This is a conclusion I feel has lied on the tip of my tongue for years, and yet I fear I would never have drawn it on my own. It's such a _vital_ one too, defining articulation as the overarching skill humans employ in trying to bridge the gap between perception and reality. And beautifully enough, _your point justifies its own necessity._ You gave words to a feeling, in a way that has changed me. You're a fucking gift, man. Never stop doing the things you're doing. You deserve to soar nearly as sorely as the world deserves to hear your voice, and be healed by it.
honestly, comments like these are why I do what I do. This interaction in of itself is more important than any numerical amount, and I promise you on my life, no matter how big I get, how relevant or successful, I will never forget that people like you place your faith and belief into my words, and I will never lose my integrity , nor my sense of purpose along this road, as I have not in the many years I have already gone down it. Thank you truly. It means more to me you left this comment here than the Noodle video, as art truly is my passion and calling
I instead believe that this conclusion is wrong. In 10 minutes of video he danced around the simple answer to "If Art is Objective (altho Subjectively perceived) then how so?" because it doesn't exist. Art exists absolutely and only in the perception of each singular individual, be it human or not. I am not going to say that a worm has any "feeling of Art", but I am absolutely gonna say that Art is NOT exclusive to People and/or Humans. Just like all emotions are circuits machines which evolved in our brains and bodies, Art is a peculiar perception which we feel an appreciation for. It's not easy to explain, but there's a difference between appreciating something because it feels natural and appreciating something because it feels "Art" (artistic). Natural things are things like environments and its components; the trees, the grass, the flowers, the rock, the sand, the water, the lava and whatever else, up to the places around the world where the houses are still made like european peasants' farms (at the oldest); Art instead is more active, compact, it's a condensed feeling closed into a container. Yes, it's contained, that's the best way to describe it. There are instances when something which happened without any active input by anything (termites make colonies, behaves make dams, but no one eroded the landscape) may be recognized by an individual as "Art", like a cool desert rock eroded in cool ways, or those smooth river rocks with a mix of materials in them, but the majority of the time (and MOSTLY because of our experience, we got no green men getting down from Mars and signing onto DeviantArt) what is "Art" to an individual is what a human created. I DO NOT KNOW HOW TO CONNECT THIS NEXT PART, SO I AM JUST GOING TO ABRUPTLY CUT AND THEN SAY IT. The absolute and inarguable Subjectivity of Art is due (other than for the lack of anything supporting its supposed Objectivity) because its perception is not depending on what another individual calls what it believes, or it created, to be "Art". [Leaving aside the fact that not everything that is made to be aesthetically pleasing is made to be Art, or is perceived to be Art] An individual can find something completely random to be Art without it being created to be perceived as such, while at the same time perceiving something someone else created to be Art not as such. I am not talking about the quality here, I am talking about the perception of it. ABRUPT CLOSURE: So, to recapitulate, "it is Objective that Art is Subjective not only to the specie perceiving it, but to the individual itself, be it a healthy one or not. Art is a self-contained concept which represents something; its meaning can be shallow or deep, depending on the piece, because the importance is not on WHAT it's saying, but WHY it's saying it, why it's being perceived as Art".
Bro your noodle video showed up in my feed. Had that shit saved to my watch later for like a week cause it's long and my attention span is trash but I knew I'd want to watch at some point. I finally did and since then have begun watching every single one of your videos. I've seen this sentiment shared by others in the comments. I don't know you as a person, and am not a long time subscriber, so I can't say I have any idea what goes on your life that poses an obstactle between you and putting all your energy into your channel, but I can say that you are an excellent creator, or rather, an artist, and I have no doubt that you will find great success if you choose to make content creation like this your main focus. You're on some big galaxy brain shit my guy. I truly look forward to whatever you may have in store for us humble viewers.
Notes: • It might be worth closely examining the phrase "objective meaning." This is pretty nit-picky, but I think the concept of meaning requires a subject. Even if the meaning is 100% universally agreed upon, it's technically still just shared subjectivity. Calling it objective is an exaggeration. • I agree that communication is a critical component of a definition of art. • One can check a process for compliance with each step of the Scientific Method to categorize something as "not science." What is our analogue for art? Is there an "artistic process" we can rigorously track? If not, it's impossible to make objective assertions about what is or isn't art. • I agree it's important to clearly separate "not art" from art that is not good. It's too easy to look at something we disagree with or dislike and slap the "Not Real Art" label on it. • I'm not sure superheroes are actually good. This is a deep enough subject for its own entire essay/video, but I think the concept of an inherently superior being is dangerous. It feeds into a ton of negative things. - It smells of the Great Man Theory of history. - It feeds into "good guy with a gun" power dynamics that parallel fascistic "strong man" rhetoric. - It encourages people who don't feel powerful to apathetically wait for a hero, or to ambitiously accumulate personal power, rather than engage in practical community building to break the isolation that makes us vulnerable. - The serialized format also leads into a problematic pattern of defending against a threat to the status quo rather than making any effort toward social advancement. They -never- rarely uproot any of the toxic power structures that plague society, instead punishing individual bad actors. This is not inherent to the concept of a superhero, but it is endemic to the genre. I don't mean to imply that comics have no positive value. I know they've been a source of hope and positive role models for countless people. That still shouldn't blind us to their shortcomings. • That is in fact *not* what a scientific theory is. This is like saying soup is a kind of sandwich because they're both food. • There's an issue here with conflating different definitions of "objectivity." The whole scientific method is an attempt to cut through our inherently and inescapably subjective experiences to access a deeper truth about the universe beyond ourselves. As you pointed out, art is focused on those subjective experiences. Even if there is a base of broad commonalities between people's experiences and values, it's not fair or accurate to claim the same kind of objectivity. Shared subjectivity is sometimes called objective, but we know it really isn't. • The fact that scientists and artists both hone their skills doesn't really make them the same thing either.
- Your first reply is a nothing burger - A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world. It is quite literally that simple of a process - Superheroes are good. It does not take a deep analysis to see the positive effect modern mythology has had on our world - every single thing you replied with after absolutely does not correlate with the existence of heroes. You are the one conflating things without substantiating the correlation - There is no "different definitions of objectivity". Again im noticing a pattern where comments that just disagree with me are getting promoted by people mad at the noodle video, which is upsetting cause they're just making really bad faith comments visible. This is not a good rebuttal at all - Brother you're so lost in the sauce you failed to understand an artist and a scientist both exist in the same mind. I literally acknowledged their nuance are different in the video. These rebuttals are at a strawman you invented, not my video
@@ArchWizardCj replying hoping this thread goes somewhere, because while on one hand life is almost certainly too short for every youtube comment argument thread to be given fully reasoned and substantiated discourse, I would also absolutely love to see a community where opposing ideas like these can be talked through and reasoned without being dismissed out of hand
@@ArchWizardCj do you actually understand what a straw man means? like genuinely, what is a straw man argument. I want you to tell me. This person is actually correct in their interpretation of superheroes. Sure, people may have gotten value from their existence, but that does not mean that those stories lead to good consequences. Superheroes, at their greatest extreme, are inherently fascistic as a result of the strong man rhetorical device. If a society looks up to a single person or a small group of people with seemingly supernatural abilities as the leader throughout all problems and difficulties, then their views can quickly become fascistic. Superheroes can be both good for role models of character and still be critiqued as being a problem at scale. The fact that you are unable to understand that nuance shows you to be pretty shallow. You incorrectly identify what a scientific theory is. A scientific theory is a concept that is all but confirmed to be true through rigorous testing and experimentation. Your belief that a scientific theory is "a collection of thoughts rendered on a surface" means that if I think the sky is purple, I can write it down and make it a scientific theory. This is incorrect. Others must come to the exact same conclusion repeatedly. Now, if you believe everyone comes to the same conclusion about a piece of artwork, such as in your example of the two women with large breasts (very mature way of making your example btw), then maybe you should think introspectively about how shallow your interpretation of things is and how you could rectify that. There is no world where people look at the same piece of artwork and come to the same conclusion but you seem to believe that is so. On that last point, if you claim that you don't believe that and say I created a straw man, then you really need to learn to write better because that is the clearest interpretation your video provides. Work on being as clear and to the point as possible. Remove the vapid, unfunny jokes or moments where you waste time with things that don't add to your point. Also, don't use slurs against those with mental disabilities that's just embarrassing.
Nah, as I witness whats happening under this video I think thats not possible. There's no way to really curate people who are trying to have legitimate conversation and people who are just reactionaries mad at the video for strange personal reasons they constantly project. If we had better tools for discourse on youtube maybe, but atm its just me slamming into every argument I come across waiting to see who's in bad faith and who actually wants to engage, and I end up looking like an ass in the process to those without context. Just kinda lame atm lol @@Spacechess00
I’ve never considered Art from this perspective. I understood that Art is a way to contextualize and express our experiences, but to think of it in the same capacity as Science is a really encouraging thought as an Artist. It gives weight and gravitas to something I was repeatedly told was just a hobby, just a way to pass the time. Banger as always, big dog. Can’t weight for more
To be fair, it has weight wether you agree it's science or not, because you created something that despite just being pixels on a screen or ink on paper, holds emotional meaning Emotional investment is hard to create, and you essentially created it out of nothing but your own brain That's powerful man
Hey CJ. When I saw your video I was legit ready to hate on it because of the title. When I was in high school I had a teacher that said art was science but not in the same way you're saying, she'd say art is a science in a more cynical way like you could manufacture something good without having the experiences to back that up, essentially saying that you can make something good but without putting any soul in it and then she went to argue that good books or movies and stuff like that can just use a specific formula to exist and be amazing without the human element. But after watching just a part of your video (I'm halfway through) I can tell that this isn't your take and I'm glad, your videos are amazing and you have a great mind and it's so good seeing how you take an idea and just slowly unravels it. Amazing content, keep it up brother.
Your teacher is not only wrong about science and its purpose within society, but she understands art as a product, that the piece itself starts and stops within the context of the piece , and not the experiences put into the art piece, and the experiences taken away from the art piece. She's neither an artist nor a scientist, she's a consumer , and articulating art as a product to be consumed by a median of people. Crazy she's a "teacher" saying that lol Science and art are both the human element, us exercising our ability to pull from abstraction. Science is the why to things Art is the why I oughta We use both to navigate life in a broader scope than just the system we currently operate under. She just displays a severely inept understanding of either, and again that's like mad concerning lol
@@ArchWizardCj yeah she didn't last long in my school but I'd constantly argue with her about that particular point of view but when I was younger I couldn't even explain properly about the human element of it all, and your video made a lot more easy to understand it. I wish I had her email or something to send her this video but she'd probably be stubborn and say her point is right lol.
To add to this long after the fact. Richard Feynman was very insistent that his written notes were not objects of science or his thinking, but his literal thoughts. As stated in the more recent video about Noodle being thoughtless, and how art is not free of its process: A story is a premise where characters and events are hypotheses and questions, art is a process of invocation, science is a mask on the underlying process of philosophy and good analogy. To figuratively be human is to be physically human.
@@Dan-gs3kg All this stuff reminds me of when people say that digital things, and video games aren't real. As if everything that happens inside a computer is fake and doesn't exist in reality. Whenever people say that I can't not argue that they literally do exist, not only are there real consequences to your online actions but also everything literally physically exists within your pc! Like it's measurably in there you can find it in the physical world if you look and use measuring tools, it's not in some fantasy dimension because out of sight out of mind.
@@misostrange you should look into what demonic possession is from the perspective of the possessed, and collective/mass hypnosis. It's still not real.
