Is progress possible in art?

A

Aaron Hepi

Regular Poster
MBTI
INFJ
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?
 
Individual progress is possible. It is a journey. Learning when a project has reached finality is part of that.

Cultural progress is slower. Fewer people are capable of reaching levels that help push the boundary. Shifts are slow and less noticeable on a macro level but history has already shown great progress. Art is drastically changing with technology so it is hard to say if it is stifling us or will ultimately propel us to heights unimaginable.

Art is objective and subjective. You have to view it from both sides for it to have worth.
 
Is beauty subjective? In my opinion, yes. As the saying goes, "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder".

"Is progress possible in art?" In my opinion, as [MENTION=251]Wyote[/MENTION] said, art in the context of including new mediums is already progressing.

"Is an artist always wrong in thinking her final product is better than her drafts" In my opinion, this is black and white thinking. There isn't an "always" to anything.

"Are an artists final products better than their drafts?" Not always. Sometimes drafts are better than final products. Sometimes drafts aren't needed to create a final product. Sometimes the drafts are the final product. Sometimes final products suck no matter how many drafts you've made.

Gray scales don't just apply to color theory. There are many shades of gray in life.
 
I once etched a picture and got carried away in the shades on manilla paper in the sixth grade. It was frame-worthy anywhere. It was...a masterpiece. I turned it in in pencil. It could never be better.

The teacher said it was supposed to be colors, so made me ruin it at my desk to keep from getting an F. It upset me. Sometimes our mere first take or etching can be so beautiful, there can be no making it better.
 
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 believe beauty lies in the eye of its beholder. The same can be said for whether or not something is art.

I do think progress is possible in art, because to me, art is a combination of a multitude of factors. one of which is the skill level required to make it. As such when someone grows in their skill level, which espcially early on can sometimes be seen even in a single piece of art, I believe that that is an example of progress. Ofcourse, if you follow an artist, you can see it in the work they produce too. Another one is the transition and change n styles that some artists make. depending on who sees it, that can be progress too. IF that does not correlate to your question then I surrender my attemt at guessing what exactly you want to know.

The final project generally is better than a draft.
However, sometimes the drafts are so detailed and appealing that they can be considered a piece of art by themselves, and in that case, I kinda think that especially with drawings, one should just copy the draft and use the copy for continueing on to the final product and save the draft :p that is what I recommend any artist to do when drawing. It's like saving itterations of your work digitally but then analog ^^
 
What's progress?
 
the said:
What's progress?
Click to expand...

20t3tx2.png
 
the said:
What's progress?
Click to expand...

Your question is rather reductionist, so I will take a structural approach to answer it: why does one thing constitute progress and not another?

When I say that something is "objective", I am referring to some standard that is independent of perception. So, physical reality for instance, is independent of perception. Implicit in a standard is always the capacity to evaluate the faithfulness of some "thing" to that standard. In other words, there must be a way of evaluating whether one thing meets a standard more closer than another thing. If this comparison does not exist, then we are not dealing with a standard. Notice we do not need to know what the standard is. We only need to assume that it exists and can be discovered.

Now, something can be considered progress if it is more "faithful" to a standard than its predecessor.
 
Last edited:
Wyote said:
Individual progress is possible. It is a journey. Learning when a project has reached finality is part of that.

Cultural progress is slower. Fewer people are capable of reaching levels that help push the boundary. Shifts are slow and less noticeable on a macro level but history has already shown great progress. Art is drastically changing with technology so it is hard to say if it is stifling us or will ultimately propel us to heights unimaginable.

Art is objective and subjective. You have to view it from both sides for it to have worth.
Click to expand...


I am only interested in beauty. But in particular, whether beauty can ever be objective. It is clear that preferences can differ between individuals. But this is no more evidence against the existence objective beauty than differences in opinion is evidence against the existence of objective truth. The reason is if something is objective, then it is necessarily independent of individual perception.
 
Sadie said:
"Is an artist always wrong in thinking her final product is better than her drafts" In my opinion, this is black and white thinking. There isn't an "always" to anything.
Click to expand...

Well if there exists a single instance where she is not wrong, then this implies there really is such a thing as "objectively better". Im not sure why you think this is black and white?
 
Aaron Hepi said:
I am only interested in beauty. But in particular, whether beauty can ever be objective. It is clear that preferences can differ between individuals. But this is no more evidence against the existence objective beauty than differences in opinion is evidence against the existence of objective truth. The reason is if something is objective, then it is necessarily independent of individual perception.
Click to expand...

What is your point? Beauty is objective and subjective. There are objective truths, there are objective elements of beauty.
 
Real artists hold their drafts in head. If their drafts are under paint, they are learning.. or looking at something they are trying to copy ;)
 
housel said:
Real artists hold their drafts in head. If their drafts are under paint, they are learning.. or looking at something they are trying to copy ;)
Click to expand...

There is truth in that, though when I want to really go for it, I work in itterations and as modularly as possible because I am terrified of not getting it right according to how I've envisioned it in my mind. Digitally It's not unheard of with me to save my file in about 100-200 itterations in case I mess something up and need to grab parts from like 20 itterations back.

I don't think that there are any non-real artists though, just different kinds. For example, I do not consider random spatters on a canvas to be art in my perspective, but to others it very well is. To me art is a message, a story and a vision portrayed. It's kinda why whilst I find abstract "art" pretty, it is not something that in my mind is actually art. However, many would disagree, and that is fine, because art is what it is in the eye of its beholder.

Though that's just my opinion ;p
 
Aaron Hepi said:
Your question is rather reductionist, so I will take a structural approach to answer it: why does one thing constitute progress and not another?

When I say that something is "objective", I am referring to some standard that is independent of perception. So, physical reality for instance, is independent of perception. Implicit in a standard is always the capacity to evaluate the faithfulness of some "thing" to that standard. In other words, there must be a way of evaluating whether one thing meets a standard more closer than another thing. If this comparison does not exist, then we are not dealing with a standard. Notice we do not need to know what the standard is. We only need to assume that it exists and can be discovered.

Now, something can be considered progress if it is more "faithful" to a standard than its predecessor.
Click to expand...

Youve used a lot of words to bypass the question.
 
the said:
Youve used a lot of words to bypass the question.
Click to expand...

Sorry. I realize my reply is convoluted, simplifying was bloody hard work. I spent about half an hour chopping away and condensing bits. The basic point I wanted to make is that something can be considered progress if it resembles some objective standard more closely than its predecessor. This assumes that these "standards" actually exist and are objective.
In either case, what was the point of asking such a question?
 
Aaron Hepi said:
Sorry. I realize my reply is convoluted, simplifying was bloody hard work. I spent about half an hour chopping away and condensing bits. The basic point I wanted to make is that something can be considered progress if it resembles some objective standard more closely than its predecessor. This assumes that these "standards" actually exist and are objective.
In either case, what was the point of asking such a question?
Click to expand...

Well to me progress is moving away from the standard to make it better so your answer is really surprising to me.

The point of asking is to know what we are talking about here.
 
the said:
Well to me progress is moving away from the standard to make it better so your answer is really surprising to me.

The point of asking is to know what we are talking about here.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top