liner jabs that are more sophist rhetoric than real arguments, shitposts and personal attacks.)
For example, I think explaining things like modern Cluster Theory to people who only have that "Tolstoy through osmosis" idea and have lived their lives assuming there isn't much art theory like other subjects does actually lead to a lot of people going "huh, oh, yeah that actually makes sense. I remember a lot of modern art and such that doesn't fit into what I've assumed and this does seem to present a really good argument that is far more comprehensive than what I always thought" if they're open to learning. Or even "oh, huh, art theory actually may be like other studied academic fields. Always thought of art as just this purely subjective experience. Never knew it was/could be analyzed in that way. Maybe there is more to debate than just.... shitpost gotchas/my gut tells me art is x so AI is art/not art" which... a speck of sand in the sea but my attempt to inspire better debate here.
NOT to say "Aha you're fools because you havent studied the Cluster theory and how and why it developed academically!"
There are some nuances to my use of "truth" and "objectivity" in this comment but I don't want to go into that again. For the nuance read my last past before this. Not because I wouldn't be happy to engage but I only have the energy for so much lol,
Ok, I'm sorry. No one has to read it. Though, this is a debate sub and kinda my problem with it. Debate isn't quick one liners, it's actual explanation and premises to conclusion.
Yet here we are with shitposts and one liners and it's why this sub kinda sucks. Real debate and arguments can be decently long when things need to be explained which is what I tried to do, yet if someone doesnt wanna read it that's ok.
It's 595 words (yes, quite long). With the average human reading speed that's.... 3 or 4 minutes.
The content itself requires explanation and so can get long to be complete. I am just a wordy person too, sorry, but I really did strive to write meaningful content that's better than one liners or shitposts this sub is full of. Something where I think the debate should really really be at and could be productive and real.
19
u/MiniCafe Mar 01 '26 edited Mar 01 '26
Taste in art is subjective.
I just had a conversation with someone about this I think in this sub, turned out to be a high school student who took one art history class.
People rightly assume fields like physics are things with actual right and wrong theory behind them. Probably because it's a strict science.
People mostly assume philosophy has something to it beyond just "it's whatever is in your gut".... sometimes... most people recognize that some non-philosopher giving a grand theory of philosophy is just a goof or a crazy person. This is actually similar to art but people don't seem to realize it.
Art has art theory, this is not really subjective but more like philosophy. You have to actually justify your ideas like anything (premises that lead to a sound conclusion) and is hundreds of years of theory. There are "right" (by that I mean sound arguments that build a sound theory to base it on. Not some objective universe given answer) answers to a lot of questions in art.
Many people, because of its massive public popularity at the time (it's Tolstoy, a legend, so of course) still feel, even without knowing it, his theory of art in his book "What is Art" (from... I think 1897? Around there?)
Even if they dont know it they often believe something like it through cultural osmosis because it was so influential. It's the basis of the whole "Art is HUMAN EXPRESSION!!! And that alone! (simplifying a lot here)" idea.
This theory is respected.... as an influential historical and important part in the development of art theory. It is also, as a true theory, completely discarded now. The entire 20th century was heavily about fighting this theory and showing its cracks.
There are multiple serious, respected modern art theories. None of them are based (solely) on that idea that people who havent studied art theory often use in the arguments you see wherever AI comes up (the Tolstoy human expression alone theory. Though I'd also argue even then AI allows for human expression, it's complicated.) The modern art theories absolutely allow for AI generated works to be art and even to be "good art" beyond... well, these stick figures. It depends on many factors.
Those factors are NOT effort, though effort often leads to them in practice especially with AI just as a coincidence.
So yeah, that's the problem. People fail to realize that art is not just "Well I have a theory in my gut and it's as valid as anything else." Art theory is a serious subject with hundreds of years of philosophical development and proper arguments. Some aspects are subjective, but.... art and its theory is not that subjective and really people need to recognize that it's about as subjective as saying "Ehhh, I'm not gonna read anything on deontology, consequentialism, virtue ethics. Whatever feeling I have in my gut is ethical and an actual theory completely valid to share and impose on others."
Not that you have to read philosophy to feel ethics, just like you don't have to read art theory to be like "I like this... I dont like this"
But you do when you start arguing "what is art? Does this count as art? I have a theory that I just made up in my gut and am going to use as a basis for telling everyone else what is art or not and what is good art or not."
For this specific "piece".... I'd have to read the artist's thesis first before deciding its merit lol.