Saw the noodle video and went to see if the rest of your catalogue held up to the same quality, saw this video's title and thought it might be sus, and it ended up, again, being a great fucken video that encapsulates a ton of thoughts I've been having recently. The scientist comparison is especially apt/obvious when looking at the right artists at the right time, IE the weirder of the classical composers in like the 1900s through 1960s, half of whom literally wore lab coats and worked in labs because they were busy inventing synthesizers. Just to do music cooler. Art becomes so much more clearly a science when you can look at all the art you think is weird and which other people might call "not art" and begin to understand it's influences, meaning, and why it is the way it is, and realize it was made by people either expressing their weird ass self in a very hearfelt way, or at least some way significant to them, or people looking at the whole of art and going "Hmm, yeah these edges seem kinda fuzzy what if I did something none of yall have tried". It's a miracle that The Creative Well for humanity doesn't seem like it'll ever run dry, it'll just keep giving us more interesting. Water. I guess. It's also just cool that something can be both infinitely subjective and, pretty decisively, kinda shit or incredible. Like we as a whole can look at something that doesn't, void of context mean anything, so it could mean anything, and go "Yeah it's at the least very important, influential, and it's trying to say a bunch of stuff that's real profound" and that be true Also fuck AI art it doesn't have any experiences to be conveying. No you didn't make that, AI art person, you commissioned that robot to do it, and you at best gave it concise revision notes. if you want it to be art go make your own thing out of it where it being AI is either inconsequential in the face of your broader creative intent or where it being AI is the point and you're commenting on it in some way. Like Babbdi, I think
FINALLY SOMEONE WHO SAYS IT. This thought as been stuck in my brain for the better part of half a year, when I was searching synonyms for art, skill, talent, etc. for a personal project, see the meanings of the words and what is suggested, take 20 seconds to think, then put the puzzle pieces together. You making this video, will be a godsend when trying explain my thinking and I can’t thank you enough!
For the better part of my life I always disliked the "art is subjective" line of thinking, it just never sat well with me, and in my own journey as an artist the closest I got to countering this idea was something along the lines of: 'Art is extracted through perception, which is a symptom of a biological reality, therefore it must have an objective foundation.' But this video hits the nail on the head. Plus its much better and simpler to communicate those ideas. I'm genuinely relieved that i'm not the only artist to feel/think this way about it. :)
Same I was fed it studying Photography and never bought into it. The thing I don't understand is I've heard some people see pieces of art objectively and assumed the whole "art is subjective" argument to be the mouth piece of some 15 year old that doesn't know anything. But apparently this mentality goes around. I don't know why people are so scared of the idea of art being objective. Just treat it like a debate.
My view has been expanded, I like this new angle especially after being fed the whole “art being subjective” narrative for a majority of my life, as always CJ i hope you’re doing well and I’m glad to see you posting at your own pace
Philosophy and science were pretty much the same thing in ancient Greece, since a lot of it's just thinking about how to define things and interpret knowledge
Yeah, I think this was a pretty interesting contextualization of what it means to be subjective and objective as these terms are relevant to both art and science, with the necessary link to the scientific process in order to emphasize those comparisons. However, I'm not sure how well this responds to predominant concepts of art "subjectivity" and "objectivity" considering that the main contention all these other "thinkers" have and the contention that you have with said "thinkers" is also a matter of term definition and term context. I guess what I mean to say is: on its own, it's a lovely video essay on the comparisons between art and the fields popularly considered as "sciences". I just think your arguments box themselves out of the conversation since you're providing a definition of terms as an argument when (at least from what I've observed) the rest of the world is arguing over subjective and objective CRITICISM, not about art itself as a practice and field. "Our experience, evaluation, and appreciation of art comes entirely from personal perspectives, therefore you cannot criticize art objectively." vs "Art exists as an object in a world with historical traditions of conventions, standards, and trends, and therefore you can criticize art objectively."
They're attempting to argue art as an instance not their own subjective validation of art. They equate it being subjective in value to it as an instance beung nebulous. I am not confused on the matter at all lmao
As somewhat of a artist I agree to all of this the point of art is to articulate a experience using self expression to convey a message of any kind(if any)to others or oneself. I completely agree as you once said before CJ two people can stand in front of a white screen and see and feel two totally different things. Art is a science that’s always interchanging depending on one interpretation
hey CJ how yah been, drinking water? as someone whose never put any thought into the subject my biggest take away(specifically after the clip of that husky ginger Mr) is something i’m seeing pretty consistently throughout a lot of debates which do end up recontextualizing a lot of objective things monetary worth doesnt equal value value equals value which is where i think a lot of people lose their intentions when talking about what value encompasses it should never be that deep to me. your vid explained it great after a second watch through, it’s an individuals experiences that make that value good to see yah again dawg, can’t wait til the nxt
This is actually crazy because i was thinking of something like you were explaining when I was describing how I felt when watching across the spider verse it is indescribable because you have to feel the experience. Glad to see you’re back with another thought provoking video keep it up
I think this is flawed argument because its uncharitable to why people would call art subjective. And that, what you are saying in this video is not mutually exclusive to the idea that art is 'subjective'. The whole notion of art as subjective was a historical reflex against the western artistic inclination to make 'art' into a stratified specific thing that only wealthy learned people understood or cared about or could bring value toward. They are not saying it to diminish the power or impact art can have or to make 'art' an ambiguous blob of activity that has no 'craft' or reason to it or innate value.
Not even to say that what you are saying in the video is entirely incorrect, it just feels like a particular omission that the endowment of 'subjectivity' onto art is just a semantic compromise, not a 'literal' fact.
I can't help but feel like your bigger issue is one with poor media literacy which is an entirely different issue than the semantics around art as 'subjective'.
Why is everyone arguing against something I never said in the video, as refutation to the video I literally at 4:34 say the process is simultaneously both. There's is no one or other with art, it exists and is based in our subjective emotions. Its both. Why is this hard to grasp? genuinely im asking, why is this hard to grasp for yall cause I dont know how much clearer I can be in my messaging
How have you been man? Is youtube giving you the attention you deserve yet? Been here since the EDP days and even when i didnt agree with how you said things you always took the time to discuss and workthrough the issues, making sure people knew exactly what you meant and for that i thank you. Something big is coming your way and life is about to change for the better, the lessons you have learned and the growth you have achieved going through challenging times will help you maintain it too. Keep on keeping on and let the world hear your song. ✌️
I found your channel earlier just today via your analysis on Noodle. It’s a shame these other videos of yours, filled with your personal flair and evidently the results of a perfectionist’s tailored efforts, do not pull nearly as much attention. For what little it means, a stranger on the internet thanks you for providing them with new fuel for thought.
My friend recommended me this video and I've really enjoyed it. The video is a very thought povoking piece of art. While, I disagree with some characterisations of science, the videos portrayal of art is really engaging and I agree with many of the points WizardCJ makes on art.
An interesting take, however feelings aren't so cleany categorized, and if the artists objective isn't to make you feel what they feel this isn't true.
You are the flesh and the voice with which you have shared this video And yet it is your emotion, your spirit that has wrecked my chest, my stomach, my eyes; and shown me the fractal of the human experience Wherever you are, whenever you are, I thank you. You have given me life.
Watched you from high school back in 2014 till now. Still in college and taking courses for Occupational therapy. Just here to plagiarize your works.... Jk I fucking love your vids dude, your voice (no homo), your takes on topics like these. If anything I hope to hear more from you so I can expand my understanding of our world and be apart of the culture. Much love dude!
It’s awesome to see you still replying to people in the comments to this day! I’ll throw my hat in the ring and say that i think the underlying problem here is that we all seem to have different understandings of what we mean by “subjective” and “objective”, which is making it so hard for certain people to understand what you’re saying and so easy for others. To me that speaks to the reason why all art is ultimately subjective, because while you can objectively measure anything the value of that scale of measurement will always be subjective. We can find value in certain scales of measurement based on how well they reflect what most people are looking for in art, approaching art with a utilitarian perspective, but that approach is no more objective than saying that whatever my friend Jerry says is good art is what is objectively good art. Critical engagement shouldn’t require believing your interpretation to be the objectively correct one, we should all acknowledge that while our perspectives are subjective we do gain something new from measuring the world against our unique perspectives. I think that’s the critical difference between art and science, there is an objective thing to be measured with science and we create an approach that will best reflect that objective reality, but what values you find in one perspective are no more or less true than the values in another perspective. Art is about exploring and refining your perspective about a world with the understanding someone can reach a completely different conclusion about the world with completely different methods and be equally valid as you. The only objective part about art is being true to your own perspective
Like many I came from the noodle vid and mid way through this one I smashed that sub button. You didn't touch on the process of science and art much so I feel I can share my thought and extend your argument with a little example: You've been in this field for years, learned all the basic rules and guidelines needed to properly communicate with your co workers and other peers. So you get an idea and start working on it. You're thinking of different ways you could tackle this, work out other perspectives, maybe compare what you see with others while you're making it. You're experimenting with what you've come up with Was I talking about a scientist or an artist? The process is the same: You're taking the knowledge of the world and your craft, seeing how you can apply it in the real world by following the rules of your craft and seeing which rules you can break
8:36 had me on the FUCKING FLOOR you almost committed a homicide! that's some comedy genius right there... to go from the most serious discussion about the importance of art and the definition of what it is... to HENTAI gave me so much whiplash...
It's surreal whenever I find a small channel that slaps this hard and I just have to sit here and wonder how in the actual fuck it isn't bigger than it is. Like, am I here early or does everyone else just have bad taste? On one hand, it's been many years of quality content so I'm probably not early, but on the other hand, I'm kinda dumb and most people are smarter than me. I can't rationalize it. Thus, fuck you.
Just found your channel and I Love the video. I agree with you, even more so when you take into account the social sciences. I’m an anthropology major and so far in the field we look at human experiences from an objective lenses. When I first started watching this video it reminded me of the field I’m studying. I feel as if anthropology is more akin to art than any other field of science because it deals with culture and human experiences, but that’s just my opinion.
“Subjective” vs “objective” discourse usually seems to devalue the idea of subjectivity, like because something is important it can’t be subjective (especially at 1:43 and 5:54). That because you can define something, it must be objective. But, using a definition of art doesn’t prove its objectivity. Definition itself can be broken down to “this feels correct”. Say the definition of a mug is a cup with a handle, a cup is a vessel that holds liquid, maybe its shape and size differentiate it from a bowl, maybe it’s how you use it, etc.; as you go deeper it boils down into “this feels like a thing that is different from this object, so it’s its own thing.” This doesn’t make a mug or our definition of it any less valuable though. You bought the mug to hold coffee, and your subjective definition of a mug led you to now be able to hold coffee. Objectivity is the world, and subjectivity is our means of understanding it. Our subjective ideas around art can lead us to create some change in objective reality that we can subjectively define as art. “You only call one objective, when both are equally necessary” does more to show the importance of subjectivity, than it does to disprove the place it holds in art.
Sorry if I just wrote an incomprehensible mess, I just thought this was too quick to put down the idea of art being subjective as "stupid" or "misunderstanding", which kind of just blocks off a lot of cool cinversation around it. This video is still cool and a lot of the ideas are really interesting, though.
Mathematics, rightly viewed, possesses not only truth, but supreme beauty a beauty cold and austere, like that of sculpture, without appeal to any part of our weaker nature, without the georgeous trappings of painting or music, yet sublimely pure, and capable of a stern perfection such as only the greatest art can show. The true spirit of delight, the exaltation, the sense of being more than Man, which is the touchstone of the highest excellence, is to be found in mathematics as surely as in poetry. - Bertrand Russell Same coin, different side.
