geekpower said:
Orangutan said:
geekpower said:
9VIII said:
Good composition in photographs is utterly subjective.
this is exactly the kind of thing that a person who couldn't tell the difference between good composition and bad would say; in other words, someone exhibiting dunning/kruger.
Since you don't think it's subjective, perhaps you could share with us the
objective standards of good composition.
it is obviously not possible to break any art form down into some ultimately objective 'score' based on some well defined and well known scoring system
We agree here.
that doesn't mean that all art is created equal
No one said it did. When I say it's 100% subjective, I don't mean all art is equal, but that any given piece of art may be very interesting to someone, even someone very knowledgeable. There have been blank-canvas "paintings" shown in galleries. There's someone like Pollock, whose work looks like random drips to some, and genius to others. There's Andy Warhol, whose work looks like childish crap to me, but people have paid a lot of money for it. Then there's Robert Mapplethorpe. A few years ago I saw a photo exhibit in, I believe, Chicago, where the photographer had taken photos of litter in various settings. The artist's statement had lots of (to me) nonsense trying to give it a concept. To me it just looked like bad urban photography. Someone at that gallery thought it was good enough to hang in a major art institution.
some art really sucks. some art is mediocre and forgettable. some art is good. some art is so powerful it changes the world
This is true, but misses the point: neither you nor anyone can hold up a work of art and claim that, as an objective indisputable fact, "it sucks." You can only claim that you think it sucks. I think Warhol and blank canvases suck, but would never claim that as an objective fact.
this is objectively true of music, writing, painting, photography, and more.
It's objectively true only that you get to decide what you think sucks, is mediocre, or what is great.
the only way to improve one's art is to recognize the difference(s) between good and bad.
Is a photo of a religious symbol immersed in urine objectively good or bad?
people who aren't very perceptive or intelligent, or who can't be honest with themselves for whatever reason
Ah, now the truth comes out: you want to feel superior to others.
I'll repeat it once more: saying it's 100% subjective does
NOT mean all is equal; it means only that each person gets to make their own decisions, and cannot be told by some great authority that they're wrong.