>>102489914I think I worded my argument a bit clumsily, I do think there's objective sides to art but I think those function on a much more fundamental and instinctive level. The depiction of the ideal woman might change, but the proportions of ideal people dont. Which is to say, To accurately portray humans with the right or ideal proportions is pleasing cause we like to look at people. But you can extend that to architecture, people love relative proportions and meme the golden ratio to death because our love for it.
Think more basic stuff like colour balance, visual noise, proportions and composition, not the actual depictions.
Do you appreciate it for the actual depiction or for what that technique accomplishes though?
I dont think the classical works are the be all end all, I believe in taking the lessons of the past and building on top of them, animation itself is actually a great example. It was originally something done by classical trained artists who had to develop techniques like animation smears in service of the work. They added new techniques to our prior knowledge.
I think art does need to hold some kind of artistic merit, and I dont think purely appreciating it for that is bad either. It just means you dont have a particularly in-depth appreciation or understanding of art. You can call that ignorance but I prefer to think of it as an instinctive appreciation of beauty.
Some "normies" with no real understanding of art can find themselves absolutely enchanted by the kinds of works you posted exactly for the reasons you posted, just because they dont understand or cant articulate why they love it doesnt mean they should be shunned or something like that. But that might be me reading negative connotations to the word "ignorance"
I think its perfectly valid to *appreciate* a piece of art for the technique it displays or develops, im not dismissing them off hand. But I think that kind of technique is pointless if it isnt in service of anything.