Isn't the point your supposed to be arguing whether or not the quality of a piece of art can be objectively determined and not whether the status of something being art can be objectively determined? I suppose some are trying to argue the latter, but even in some of the examples you use in this video, they're arguing against objectively measuring the quality of art, not if something is art.
@@ArchWizardCj Sure, let me ask you this and I think it'll help clarify. Do you think quinton reviews was arguing against whether something can be labeled art or if something that is already acknowledged to be art can be categorized as good art or bad art?
@@ArchWizardCj brother what are you talking about? Do you know what a question is? I didn't say he said anything, I asked you what you thought he was arguing.
I would be really interested in a video of yours going over the differences between art and science. Here are my thoughts: I'm not saying science is not subjective or it does not have bias in it , but there are factual elements of science that do not exist for art . Without humans there is no mona lisa, with or without out humans there will always be gravity. Science is our subjective and biased way of understanding an objective universe. In science we minimize humanity in (impossible) strive for "truth" , art on the other hand is humanity . Science is subjective, art is subjectivity. (Great video btw)
Very good point about how people will say something isn’t art. But neglect to realize that good art and bad art exist. Something doesn’t need to be amazing and win awards and make millions of dollars to be considered “art”… but it doing those things makes it good art. If it doesn’t then it’s bad art. Because bad art exists, and bad art is also objective, cuz we can measure the impact of it and how people felt about it. If nobody liked your art that means it’s bad art cuz all the people who saw it didn’t feel any emotions at all towards it and ignored it and forgot about it.
Also I think art is like food. People saying “this videogame is a work of art” are basically actually saying “this food is edible”. It’s not enough information to prove any point at all. But people say “this is a work of art” to mean “this is a GOOD work of art”. Cuz they don’t realize bad art exists. So they are saying “this food is edible” instead of “this food is delicious/disgusting”
Good art and bad art is purely an opinion, not a fact. However, you COULD argue that art itself is a fact. The way I define art goes thus: art is anything that is generally visual, generally man-made and inherently capable of causing emotions and thoughts. That's it. My definition is, as I feel, a much more impartial way to describe art regardless of quality and one's opinions on it.
I was always confused and frustrated by the idea that art is just "subjective" and it's all open to interpretation. Which to many sound meaningful but honestly that sounds meaningless. No matter how much we debate over a subject the "subjective" baby blanket is used to shut it down. Subjectivity is really complicated and not easy to answer, how can I just say "it's all subjective"? I think people's liking of things, even objectively good things are subjective for how people have preferences and don't love all kinds of media. Someone who like artsy surreal movies hating comic book movies seeing some good ones will appreciate them but unless they really fall in love with it, which can happen, it certainly won't always have that chance at make them flock to them. You can subjectively say Citizen Kane or Mozart is trash but they're objectively great. In terms of interpretation I believe in valid intepretations, as someone can misinterpret, and it's ridiculous people say you can't misinterpret art because yes you can, and having multiple objectively good iterations based on a IP for example, but to say all are valid is to say you'll love every Star Wars sequel. You can objectively say a sequel or two is garbage.
Im kind of confused. I want to agree with you, i think i agree with you?? Maybe?? But i feel like youre missing the point of people saying art is mot science. I feel like what they mean by objective is its the same for everyone else. Like when you prove gravity, youve proven gravity. And thats true everywhere to everyone, wether they accept it or not. But if you draw an amazing, emotional piece of art, it could throw someone in a depression while simultaneously pulling someome else out of a depression. I think its kind of both subjective and objective at the same time. I don't know, i think i might be missing something, maybe even more than one something that you said
I think we're on the same boat. I've rewatched the video 3-4 times just trying to understand it, and I just don't and am just confused. By ~4 minutes in, I get lost What I'm getting is "art is as objective as science is, because both take intangible but very much real and factual things and try to understand them". Science explains the world we sense (physically) through laws and theories, while art explains the world we feel (emotionally) through shapes and colors (or sounds or words or whatever medium you use). Both what we see and we feel exist. They're there. I guess the issue is exactly what you said, people taking "art is subjective" to mean "the definition of art is subjective" rather than "the experience of art is subjective" Or I could be talking out of my ass, who knows. I might be. Probably am.
man, I'mma be real, this is the worst intro/title for whatever your argument is going to be. I'm sure its good and I'm sure you worked hard on making this presentation, but I'm barely 2 mins in and all you've done so far is show why someone shouldn't listen to your perspective. A friend linked this to me so I'm gonna hear you out, but acting smug and edgy against someone elses genuine viewpoint only proves that there are multiple viewpoints and it depends any one person's notions and experiences to determine how an idea will be perceived, including yours. If the intro is meant to be ironic, its a bit of a commitment to make it so long and dry. It really obscures the message you're trying to say, whatever that is. Edit: Watched the rest. "Some processes of art are objectively better because one of these pictures make me horny and one doesn't" is the dumbest shit I've ever heard. You are literally subverting your own argument. There are times where science and art overlap. There are times where artists use new tech to broaden their artistic horizons and there are times where artists have created things that have helped things in STEM. You are right in that, and honestly that's kinda the only thing you have been right about this whole time. The key thing you're missing is that science is the cataloguing of observations while "the arts" are generally more geared to the conveyance and expression of observations. There are times where scientists preform acts of art. There are times where artists preform acts of science. To turn this into an objectivity/subjectivity thing just seems like your own views on the stereotypes of "the arts" and "the sciences".
brother this comment is complete anti- intellectual rhetoric you erroneously spurred up in response to my Noodle video(obviously) w, because why at all would you conjure this luke warm puddle of piss in my comments section, especially here of all videos lmao ""Some processes of art are objectively better because one of these pictures make me horny and one doesn't" You didn't even engage with my video, this entire comment is just a strawman and adhominem attack. I said "art is based in experiences. Standards and Quality are apart of that experience(8:15)" Which is objectively true, in fact that point was in refutation to a man saying "Art is objective because it is based in standards and quality(8:01) " I am *LITERALLY* arguing the opposite here. That art IS subjective because your emotional response to an art piece is the true deciding factor in its validity. I even point out the fact someone else would still prefer the other option B, which is why I still have to censor its boobs. And if you are trying to argue a stick figure is equivocal to a portrait drawing of mommy milkers you are delusional. Even your critique on the title is invalid I call art a science because the process of creating art is the exact same as the process of conducting scientific theory in the mind of the human producing said works. This is insanely pathetic. You should be deeply ashamed you tried this on me lmao
I mean, there is a difference. Science always exists and art exists when we make it. Gravity is was and always will be a thing, but Mozart only starts being a thing when he creates it. Not that this makes either less valuable, in fact art might be more valuable since it's something that doesn't have value until it exists.
Very well made video, Great editing and I do like a lot of the questions and ideas you posit..... that said, I don't really agree with the end conclusion. For me this is mode of analysis is broken when you consider the bar of entry for scientists vs artist. Now unless I'm horribly misunderstanding something (which is entirely possible) you seem to imply that artists akin to scientists, should be our authorities on the interpretations of art. That you have to go through a qualification process (for the artist presumably art school of some kind) which makes you a REAL artist and thus are able to decipher art for us. My problem with this stems from what science and art fundamentally are in their application. The simple fact that one observes the material reality and the other observes non material reality, makes them incomparable as far as I'm concerned. To be a scientist requires access to a TON of equipment and tools that often your average joe isn't going to be able to afford. you'll then need to find something of value to contribute to the scientific community, only after YEARS of studying to acquire the skills necessary to figure out all the different official processes and knowledge needed for your particular field. an artist just needs to know how to draw which can be self taught, and a drawing tablet to do their work. ( for other mediums, requiring even less) There are people who make art that touches a lot of people and convey the feelings of the human experience that haven't even gotten a college degree, some on this very platform. Are these people not artists even though some of them will have more success and reach than people with the proper training? I can't in good conscious say no. TLDR: What about artists that find success online independent of any sort of proper schooling? Are you saying they're not artists?
- Artists are the authority of art at all times. To dispute this is to dispute the history of art. How could art have a chronicled history of stand out works, and artists, if there is no bog standard art is held to? This argument has never made sense no matter how many people try to posit it. Art is not purely nebulous and never has been. We have agreed consensus on art all the time, and we pick and choose who is valid as artists and what is valid to us as art all the time; but the laymen does not dictate the bleeding edge of art just because he can pick up the pencil the same way he does not define the bleeding edge of science simple because he can engage in the scientific theory. Again if what you said was true, that artists are not equivalent to scientists, the Mona Lisa would not hold as much memetic presence to us as Einstein's theory of relativity. Anyone can engage in art, anyone can be an artist, anyone can have a stroke of genius when creating art, not everyone is an artist who taps into art to the point where they are at the bleeding edge of art. Im sorry to say
@@ArchWizardCj I was under the impression the point you were making was about artists in general not what defines the bleeding edge. If you're just saying that artists are the authority in what art has the most validity from a purely artistic standpoint, then sure. I suppose that's fair enough. I obviously think their are some qualifiers to that statement but on a basic level I agree. On a cultural, practical level however, well the MCU has had way more of effect on culture and emotionally effected more people than pretty much any series of movies in human history, and yet a widely renowned artist like martin scorsese, says they're not cinema. by your logic, martin would be right and we could declassify the entire thing as art, and i don't think that's a very good way of defining art if you can just ignore something with that much impact. no matter if you like them or not, their impact is something I don't think should be ignored. Sure, Only the most skilled, elite or straight up lucky artists will make the cutting edge. If that's your argument we agree, I'm just arguing formal training isn't necessarily a prerequisite for the title of artist the same way it is for a scientist. I'm not arguing artists and scientists are equivalents in scale, You hit the nail with the head on that one. I think they're not comparable in terms of processes. How we go about engaging with them.
@ArchWizardCj do you consider people who have high impact with no formal training, artists? Which is more valuable, the effect your art has or the qualifications you have to comment on it? That's really what the gist was. Idk what else you found confusing. I feel like I was pretty clear.
I might be missing something but wouldn't something being disingenuous only add a unique element to it? like if a film spread blatant misinformation and did so not because whoever made it believes in that message but purely to grift and make as much money as possible that would be an expression of human experience, like it could unintentionally provide the experience of grifting or what would lead someone to do that
You are geniunely committing a lot of mistakes in your comparison, and that is why art is completely subjective: 1- The peer review comparison: When someone peer reviews your article, they are searching for logical inconsistencies and mistakes. They are also trying to evaluate whether you followed the scientific method or not. The problem here is that these two standards (logical principles and the scientific method) which determine the validity of a work are completely objective. What does this mean? It means that the way in which we arrive to these standards that determine if something is true or not is NOT based upon something that differs from person to person. The method by which we arrive at the principles of logic as the rulers of correct reasoning is completely absent from feelings: contradictions cannot be even imagined, a third true value cannot be even imagined, etc… With the scientific method the same happens: it is OBJECTIVELY impossible to prove universal statements, hence we have to use popper’s falsification method. This two things will determine the validity of a certain reasoning REGARDLESS of the differences between the subjects who have to determine the validity of said reasoning. They will both arrive at the same conclusion. They will both work with the same standards since it is impossible to work outside of them; there is no replacement for either the scientific method or the principles of logic. When it comes to art, there are NO OBJECTIVE STANDARDS: if you say to them “look at this piece of art and determine if it is good or not (which would be the equivalent of asking someone wether something is true or not)” they will have to use some kind of standards to achieve that goal. The problem here is that ALL STANDARDS ARE VALID FOR THIS TASK. There isn’t a defined set of rules, like the principles of logic, that we cannot break, hence constituting an objective standard that we will use to produce a judgment. I can perfectly choose not to evaluate how realistic the characters are or how much sense the plot makes, AND LITERALLY NOTHING WOULD HAPPEN. If I decided to stop abiding by the principle of non-contradiction, I simply wouldn’t be able to, since humans cannot even fathom contradictions, it is a concept that we cannot even imagine (try to imagine something that is a ball and that also is not a ball, using the same definition of “ball” both times), so we cannot escape from this rule. When it comes to art, we can choose to not abide by any standard we want, so there isn’t an objective set of rules that, after following it, will lead us to objective art. 2- About proving things in both science and art: Hypotheses are certainly evaluated via experimentation, which is based on your experience. Art is also based on your experience of a certain object. The problem here is that science leaves experimental variables that can change without the object itslef changing OUT of the table. This means that, for people who are trying to analyze THE OBJECT itself, they have to put subjective experiences (which are experiences that change from subject to subject without the object that is being analyzed changing) out of the table. We cannot equate science to art in the way things are proven precisely because one successfully arrives at objective truths, while the other cannot do so since it is based on subjective experiences like FEELINGS. that is why this video in its entirety is wrong.
