Is progress possible in art?

Aaron Hepi said:
You are using "standard" to mean something that is defined culturally or with the human mind. This is subjective. I was referring to objective standards. They are quite independent of minds, cultures or things that try to perceive them.
Click to expand...

Whats an example?

whats an example of art that would not be perceived by a human mind?
 
the said:
Whats an example?

whats an example of art that would not be perceived by a human mind?
Click to expand...

Oh I see. The standard in the case of art is objective beauty, not art itself. Here, good art is to objective beauty as a good explanation is to objective truth.
 
Aaron Hepi said:
Oh I see. The standard in the case of art is objective beauty, not art itself. Here, good art is to objective beauty as a good explanation is to objective truth.
Click to expand...

How could you know since its imperceptible?
 
the said:
How could you know since its imperceptible?
Click to expand...

Ask the same question about truth. Why is there no such thing as ultimate foundations or explanations? Because then there would be no answer to the question "why this foundation and not another?". Since this is irrational, we are left with a contradiction. Suppose you do meet a standard with perfection. Then it is an objectively true statement that "this work is an ultimate foundation". But we know that this is an irrational statement. So the only option we are left with is that the standard can never be met.

Edit: I misread your question. Take science as an example. If these standards don't exist, then what is science reaching for? If nothing, then how is progress possible? Suppose we assume progress is not possible, then why has science been so successful in producing new technologies? Is this merely by change? Surely not!
 
Last edited:
Aaron Hepi said:
Is beauty objective? Is progress possible in art? Or is an artist always wrong in thinking her final product is better than her drafts?

Now, just a bit of house keeping. It is obvious that the answer to this question can "depend", in some way, on the situation or context. But this is, in fact, the answer to a question I am not asking.

So, thoughts?
Click to expand...
i always thought of art as the randomest outcome of human imagination,seeing as though humans are genetically similar and that most of them are moulded to have similar morals and beliefs etc i dont think we can "push"the boundries of art so to speak
 
I prefer to think of this as "innovation" rather than "progress". What is being reached for is not a "gold standard" but "transcendence", against what has been achieved or what it has been possible to have achieved rather than some ultimate type thing that should be achieved. The rigidly essentialist objective standards idea expressed in this thread does absolutely nothing for me and I don't think it's at all the point of art (or for that matter any other human endeavour). (Sorry.)
 
"Is progress possible in art?"

Individually: yes, each artist attempts to be better the more they create.

Collectively/Socially: slowly, yes, in small steps.

Progress grows slowly because there are a set of rules or standards when it comes to what is good enough to show for profit. This practically eliminates some talented artists from being 'seen', because without these connections their art is lost. Just like any endeavor once it is done for profit it loses it's shine and the customer moved on to the next big thing. I've seen beautiful drawings and designs rendered on a paper diner napkin, I've done some myself...and the only viewers in the end were the garbage collectors. In the art scene it is similar to writers...it seems to be who you know and they are the 'rule setters' of what is art and who is an artist.
...off tract again. Art is very much progressive. Artist temperaments are suggestive. Art standards are objective.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ren
Aaron Hepi said:
Is beauty objective? Is progress possible in art? Or is an artist always wrong in thinking her final product is better than her drafts?

Now, just a bit of house keeping. It is obvious that the answer to this question can "depend", in some way, on the situation or context. But this is, in fact, the answer to a question I am not asking.

So, thoughts?
Click to expand...

Like others said before, I do believe it is possible for an individual artist to progress in his art. I also think that there exists objective features of the beautiful (harmony, symmetry, etc.)

That being said, I do not believe that art has to be beautiful. The progression of art, if there is one, seems rather to be towards a questioning of traditional standards of beauty, as well as what we traditionally take to be "representation". Would you say that postmodern art is beautiful? And yet it is undeniable that it has been at the forefront of artistic innovation. I think that art progresses insofar as it manages to capture the spirit of an era, and to question it.
 
Perhaps your own opinion regarding what is good, better or best (at the time) is just a representation of wherever stage you're at visually? Aka your expressions could potentially be slightly colored by whatever is most influencing you at the time. Be it your peers, a style guide, a good mentor or even an era of life, etc. I've often noticed that in my own life I do go through phases where I'll see a certain style of design which really appeals to me. And then a lot of my own creations will almost feature certain aspects of that original influence.

It's less about what is truly beautiful and more about realizing WHY I like what I like right now. How that preference will change and age with time. And finally, how to recognize and utilize multiple styles that I've practiced over the course of many years.

#design
 
Ren said:
Like others said before, I do believe it is possible for an individual artist to progress in his art. I also think that there exists objective features of the beautiful (harmony, symmetry, etc.)

That being said, I do not believe that art has to be beautiful. The progression of art, if there is one, seems rather to be towards a questioning of traditional standards of beauty, as well as what we traditionally take to be "representation". Would you say that postmodern art is beautiful? And yet it is undeniable that it has been at the forefront of artistic innovation. I think that art progresses insofar as it manages to capture the spirit of an era, and to question it.
Click to expand...

Do you know why my name has changed to Aaron Hepi?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ren
Piotrek Dzierzynski said:
Your question is not terribly clear. Progress means that you see art as being linear. This is a common western misconception that everything starts off as inferior and moves towards some end point seen as a superior state. When you have numerous creative people doing art over the course of time, you defy any standards that would need to compare artwork on some predefined parameter. Only a non-creative person would even think this was even possible.
Click to expand...

I disagree that progress is linear. Progress is creative, and so defies expectations; there is no end point. Also, art cannot be boxed in by some predefined parameter. What I mean to ask is: "is some art objectively better than others. And is it possible to improve art infinitely into the future".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ren
wolly.green said:
Do you know why my name has changed to Aaron Hepi?
Click to expand...

Of course I'd like to know, wolly. But your name on the forum still seems to be @wolly.green ;)

wolly.green said:
I disagree that progress is linear. Progress is creative, and so defies expectations; there is no end point. Also, art cannot be boxed in by some predefined parameter. What I mean to ask is: "is some art objectively better than others. And is it possible to improve art infinitely into the future".
Click to expand...

I agree, progress is never quite linear. As for whether some art can be objectively assessed to be better than other art... well, if one can't find objective criteria to define one kind of art by, I suppose it's impossible to show it to be objectively better than other art. So maybe a preliminary question ought to be: are there objective criteria by which to assess art? These criteria don't have to be intrinsic to the artwork itself, they may be about influence, standing the test of time, etc. Just throwing ideas out there.

Another possibility would be to understand "progress" as not having to do with judgments of value. On this view, art as a whole would progress without regard to the supposed intrinsic quality of the artworks themselves. The doing away with traditional representation in postmodern art would point the way to that notion of progressing art beyond conceptions of intrinsic value.
 
Progress is certainly possible in art. The more we learn about the universe, the more beauty we're capable of seeing, and consequently creating or recreating.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top