- your inability to separate the process' nuance and the process itself when I explicitly specified the differences in the video is telling - "The problem here is that science leaves experimental variables that can change without the object itslef changing OUT of the table." you can quite literally apply this to art in the exact same capacity and it still hold true. My video remains accurate in its observations and we have yet another bloated pseudo intellectual comment telling me I'm wrong lmao
"When it comes to art, there are NO OBJECTIVE STANDARDS" it is objectively true personal standards impact your experience on art. Scientific theories lack just as much objectivity which is why they change just as frequently as art does in the zeitgeist. We just debunked Stephan Hawking's research on black holes. What about this is hard to understand lol
@@ArchWizardCj 1- You say that I cannot separate the process’ nuance and the process itself, yet you are not even specifying what you are talking about (you are not making sense at all). It does not even make any sense if you analyze the phrase based on the definitions of the words you use: Nuance: a subtle distinction or variation. Process: a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end. If we replace the meaning of said words with the words itself in the sentence, you will rapidly see that you just said some lazy-ass ambiguos thingmajig pseudo intelectual shit that does not even make any sense (which is funny considering you are the one saying I am being pseudointellectual). Let’s cut straight to the chase and see how the phrase ends up: I cannot separate the [subtle distinction or variation] of [series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end] and the [series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end] itself. IT LITERALLY MAKES NO SENSE, at least try to camouflage your own word salads before someone noticing. Also, let me guess: you have no background whatsoever in philosophy of science. 2- “You can literally apply this to art in the exact same capacity and it still holds true” Yes, nothing stops you from leaving out things that change while the object remains the same. You know what forms this category? Feelings and subjective experiences. So good luck judging art without using the same things you say in the video that are used to interact with art (whatever does this lazy-ass terminology or analogy means). 🙅♂️🙅♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
@@ArchWizardCj You have completely confounded the concept of objectivity to arrive at your conclusion there. Just because something has been debunked does not mean that the standards used to determine the validity of scientific knowledge lack objectivity. Remember that we are talking strictly about objective standards. When something is disproven in physics, it happens because a contradictory observation has been produced. Things in science ARE NOT PROVEN, they are just considered true until being disproven. That is Popper’s method in a nutshell. What does this have to do with what you said? Well, you said “science is not that objective if things are constantly changing” implying that “the scientific ‘facts’ we gather are constantly being disproven or changed”. The thing is that no thing such as a scientific fact exists, since, resorting to popper’s notion, nothing in science (no universal law) can be proven. This means that we cannot say that the corpus of scientific facts is sketchy because it is constantly changing, since there is no corpus of scientific facts in the first place. This does not mean that science is not objective, because objectivity in a certain area is determined by the standards use to determine the validity of things inside of it. Standards of science are IMPOSSIBLE to avoid: deviating from the scientific method implies deviating from the principles of logic, something that a human cannot achieve. In art you can perfectly avoid any set of standards used to determine wether something is good or bad, so there is no objectivity in that area. Second of all, if there are no objective standards for determining value inside of art, then there is no objective good or bad. That is my main point. Finally, what about hawkings work has been debunked? The only attempts at debunking him that comes to my mind are some random flat earthers on the internet that don’t understand the notion of space and time as physical things.
World with out science is chaos and death. There's a guy who though science thinks he have become death....the irony. So...it ... it's subjective.... because people will have different objective feelings on the same art. Some like it for this fact. ( Hoping what they see as fact actually holds up) And people will hate it for this fact ( Hoping said fact holds up) Dose it do what you say it does in your personal explanation of why you love it, and do anyone sees value in what you said it does that made you love it? Last of us...the Creator of last of Us 2 wanted to show tribalism.... Allegedly. A lot of people says he could have done it better..but other people say "because you hate a new character over killing an old character not necessarily a character that you like, but an old character then it was done perfectly" Facts: was it silly how new character found old character? ...yes. The excuses were terrible.....but seeing how it feels ok to others...they will not agree. Because of feelings...over the fact that there's a lot of people...named Joel who have daughters. The story even set up that Ellie (the daughter figure) wasn't guaranteed to live by the time the new character found her. The facts...do not matter to these people because they FELT that it was ok. Subjective feelings can not.. always be facts...you can experience a science experiment where the outcome will always be the same unless a new variable is introduced. Facts do not care about how you feel. So what makes great art great....might not always be what the crowd says is great but how you personally feel about it. But how you personally feel about it might not be how the majority feels about it. So....idk about you...but this experience happens to me a lot. This could be happening because other people experience do not dictate quality, or how I personally feel about anything, or Maby i have shit taste. Meh... probably the last one. The heroes journey and other story telling formulas exist and people have used them even if they don't fully commit to it. Um what is the point of rhis video...art is not subject...how is it not? Because... because.....ah..i got it. Because a love story can't be a love story without at least one character falling in love...any type of love will do with any type of message. Unrequited love with lesson being there are other fish in the ocean ,or you don't haft to date to show love, or the difference between love and a obsession. Through other people i know that Doom Eternal was not a love story. And that's how through other people i judge....ok ...i don't even think a 5 year old with no writing lessons at all would say That game is a love story.....but i know a child with no experience with love as a concept could be tricked into thinking it was a love story of some kind...so .... yeah... because as humans we need reference to identify abstract things , you can judge artwork objectively. This is a love story. Is it a good love story? Well no because this stories idea of love is fucked up. It says to show love you must cut off the head of the person you like.... it's not even saying that ironically.. it's just saying love is murder. What..you like it...the fuck is wrong with y.... what ...you like it as a peace to show what not to do? Ok i guess...wait... it's your favorite love story because it's a show case of what love isn't and your going to make a video explaining it.....uh..ok... sounds fine as long as you agree it's not a good love story. I remember a lot of UA-camrs i wach always saying that about terrible movies and shows. That they are great think peaces on what not to do... sometimes knowing all the wrong answers can help..but seeing there can be almost infinite wrong answers to the question what is a love story...i can see why people follow and study and copy successful love stories. Ok after typing it all out to help me think... Yeah. Great video. Oftenheimer is ironic af tho😂. Or whatever his name is.
Edited... shit i should have let the rest or your vid play out. Art is like cooking.... because you can be competent at both....ok...so it's like science because you need to be really good at ether to be considered a professional. I fucked up.......all well. But now that i get your meaning.... Um...yeah still good video.
@@ArchWizardCj Dang. So it's the process...not you saying it's the same... just the process is the same. What was the process again. Observation, question, hypothesis, experiment, Result? Ok...is this art good at making you feel afraid? It can't make everyone afraid because not everyone is afraid of the same things. Just because someone can be afraid of the scary movie doesn't mean it's a good scary movie or used any film techniques at all to gain the desire effect. Ok I can see why you say it just the process of Art being the same process of science. This is why test audiences exist..to experiment and get the right formula for I show or movie to get a desired effect. It doesn't need to click with every just enough people to make bank.
This argument just falls flat because you're twisting the definition of science with no consistancy. Scientists don't focus on the intangible, Science is just a synonym for knowledge that was arbitrarily picked up to contain a set of subcategories of knowledge less than two hundred years ago. The standard definition of science includes fields such as chemistry, biology and geology which study very tangible things, gravity is a cherry picked example that just makes you sound pretentious. Choosing Einstein over a famous chemist or anatomist is just as much cherry picking even if your Einstein-Picasso/Van Gogh comparison holds (which it might from a point of view). Most scientists can't explain the theory of relativity very well. The arts is also a relatively recent subcategory for sets of skills (hence artisan having the same etymology despite artisans not necessarily being artists) but that just means that art and science are both domains of skill and knowledge, doesn't mean art = science. Etymologically you can call painting and chemistry 'sciences (eg fields of knowledge) but that's just egotistical wankery that confuses people used to common word usage. "Arts and sciences" is a common term for technical knowledge that implies that these are separate domains. Arbitrary domains but useful ones. Science was defined by excluding art from it for a good reason, no matter how arbitrary that exlusion was and what overlaps exist between the two categories. Artistic standards might be a form of social knowledge and your justification of such is fine but that IS NOT peer review. Peer review is a specific kind of knowledge creating social activity that is just too narrow for the kind of broad equivilance you're trying to draw (pun intended?) Pointing out that artistic standards and scientific theories are both socially defined is all well and good until you go deliberately ignoring colloqial language use just to confuse people. The same social activities that define scientific fields also split art from the sciences, you can complain about how they're really similar in a lot of ways all you like in the end you just sound like you want to associate your craft with 'science' as a prestige marker and don't actually respect science for its distinctiveness. A scientific theory is not 'words on a page'. Its defined by its predictive theory. Lord of the Rings might have just as much ability to effect the world as a patent for a steam engine but a machine isn't science either, its engineering. The steam engine is INFORMED by scientific theories but novels are informed and understood by LITERARY THEORY. Come on for ****'s sake, the arts literally have their own fields of theory which are the direct equivilant to scientific theory, calling a novel trilogy the artistic equivilant to theory is the dumbest argument I've heard this year. Science is also founded on sensory data, that's what 'empiricism' means (you acknowledge this latter but that just means your early point was a disconnected waste of time). Science is also subjective, direct measurements (using arbitrary units) is a small subpart of science and using 'objectivity' to define science is just ignorance. Artists make direct measurements (often using the same units) all the time but your definition treats those as fairly trivial. It takes the same neurons to die of alchohol poisoning as it does to test the tensile strength of steel, doesn't make them both art. Chemists and meterologists are both humans, doesn't make them identical to each other any more than artists and scientists both being human does. Art and science can equally cause chaos and death so that's just idealistic pablum. There's a lot of art about science causing chaos and death, including a lot of the superhero media you claim is so important (a non-scientific claim if there ever was one since we don't have a parrelel earth where the only difference is no superhero fiction to make that test).
You're using the colloquial understanding of science when the entire point of the video is addressing the rampant misuse of the colloquial understanding of science. You also got my video entirely wrong and its annoying you typed a wall of well articulated nonsense to rebuttal a video that specifically engages with the human processes of both. Idk why you did this , and liking your own comment on top of it lol
Might have misclicked if I liked my own comment. Maybe I misunderstood your point but you blathered a lot so it was easy. I'll admit half my comment is notes that don't come together that I didn't bother deleting because I spent too much time on this already and had no interest in tidying it up. The colloquial understanding of science is also the useful modern one. Inventing your own definition for an argument is fine but it doesn't help what I understood the argument other youtubers were having. Mostly I just find 'physics envy' inherently unworthy of respect and wouldn't have agreed with the premise no matter what arguments you made. "Well articulated nonsense' is an oxymoron, I'd rather you called it badly articulated half formed opinions. I did leave out the parts of your argument I agreed with so I'll just reply that I agree that you can't define art as a category by its quality. @@ArchWizardCj
"blathered alot" it's a 10 minute video you niggas will never not bring that excuse out instead of just admitting you're confused and don't know what the fuck you're talking about lol it's alot more believable when people say that on the hour long vid, not one you can watch while you shit 💀 Also no, you're still wrong. Colloquial understanding is not the "useful" understanding, it is a surface level understanding of science and its processes, the literal thing I'm addressing and speaking against in the video since pseudo intellectuals take said understanding and try to conflate it to being all science is (You) And sure , what you typed was dogshit cloaked in buzzwords , based in conjecture and your inability to engage with the video in good faith. I was trying to be professional but honestly it's annoying watching a bunch of anons try to out intellectual me in my comments all the time just to be wrong @@AC-dk4fp
This is a conclusion I feel has lied on the tip of my tongue for years, and yet I fear I would never have drawn it on my own. It's such a _vital_ one too, defining articulation as the overarching skill humans employ in trying to bridge the gap between perception and reality. And beautifully enough, _your point justifies its own necessity._ You gave words to a feeling, in a way that has changed me.
You're a fucking gift, man. Never stop doing the things you're doing. You deserve to soar nearly as sorely as the world deserves to hear your voice, and be healed by it.
honestly, comments like these are why I do what I do. This interaction in of itself is more important than any numerical amount, and I promise you on my life, no matter how big I get, how relevant or successful, I will never forget that people like you place your faith and belief into my words, and I will never lose my integrity , nor my sense of purpose along this road, as I have not in the many years I have already gone down it. Thank you truly. It means more to me you left this comment here than the Noodle video, as art truly is my passion and calling
I instead believe that this conclusion is wrong.
In 10 minutes of video he danced around the simple answer to "If Art is Objective (altho Subjectively perceived) then how so?" because it doesn't exist.
Art exists absolutely and only in the perception of each singular individual, be it human or not.
I am not going to say that a worm has any "feeling of Art", but I am absolutely gonna say that Art is NOT exclusive to People and/or Humans.
Just like all emotions are circuits machines which evolved in our brains and bodies, Art is a peculiar perception which we feel an appreciation for.
It's not easy to explain, but there's a difference between appreciating something because it feels natural and appreciating something because it feels "Art" (artistic).
Natural things are things like environments and its components; the trees, the grass, the flowers, the rock, the sand, the water, the lava and whatever else, up to the places around the world where the houses are still made like european peasants' farms (at the oldest);
Art instead is more active, compact, it's a condensed feeling closed into a container.
Yes, it's contained, that's the best way to describe it.
There are instances when something which happened without any active input by anything (termites make colonies, behaves make dams, but no one eroded the landscape) may be recognized by an individual as "Art", like a cool desert rock eroded in cool ways, or those smooth river rocks with a mix of materials in them,
but the majority of the time (and MOSTLY because of our experience, we got no green men getting down from Mars and signing onto DeviantArt) what is "Art" to an individual is what a human created.
I DO NOT KNOW HOW TO CONNECT THIS NEXT PART, SO I AM JUST GOING TO ABRUPTLY CUT AND THEN SAY IT.
The absolute and inarguable Subjectivity of Art is due (other than for the lack of anything supporting its supposed Objectivity) because its perception is not depending on what another individual calls what it believes, or it created, to be "Art".
[Leaving aside the fact that not everything that is made to be aesthetically pleasing is made to be Art, or is perceived to be Art] An individual can find something completely random to be Art without it being created to be perceived as such, while at the same time perceiving something someone else created to be Art not as such.
I am not talking about the quality here, I am talking about the perception of it.
ABRUPT CLOSURE:
So, to recapitulate, "it is Objective that Art is Subjective not only to the specie perceiving it, but to the individual itself, be it a healthy one or not. Art is a self-contained concept which represents something; its meaning can be shallow or deep, depending on the piece, because the importance is not on WHAT it's saying, but WHY it's saying it, why it's being perceived as Art".
@@Italian_Isaac_Clarke you didnt even try to engage with my video you just drummed up your own conclusion then said I was wrong lmaooo
@@ArchWizardCj No.
@@Italian_Isaac_Clarke "no" 💀💀
Bro your noodle video showed up in my feed. Had that shit saved to my watch later for like a week cause it's long and my attention span is trash but I knew I'd want to watch at some point. I finally did and since then have begun watching every single one of your videos.
I've seen this sentiment shared by others in the comments. I don't know you as a person, and am not a long time subscriber, so I can't say I have any idea what goes on your life that poses an obstactle between you and putting all your energy into your channel, but I can say that you are an excellent creator, or rather, an artist, and I have no doubt that you will find great success if you choose to make content creation like this your main focus.
You're on some big galaxy brain shit my guy. I truly look forward to whatever you may have in store for us humble viewers.
Notes:
• It might be worth closely examining the phrase "objective meaning." This is pretty nit-picky, but I think the concept of meaning requires a subject. Even if the meaning is 100% universally agreed upon, it's technically still just shared subjectivity. Calling it objective is an exaggeration.
• I agree that communication is a critical component of a definition of art.
• One can check a process for compliance with each step of the Scientific Method to categorize something as "not science." What is our analogue for art? Is there an "artistic process" we can rigorously track? If not, it's impossible to make objective assertions about what is or isn't art.
• I agree it's important to clearly separate "not art" from art that is not good. It's too easy to look at something we disagree with or dislike and slap the "Not Real Art" label on it.
• I'm not sure superheroes are actually good. This is a deep enough subject for its own entire essay/video, but I think the concept of an inherently superior being is dangerous. It feeds into a ton of negative things.
- It smells of the Great Man Theory of history.
- It feeds into "good guy with a gun" power dynamics that parallel fascistic "strong man" rhetoric.
- It encourages people who don't feel powerful to apathetically wait for a hero, or to ambitiously accumulate personal power, rather than engage in practical community building to break the isolation that makes us vulnerable.
- The serialized format also leads into a problematic pattern of defending against a threat to the status quo rather than making any effort toward social advancement. They -never- rarely uproot any of the toxic power structures that plague society, instead punishing individual bad actors. This is not inherent to the concept of a superhero, but it is endemic to the genre.
I don't mean to imply that comics have no positive value. I know they've been a source of hope and positive role models for countless people. That still shouldn't blind us to their shortcomings.
• That is in fact *not* what a scientific theory is. This is like saying soup is a kind of sandwich because they're both food.
• There's an issue here with conflating different definitions of "objectivity." The whole scientific method is an attempt to cut through our inherently and inescapably subjective experiences to access a deeper truth about the universe beyond ourselves. As you pointed out, art is focused on those subjective experiences. Even if there is a base of broad commonalities between people's experiences and values, it's not fair or accurate to claim the same kind of objectivity. Shared subjectivity is sometimes called objective, but we know it really isn't.
• The fact that scientists and artists both hone their skills doesn't really make them the same thing either.
- Your first reply is a nothing burger
- A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world. It is quite literally that simple of a process
- Superheroes are good. It does not take a deep analysis to see the positive effect modern mythology has had on our world
- every single thing you replied with after absolutely does not correlate with the existence of heroes. You are the one conflating things without substantiating the correlation
- There is no "different definitions of objectivity". Again im noticing a pattern where comments that just disagree with me are getting promoted by people mad at the noodle video, which is upsetting cause they're just making really bad faith comments visible. This is not a good rebuttal at all
- Brother you're so lost in the sauce you failed to understand an artist and a scientist both exist in the same mind. I literally acknowledged their nuance are different in the video. These rebuttals are at a strawman you invented, not my video
@@ArchWizardCj replying hoping this thread goes somewhere, because while on one hand life is almost certainly too short for every youtube comment argument thread to be given fully reasoned and substantiated discourse, I would also absolutely love to see a community where opposing ideas like these can be talked through and reasoned without being dismissed out of hand
@@ArchWizardCj do you actually understand what a straw man means? like genuinely, what is a straw man argument. I want you to tell me.
This person is actually correct in their interpretation of superheroes. Sure, people may have gotten value from their existence, but that does not mean that those stories lead to good consequences. Superheroes, at their greatest extreme, are inherently fascistic as a result of the strong man rhetorical device. If a society looks up to a single person or a small group of people with seemingly supernatural abilities as the leader throughout all problems and difficulties, then their views can quickly become fascistic. Superheroes can be both good for role models of character and still be critiqued as being a problem at scale. The fact that you are unable to understand that nuance shows you to be pretty shallow.
You incorrectly identify what a scientific theory is. A scientific theory is a concept that is all but confirmed to be true through rigorous testing and experimentation. Your belief that a scientific theory is "a collection of thoughts rendered on a surface" means that if I think the sky is purple, I can write it down and make it a scientific theory. This is incorrect. Others must come to the exact same conclusion repeatedly. Now, if you believe everyone comes to the same conclusion about a piece of artwork, such as in your example of the two women with large breasts (very mature way of making your example btw), then maybe you should think introspectively about how shallow your interpretation of things is and how you could rectify that. There is no world where people look at the same piece of artwork and come to the same conclusion but you seem to believe that is so.
On that last point, if you claim that you don't believe that and say I created a straw man, then you really need to learn to write better because that is the clearest interpretation your video provides. Work on being as clear and to the point as possible. Remove the vapid, unfunny jokes or moments where you waste time with things that don't add to your point. Also, don't use slurs against those with mental disabilities that's just embarrassing.
with respect, you've already demonstrated you are arguing in bad faith. Im not replying further @@alexr1632
Nah, as I witness whats happening under this video I think thats not possible. There's no way to really curate people who are trying to have legitimate conversation and people who are just reactionaries mad at the video for strange personal reasons they constantly project. If we had better tools for discourse on youtube maybe, but atm its just me slamming into every argument I come across waiting to see who's in bad faith and who actually wants to engage, and I end up looking like an ass in the process to those without context. Just kinda lame atm lol @@Spacechess00
I’ve never considered Art from this perspective. I understood that Art is a way to contextualize and express our experiences, but to think of it in the same capacity as Science is a really encouraging thought as an Artist. It gives weight and gravitas to something I was repeatedly told was just a hobby, just a way to pass the time.
Banger as always, big dog. Can’t weight for more
To be fair, it has weight wether you agree it's science or not, because you created something that despite just being pixels on a screen or ink on paper, holds emotional meaning
Emotional investment is hard to create, and you essentially created it out of nothing but your own brain
That's powerful man
Hey CJ.
When I saw your video I was legit ready to hate on it because of the title. When I was in high school I had a teacher that said art was science but not in the same way you're saying, she'd say art is a science in a more cynical way like you could manufacture something good without having the experiences to back that up, essentially saying that you can make something good but without putting any soul in it and then she went to argue that good books or movies and stuff like that can just use a specific formula to exist and be amazing without the human element.
But after watching just a part of your video (I'm halfway through) I can tell that this isn't your take and I'm glad, your videos are amazing and you have a great mind and it's so good seeing how you take an idea and just slowly unravels it.
Amazing content, keep it up brother.
Your teacher is not only wrong about science and its purpose within society, but she understands art as a product, that the piece itself starts and stops within the context of the piece , and not the experiences put into the art piece, and the experiences taken away from the art piece. She's neither an artist nor a scientist, she's a consumer , and articulating art as a product to be consumed by a median of people. Crazy she's a "teacher" saying that lol
Science and art are both the human element, us exercising our ability to pull from abstraction.
Science is the why to things
Art is the why I oughta
We use both to navigate life in a broader scope than just the system we currently operate under. She just displays a severely inept understanding of either, and again that's like mad concerning lol
@@ArchWizardCj yeah she didn't last long in my school but I'd constantly argue with her about that particular point of view but when I was younger I couldn't even explain properly about the human element of it all, and your video made a lot more easy to understand it.
I wish I had her email or something to send her this video but she'd probably be stubborn and say her point is right lol.
To add to this long after the fact. Richard Feynman was very insistent that his written notes were not objects of science or his thinking, but his literal thoughts. As stated in the more recent video about Noodle being thoughtless, and how art is not free of its process: A story is a premise where characters and events are hypotheses and questions, art is a process of invocation, science is a mask on the underlying process of philosophy and good analogy. To figuratively be human is to be physically human.
@@Dan-gs3kg All this stuff reminds me of when people say that digital things, and video games aren't real. As if everything that happens inside a computer is fake and doesn't exist in reality. Whenever people say that I can't not argue that they literally do exist, not only are there real consequences to your online actions but also everything literally physically exists within your pc! Like it's measurably in there you can find it in the physical world if you look and use measuring tools, it's not in some fantasy dimension because out of sight out of mind.
@@misostrange you should look into what demonic possession is from the perspective of the possessed, and collective/mass hypnosis. It's still not real.
Saw the noodle video and went to see if the rest of your catalogue held up to the same quality, saw this video's title and thought it might be sus, and it ended up, again, being a great fucken video that encapsulates a ton of thoughts I've been having recently. The scientist comparison is especially apt/obvious when looking at the right artists at the right time, IE the weirder of the classical composers in like the 1900s through 1960s, half of whom literally wore lab coats and worked in labs because they were busy inventing synthesizers. Just to do music cooler. Art becomes so much more clearly a science when you can look at all the art you think is weird and which other people might call "not art" and begin to understand it's influences, meaning, and why it is the way it is, and realize it was made by people either expressing their weird ass self in a very hearfelt way, or at least some way significant to them, or people looking at the whole of art and going "Hmm, yeah these edges seem kinda fuzzy what if I did something none of yall have tried". It's a miracle that The Creative Well for humanity doesn't seem like it'll ever run dry, it'll just keep giving us more interesting. Water. I guess. It's also just cool that something can be both infinitely subjective and, pretty decisively, kinda shit or incredible. Like we as a whole can look at something that doesn't, void of context mean anything, so it could mean anything, and go "Yeah it's at the least very important, influential, and it's trying to say a bunch of stuff that's real profound" and that be true
Also fuck AI art it doesn't have any experiences to be conveying. No you didn't make that, AI art person, you commissioned that robot to do it, and you at best gave it concise revision notes. if you want it to be art go make your own thing out of it where it being AI is either inconsequential in the face of your broader creative intent or where it being AI is the point and you're commenting on it in some way. Like Babbdi, I think
FINALLY SOMEONE WHO SAYS IT.
This thought as been stuck in my brain for the better part of half a year, when I was searching synonyms for art, skill, talent, etc. for a personal project, see the meanings of the words and what is suggested, take 20 seconds to think, then put the puzzle pieces together.
You making this video, will be a godsend when trying explain my thinking and I can’t thank you enough!
For the better part of my life I always disliked the "art is subjective" line of thinking, it just never sat well with me, and in my own journey as an artist the closest I got to countering this idea was something along the lines of: 'Art is extracted through perception, which is a symptom of a biological reality, therefore it must have an objective foundation.'
But this video hits the nail on the head. Plus its much better and simpler to communicate those ideas. I'm genuinely relieved that i'm not the only artist to feel/think this way about it. :)
Same I was fed it studying Photography and never bought into it. The thing I don't understand is I've heard some people see pieces of art objectively and assumed the whole "art is subjective" argument to be the mouth piece of some 15 year old that doesn't know anything. But apparently this mentality goes around. I don't know why people are so scared of the idea of art being objective. Just treat it like a debate.
My view has been expanded, I like this new angle especially after being fed the whole “art being subjective” narrative for a majority of my life, as always CJ i hope you’re doing well and I’m glad to see you posting at your own pace
With a video like this, it's clear you got art down to a science
You know, ive always thought of philosophy as in a similar position as science, but ive never thought art could be like that too... Great vid!
Philosophy and science were pretty much the same thing in ancient Greece, since a lot of it's just thinking about how to define things and interpret knowledge
Yeah, I think this was a pretty interesting contextualization of what it means to be subjective and objective as these terms are relevant to both art and science, with the necessary link to the scientific process in order to emphasize those comparisons. However, I'm not sure how well this responds to predominant concepts of art "subjectivity" and "objectivity" considering that the main contention all these other "thinkers" have and the contention that you have with said "thinkers" is also a matter of term definition and term context.
I guess what I mean to say is: on its own, it's a lovely video essay on the comparisons between art and the fields popularly considered as "sciences". I just think your arguments box themselves out of the conversation since you're providing a definition of terms as an argument when (at least from what I've observed) the rest of the world is arguing over subjective and objective CRITICISM, not about art itself as a practice and field. "Our experience, evaluation, and appreciation of art comes entirely from personal perspectives, therefore you cannot criticize art objectively." vs "Art exists as an object in a world with historical traditions of conventions, standards, and trends, and therefore you can criticize art objectively."
They're attempting to argue art as an instance not their own subjective validation of art. They equate it being subjective in value to it as an instance beung nebulous. I am not confused on the matter at all lmao
As somewhat of a artist I agree to all of this the point of art is to articulate a experience using self expression to convey a message of any kind(if any)to others or oneself. I completely agree as you once said before CJ two people can stand in front of a white screen and see and feel two totally different things. Art is a science that’s always interchanging depending on one interpretation
hey CJ how yah been, drinking water?
as someone whose never put any thought into the subject
my biggest take away(specifically after the clip of that husky ginger Mr) is something i’m seeing pretty consistently throughout a lot of debates which do end up recontextualizing a lot of objective things
monetary worth doesnt equal value
value equals value
which is where i think a lot of people lose their intentions when talking about what value encompasses
it should never be that deep to me. your vid explained it great after a second watch through, it’s an individuals experiences that make that value
good to see yah again dawg, can’t wait til the nxt
This is actually crazy because i was thinking of something like you were explaining when I was describing how I felt when watching across the spider verse it is indescribable because you have to feel the experience. Glad to see you’re back with another thought provoking video keep it up
Hey man I’ve been watching year videos for years now and genuinely they’ve never disappointed me
What an amazing and thought provoking video, it’s a masterpiece in my subjective opinion
welp like they said, this video feels like validation of my opinion. the editing style is sick. it's good to see you back.
I think this is flawed argument because its uncharitable to why people would call art subjective. And that, what you are saying in this video is not mutually exclusive to the idea that art is 'subjective'. The whole notion of art as subjective was a historical reflex against the western artistic inclination to make 'art' into a stratified specific thing that only wealthy learned people understood or cared about or could bring value toward. They are not saying it to diminish the power or impact art can have or to make 'art' an ambiguous blob of activity that has no 'craft' or reason to it or innate value.
Not even to say that what you are saying in the video is entirely incorrect, it just feels like a particular omission that the endowment of 'subjectivity' onto art is just a semantic compromise, not a 'literal' fact.
I can't help but feel like your bigger issue is one with poor media literacy which is an entirely different issue than the semantics around art as 'subjective'.
Why is everyone arguing against something I never said in the video, as refutation to the video
I literally at 4:34 say the process is simultaneously both. There's is no one or other with art, it exists and is based in our subjective emotions. Its both. Why is this hard to grasp? genuinely im asking, why is this hard to grasp for yall cause I dont know how much clearer I can be in my messaging
So many words, yet so little substance that pertains to LITERALLY ANYTHING HE IS SAYING
@@therandombowguy1207 it’s awful isn’t it
How have you been man? Is youtube giving you the attention you deserve yet? Been here since the EDP days and even when i didnt agree with how you said things you always took the time to discuss and workthrough the issues, making sure people knew exactly what you meant and for that i thank you. Something big is coming your way and life is about to change for the better, the lessons you have learned and the growth you have achieved going through challenging times will help you maintain it too. Keep on keeping on and let the world hear your song. ✌️
I've yearned every day for an ArchWizard CJ video. Thank you fella. 🙏
I’ve never considered art like this…holy shit great vid man
I found your channel earlier just today via your analysis on Noodle. It’s a shame these other videos of yours, filled with your personal flair and evidently the results of a perfectionist’s tailored efforts, do not pull nearly as much attention. For what little it means, a stranger on the internet thanks you for providing them with new fuel for thought.
you have perfectly verbalized intangible beliefs i've been trying to grasp and communicate. thank you.
So far, each of the videos I've seen of your have been deeply insightful. Your channel blows me away.
This is why Neil DeGrasse Tyson suggested sending a poets to space as well as scientists.
yo, the editing and video quality in this.
Fucking GOLD. glad to hear from you btw, hope your ok.
SOLDIERS! OUR SCHOLAR HAS RETURNED!!! 🫡
All nine of us 😢
My friend recommended me this video and I've really enjoyed it. The video is a very thought povoking piece of art.
While, I disagree with some characterisations of science, the videos portrayal of art is really engaging and I agree with many of the points WizardCJ makes on art.
unironically top 5 UA-cam video ive ever seen. automatic sub. please keep making art
Great video honestly, I wish I watched more videos like this.
An interesting take, however feelings aren't so cleany categorized, and if the artists objective isn't to make you feel what they feel this isn't true.
I’m a little late but, wow. That was fucking awesome. Worth the wait
Waking up to a cj vid is a great start to someone’s day
You are the flesh and the voice with which you have shared this video
And yet it is your emotion, your spirit that has wrecked my chest, my stomach, my eyes; and shown me the fractal of the human experience
Wherever you are, whenever you are, I thank you. You have given me life.
Watched you from high school back in 2014 till now. Still in college and taking courses for Occupational therapy. Just here to plagiarize your works....
Jk I fucking love your vids dude, your voice (no homo), your takes on topics like these. If anything I hope to hear more from you so I can expand my understanding of our world and be apart of the culture. Much love dude!
It’s awesome to see you still replying to people in the comments to this day! I’ll throw my hat in the ring and say that i think the underlying problem here is that we all seem to have different understandings of what we mean by “subjective” and “objective”, which is making it so hard for certain people to understand what you’re saying and so easy for others. To me that speaks to the reason why all art is ultimately subjective, because while you can objectively measure anything the value of that scale of measurement will always be subjective. We can find value in certain scales of measurement based on how well they reflect what most people are looking for in art, approaching art with a utilitarian perspective, but that approach is no more objective than saying that whatever my friend Jerry says is good art is what is objectively good art. Critical engagement shouldn’t require believing your interpretation to be the objectively correct one, we should all acknowledge that while our perspectives are subjective we do gain something new from measuring the world against our unique perspectives. I think that’s the critical difference between art and science, there is an objective thing to be measured with science and we create an approach that will best reflect that objective reality, but what values you find in one perspective are no more or less true than the values in another perspective. Art is about exploring and refining your perspective about a world with the understanding someone can reach a completely different conclusion about the world with completely different methods and be equally valid as you. The only objective part about art is being true to your own perspective
Omg ive been saying this for the longest time! And you put it in a video. Fucking perfect
im happy to help you find your voice friend. May you take this video and use it as a foundation for further understanding
OMG...YES!
Thank you for saying all that better than I can.
Very cool video! 😎👍 Keep up the great work man!
Like many I came from the noodle vid and mid way through this one I smashed that sub button.
You didn't touch on the process of science and art much so I feel I can share my thought and extend your argument with a little example:
You've been in this field for years, learned all the basic rules and guidelines needed to properly communicate with your co workers and other peers.
So you get an idea and start working on it. You're thinking of different ways you could tackle this, work out other perspectives,
maybe compare what you see with others while you're making it. You're experimenting with what you've come up with
Was I talking about a scientist or an artist? The process is the same:
You're taking the knowledge of the world and your craft, seeing how you can apply it in the real world by following the rules of your craft and seeing which rules you can break
I'm getting insane ass nostalgia from hearing your voice. I wanted to do content just like you, and I loved the tiwasll's you use to post much love CJ
why didnt you?
I don't even know tbh guess I forgot about it as new things came up I was like 12 or 13 when I started watching your vids
But you're a legend man I have tons of respect for you
Was just checking your channel yesterday and was like damn I miss your videos.
8:36 had me on the FUCKING FLOOR you almost committed a homicide! that's some comedy genius right there... to go from the most serious discussion about the importance of art and the definition of what it is... to HENTAI gave me so much whiplash...
It's surreal whenever I find a small channel that slaps this hard and I just have to sit here and wonder how in the actual fuck it isn't bigger than it is. Like, am I here early or does everyone else just have bad taste? On one hand, it's been many years of quality content so I'm probably not early, but on the other hand, I'm kinda dumb and most people are smarter than me. I can't rationalize it.
Thus, fuck you.
im actually touching on that in my next video lol I can explain everything wrong with UA-cam actually from a top down sense
Just found your channel and I Love the video. I agree with you, even more so when you take into account the social sciences. I’m an anthropology major and so far in the field we look at human experiences from an objective lenses. When I first started watching this video it reminded me of the field I’m studying. I feel as if anthropology is more akin to art than any other field of science because it deals with culture and human experiences, but that’s just my opinion.
I like this guy
“Subjective” vs “objective” discourse usually seems to devalue the idea of subjectivity, like because something is important it can’t be subjective (especially at 1:43 and 5:54). That because you can define something, it must be objective.
But, using a definition of art doesn’t prove its objectivity. Definition itself can be broken down to “this feels correct”. Say the definition of a mug is a cup with a handle, a cup is a vessel that holds liquid, maybe its shape and size differentiate it from a bowl, maybe it’s how you use it, etc.; as you go deeper it boils down into “this feels like a thing that is different from this object, so it’s its own thing.” This doesn’t make a mug or our definition of it any less valuable though. You bought the mug to hold coffee, and your subjective definition of a mug led you to now be able to hold coffee.
Objectivity is the world, and subjectivity is our means of understanding it. Our subjective ideas around art can lead us to create some change in objective reality that we can subjectively define as art. “You only call one objective, when both are equally necessary” does more to show the importance of subjectivity, than it does to disprove the place it holds in art.
Sorry if I just wrote an incomprehensible mess, I just thought this was too quick to put down the idea of art being subjective as "stupid" or "misunderstanding", which kind of just blocks off a lot of cool cinversation around it. This video is still cool and a lot of the ideas are really interesting, though.
Bro went from for honor to philosophy. I love it
The Sean incident... (great video cj keep it up👍)
Watched this after the noodle video, you're really good at this ! I'm subscribing
Mathematics, rightly viewed, possesses not only truth, but supreme beauty a beauty cold and austere, like that of sculpture, without appeal to any part of our weaker nature, without the georgeous trappings of painting or music, yet sublimely pure, and capable of a stern perfection such as only the greatest art can show. The true spirit of delight, the exaltation, the sense of being more than Man, which is the touchstone of the highest excellence, is to be found in mathematics as surely as in poetry. - Bertrand Russell
Same coin, different side.
beautiful quote
THE KING HAS RETURNED WITH ANOTHER BANGER 🔥
Then he's gonna take 3 months or more to upload again
@@moxxierose4459 yeah I have a life and other priorities why do yall get mad over that
@@ArchWizardCjthey npcs bruh
they're so used to inhuman content mills they think me taking time to myself is laziness lol @@vexial12
This video made liquid run down the length of my leg so i stopped watching it.
He's back, and even better at editing what tf 😂
I like the Bill Wurtz inspiration
The King returns to spit fire 🔥
Isn't the point your supposed to be arguing whether or not the quality of a piece of art can be objectively determined and not whether the status of something being art can be objectively determined? I suppose some are trying to argue the latter, but even in some of the examples you use in this video, they're arguing against objectively measuring the quality of art, not if something is art.
this is very confusing to read. What do you think my video is about?
@@ArchWizardCj Sure, let me ask you this and I think it'll help clarify. Do you think quinton reviews was arguing against whether something can be labeled art or if something that is already acknowledged to be art can be categorized as good art or bad art?
that is not what he said at all what @@Snowjob109
@@ArchWizardCj brother what are you talking about? Do you know what a question is? I didn't say he said anything, I asked you what you thought he was arguing.
there is no what I thought he clearly states it in the video huh @@Snowjob109
So happy to see CJ back at it again
yo wtf this is too good, plz make more stuff
“Art is not based in experience” is such a crazy sentence I’m glad I’m not the only one that caught that lmfao
Yeah belligerently wrong statement 😭😭
I would be really interested in a video of yours going over the differences between art and science. Here are my thoughts:
I'm not saying science is not subjective or it does not have bias in it , but there are factual elements of science that do not exist for art .
Without humans there is no mona lisa, with or without out humans there will always be gravity. Science is our subjective and biased way of understanding an objective universe. In science we minimize humanity in (impossible) strive for "truth" , art on the other hand is humanity .
Science is subjective, art is subjectivity.
(Great video btw)
without humans there is no understanding of gravity which is exactly the point I make in the video
@ArchWizardCj damn that was a fast response 😳 😆 (ty)
I don't disagree that they are similar, just that they are different, too.
We out here.
Great video! Can't wait to see more💯
cj back lets gooooo
Learn something new everyday. Thank you Mr. CJ for your wisdom.
This video is exquisite.
damn this a banger fr
He’s Back!
Got me interested in art now
HES BACK YES YES YES YES
Very good point about how people will say something isn’t art. But neglect to realize that good art and bad art exist. Something doesn’t need to be amazing and win awards and make millions of dollars to be considered “art”… but it doing those things makes it good art. If it doesn’t then it’s bad art. Because bad art exists, and bad art is also objective, cuz we can measure the impact of it and how people felt about it. If nobody liked your art that means it’s bad art cuz all the people who saw it didn’t feel any emotions at all towards it and ignored it and forgot about it.
Also I think art is like food. People saying “this videogame is a work of art” are basically actually saying “this food is edible”. It’s not enough information to prove any point at all. But people say “this is a work of art” to mean “this is a GOOD work of art”. Cuz they don’t realize bad art exists. So they are saying “this food is edible” instead of “this food is delicious/disgusting”
I missed you man
LETS FUCKING GO HE'S BAAAAAAAAAACK
Good art and bad art is purely an opinion, not a fact. However, you COULD argue that art itself is a fact. The way I define art goes thus: art is anything that is generally visual, generally man-made and inherently capable of causing emotions and thoughts. That's it. My definition is, as I feel, a much more impartial way to describe art regardless of quality and one's opinions on it.
Anyone know the track at 6:39? Sounds really familiar but I can't put my finger on it.
Nevermind, found it! It's Song of Healing from Zelda: Majora's Mask.
❤ Yes sir yes sir
The Fucking Goat is back niggaaaaaaaaa
I was always confused and frustrated by the idea that art is just "subjective" and it's all open to interpretation. Which to many sound meaningful but honestly that sounds meaningless. No matter how much we debate over a subject the "subjective" baby blanket is used to shut it down. Subjectivity is really complicated and not easy to answer, how can I just say "it's all subjective"? I think people's liking of things, even objectively good things are subjective for how people have preferences and don't love all kinds of media. Someone who like artsy surreal movies hating comic book movies seeing some good ones will appreciate them but unless they really fall in love with it, which can happen, it certainly won't always have that chance at make them flock to them.
You can subjectively say Citizen Kane or Mozart is trash but they're objectively great. In terms of interpretation I believe in valid intepretations, as someone can misinterpret, and it's ridiculous people say you can't misinterpret art because yes you can, and having multiple objectively good iterations based on a IP for example, but to say all are valid is to say you'll love every Star Wars sequel. You can objectively say a sequel or two is garbage.
🔥🔥🔥
You came back!!! I know it!
Very good video :3
Im kind of confused. I want to agree with you, i think i agree with you?? Maybe?? But i feel like youre missing the point of people saying art is mot science. I feel like what they mean by objective is its the same for everyone else. Like when you prove gravity, youve proven gravity. And thats true everywhere to everyone, wether they accept it or not. But if you draw an amazing, emotional piece of art, it could throw someone in a depression while simultaneously pulling someome else out of a depression. I think its kind of both subjective and objective at the same time. I don't know, i think i might be missing something, maybe even more than one something that you said
I think we're on the same boat. I've rewatched the video 3-4 times just trying to understand it, and I just don't and am just confused. By ~4 minutes in, I get lost
What I'm getting is "art is as objective as science is, because both take intangible but very much real and factual things and try to understand them". Science explains the world we sense (physically) through laws and theories, while art explains the world we feel (emotionally) through shapes and colors (or sounds or words or whatever medium you use). Both what we see and we feel exist. They're there.
I guess the issue is exactly what you said, people taking "art is subjective" to mean "the definition of art is subjective" rather than "the experience of art is subjective"
Or I could be talking out of my ass, who knows. I might be. Probably am.
@@rubyynn bro you understood it perfectly fine you werent confused at all lol
5:46 music?
man, I'mma be real, this is the worst intro/title for whatever your argument is going to be. I'm sure its good and I'm sure you worked hard on making this presentation, but I'm barely 2 mins in and all you've done so far is show why someone shouldn't listen to your perspective. A friend linked this to me so I'm gonna hear you out, but acting smug and edgy against someone elses genuine viewpoint only proves that there are multiple viewpoints and it depends any one person's notions and experiences to determine how an idea will be perceived, including yours.
If the intro is meant to be ironic, its a bit of a commitment to make it so long and dry. It really obscures the message you're trying to say, whatever that is.
Edit: Watched the rest. "Some processes of art are objectively better because one of these pictures make me horny and one doesn't" is the dumbest shit I've ever heard. You are literally subverting your own argument. There are times where science and art overlap. There are times where artists use new tech to broaden their artistic horizons and there are times where artists have created things that have helped things in STEM. You are right in that, and honestly that's kinda the only thing you have been right about this whole time. The key thing you're missing is that science is the cataloguing of observations while "the arts" are generally more geared to the conveyance and expression of observations. There are times where scientists preform acts of art. There are times where artists preform acts of science. To turn this into an objectivity/subjectivity thing just seems like your own views on the stereotypes of "the arts" and "the sciences".
brother this comment is complete anti- intellectual rhetoric you erroneously spurred up in response to my Noodle video(obviously) w, because why at all would you conjure this luke warm puddle of piss in my comments section, especially here of all videos lmao
""Some processes of art are objectively better because one of these pictures make me horny and one doesn't"
You didn't even engage with my video, this entire comment is just a strawman and adhominem attack. I said
"art is based in experiences. Standards and Quality are apart of that experience(8:15)"
Which is objectively true, in fact that point was in refutation to a man saying "Art is objective because it is based in standards and quality(8:01) " I am *LITERALLY* arguing the opposite here. That art IS subjective because your emotional response to an art piece is the true deciding factor in its validity. I even point out the fact someone else would still prefer the other option B, which is why I still have to censor its boobs. And if you are trying to argue a stick figure is equivocal to a portrait drawing of mommy milkers you are delusional.
Even your critique on the title is invalid I call art a science because the process of creating art is the exact same as the process of conducting scientific theory in the mind of the human producing said works. This is insanely pathetic. You should be deeply ashamed you tried this on me lmao
like delete this comment you made an ass of yourself for no reason
🙏
Lets goooo
I mean, there is a difference. Science always exists and art exists when we make it. Gravity is was and always will be a thing, but Mozart only starts being a thing when he creates it. Not that this makes either less valuable, in fact art might be more valuable since it's something that doesn't have value until it exists.
Very well made video, Great editing and I do like a lot of the questions and ideas you posit..... that said, I don't really agree with the end conclusion.
For me this is mode of analysis is broken when you consider the bar of entry for scientists vs artist. Now unless I'm horribly misunderstanding something (which is entirely possible) you seem to imply that artists akin to scientists, should be our authorities on the interpretations of art. That you have to go through a qualification process (for the artist presumably art school of some kind) which makes you a REAL artist and thus are able to decipher art for us.
My problem with this stems from what science and art fundamentally are in their application. The simple fact that one observes the material reality and the other observes non material reality, makes them incomparable as far as I'm concerned. To be a scientist requires access to a TON of equipment and tools that often your average joe isn't going to be able to afford. you'll then need to find something of value to contribute to the scientific community, only after YEARS of studying to acquire the skills necessary to figure out all the different official processes and knowledge needed for your particular field.
an artist just needs to know how to draw which can be self taught, and a drawing tablet to do their work. ( for other mediums, requiring even less) There are people who make art that touches a lot of people and convey the feelings of the human experience that haven't even gotten a college degree, some on this very platform. Are these people not artists even though some of them will have more success and reach than people with the proper training? I can't in good conscious say no.
TLDR: What about artists that find success online independent of any sort of proper schooling? Are you saying they're not artists?
- Artists are the authority of art at all times. To dispute this is to dispute the history of art. How could art have a chronicled history of stand out works, and artists, if there is no bog standard art is held to? This argument has never made sense no matter how many people try to posit it. Art is not purely nebulous and never has been. We have agreed consensus on art all the time, and we pick and choose who is valid as artists and what is valid to us as art all the time; but the laymen does not dictate the bleeding edge of art just because he can pick up the pencil the same way he does not define the bleeding edge of science simple because he can engage in the scientific theory. Again if what you said was true, that artists are not equivalent to scientists, the Mona Lisa would not hold as much memetic presence to us as Einstein's theory of relativity.
Anyone can engage in art, anyone can be an artist, anyone can have a stroke of genius when creating art, not everyone is an artist who taps into art to the point where they are at the bleeding edge of art. Im sorry to say
@@ArchWizardCj
I was under the impression the point you were making was about artists in general not what defines the bleeding edge.
If you're just saying that artists are the authority in what art has the most validity from a purely artistic standpoint, then sure. I suppose that's fair enough. I obviously think their are some qualifiers to that statement but on a basic level I agree.
On a cultural, practical level however, well the MCU has had way more of effect on culture and emotionally effected more people than pretty much any series of movies in human history, and yet a widely renowned artist like martin scorsese, says they're not cinema. by your logic, martin would be right and we could declassify the entire thing as art, and i don't think that's a very good way of defining art if you can just ignore something with that much impact. no matter if you like them or not, their impact is something I don't think should be ignored.
Sure, Only the most skilled, elite or straight up lucky artists will make the cutting edge. If that's your argument we agree, I'm just arguing formal training isn't necessarily a prerequisite for the title of artist the same way it is for a scientist.
I'm not arguing artists and scientists are equivalents in scale, You hit the nail with the head on that one. I think they're not comparable in terms of processes. How we go about engaging with them.
you lost me completely with this one lol @@Too-Much-Caffeine
@ArchWizardCj do you consider people who have high impact with no formal training, artists? Which is more valuable, the effect your art has or the qualifications you have to comment on it?
That's really what the gist was. Idk what else you found confusing. I feel like I was pretty clear.
I have a high impact with no formal training what is this even in refutation to lol @@Too-Much-Caffeine
Said he was back 7 months ago
i can’t believe i missed this upload i am a horrible subscriber
You're fine bro. As many people that watch this is a gift, I genuinely just wanted to share what I feel is the foundation for my beliefs in art
I might be missing something but wouldn't something being disingenuous only add a unique element to it? like if a film spread blatant misinformation and did so not because whoever made it believes in that message but purely to grift and make as much money as possible that would be an expression of human experience, like it could unintentionally provide the experience of grifting or what would lead someone to do that
this is a brilliant comment. Not even I thought of this angle damn. I need to reflect on this lmaooo
@@ArchWizardCj Im glad! Keep up the good work btw ive been binging your videos since I saw the noodle one, really good stuff!
Hell yea
Its done:((
You are geniunely committing a lot of mistakes in your comparison, and that is why art is completely subjective:
1- The peer review comparison:
When someone peer reviews your article, they are searching for logical inconsistencies and mistakes. They are also trying to evaluate whether you followed the scientific method or not. The problem here is that these two standards (logical principles and the scientific method) which determine the validity of a work are completely objective. What does this mean? It means that the way in which we arrive to these standards that determine if something is true or not is NOT based upon something that differs from person to person. The method by which we arrive at the principles of logic as the rulers of correct reasoning is completely absent from feelings: contradictions cannot be even imagined, a third true value cannot be even imagined, etc…
With the scientific method the same happens: it is OBJECTIVELY impossible to prove universal statements, hence we have to use popper’s falsification method.
This two things will determine the validity of a certain reasoning REGARDLESS of the differences between the subjects who have to determine the validity of said reasoning. They will both arrive at the same conclusion. They will both work with the same standards since it is impossible to work outside of them; there is no replacement for either the scientific method or the principles of logic.
When it comes to art, there are NO OBJECTIVE STANDARDS: if you say to them “look at this piece of art and determine if it is good or not (which would be the equivalent of asking someone wether something is true or not)” they will have to use some kind of standards to achieve that goal. The problem here is that ALL STANDARDS ARE VALID FOR THIS TASK. There isn’t a defined set of rules, like the principles of logic, that we cannot break, hence constituting an objective standard that we will use to produce a judgment. I can perfectly choose not to evaluate how realistic the characters are or how much sense the plot makes, AND LITERALLY NOTHING WOULD HAPPEN. If I decided to stop abiding by the principle of non-contradiction, I simply wouldn’t be able to, since humans cannot even fathom contradictions, it is a concept that we cannot even imagine (try to imagine something that is a ball and that also is not a ball, using the same definition of “ball” both times), so we cannot escape from this rule.
When it comes to art, we can choose to not abide by any standard we want, so there isn’t an objective set of rules that, after following it, will lead us to objective art.
2- About proving things in both science and art:
Hypotheses are certainly evaluated via experimentation, which is based on your experience. Art is also based on your experience of a certain object. The problem here is that science leaves experimental variables that can change without the object itslef changing OUT of the table. This means that, for people who are trying to analyze THE OBJECT itself, they have to put subjective experiences (which are experiences that change from subject to subject without the object that is being analyzed changing) out of the table.
We cannot equate science to art in the way things are proven precisely because one successfully arrives at objective truths, while the other cannot do so since it is based on subjective experiences like FEELINGS.
that is why this video in its entirety is wrong.
- your inability to separate the process' nuance and the process itself when I explicitly specified the differences in the video is telling
- "The problem here is that science leaves experimental variables that can change without the object itslef changing OUT of the table."
you can quite literally apply this to art in the exact same capacity and it still hold true. My video remains accurate in its observations and we have yet another bloated pseudo intellectual comment telling me I'm wrong lmao
"When it comes to art, there are NO OBJECTIVE STANDARDS" it is objectively true personal standards impact your experience on art. Scientific theories lack just as much objectivity which is why they change just as frequently as art does in the zeitgeist. We just debunked Stephan Hawking's research on black holes. What about this is hard to understand lol
@@ArchWizardCj 1- You say that I cannot separate the process’ nuance and the process itself, yet you are not even specifying what you are talking about (you are not making sense at all). It does not even make any sense if you analyze the phrase based on the definitions of the words you use:
Nuance: a subtle distinction or variation.
Process: a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end.
If we replace the meaning of said words with the words itself in the sentence, you will rapidly see that you just said some lazy-ass ambiguos thingmajig pseudo intelectual shit that does not even make any sense (which is funny considering you are the one saying I am being pseudointellectual). Let’s cut straight to the chase and see how the phrase ends up:
I cannot separate the [subtle distinction or variation] of [series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end] and the [series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end] itself.
IT LITERALLY MAKES NO SENSE, at least try to camouflage your own word salads before someone noticing. Also, let me guess: you have no background whatsoever in philosophy of science.
2- “You can literally apply this to art in the exact same capacity and it still holds true” Yes, nothing stops you from leaving out things that change while the object remains the same. You know what forms this category? Feelings and subjective experiences. So good luck judging art without using the same things you say in the video that are used to interact with art (whatever does this lazy-ass terminology or analogy means).
🙅♂️🙅♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
@@ArchWizardCj You have completely confounded the concept of objectivity to arrive at your conclusion there.
Just because something has been debunked does not mean that the standards used to determine the validity of scientific knowledge lack objectivity. Remember that we are talking strictly about objective standards.
When something is disproven in physics, it happens because a contradictory observation has been produced. Things in science ARE NOT PROVEN, they are just considered true until being disproven. That is Popper’s method in a nutshell.
What does this have to do with what you said? Well, you said “science is not that objective if things are constantly changing” implying that “the scientific ‘facts’ we gather are constantly being disproven or changed”. The thing is that no thing such as a scientific fact exists, since, resorting to popper’s notion, nothing in science (no universal law) can be proven. This means that we cannot say that the corpus of scientific facts is sketchy because it is constantly changing, since there is no corpus of scientific facts in the first place. This does not mean that science is not objective, because objectivity in a certain area is determined by the standards use to determine the validity of things inside of it. Standards of science are IMPOSSIBLE to avoid: deviating from the scientific method implies deviating from the principles of logic, something that a human cannot achieve. In art you can perfectly avoid any set of standards used to determine wether something is good or bad, so there is no objectivity in that area.
Second of all, if there are no objective standards for determining value inside of art, then there is no objective good or bad. That is my main point.
Finally, what about hawkings work has been debunked? The only attempts at debunking him that comes to my mind are some random flat earthers on the internet that don’t understand the notion of space and time as physical things.
World with out science is chaos and death. There's a guy who though science thinks he have become death....the irony.
So...it ... it's subjective.... because people will have different objective feelings on the same art.
Some like it for this fact. ( Hoping what they see as fact actually holds up)
And people will hate it for this fact
( Hoping said fact holds up)
Dose it do what you say it does in your personal explanation of why you love it, and do anyone sees value in what you said it does that made you love it?
Last of us...the Creator of last of Us 2 wanted to show tribalism.... Allegedly.
A lot of people says he could have done it better..but other people say
"because you hate a new character over killing an old character not necessarily a character that you like, but an old character then it was done perfectly"
Facts: was it silly how new character found old character? ...yes.
The excuses were terrible.....but seeing how it feels ok to others...they will not agree. Because of feelings...over the fact that there's a lot of people...named Joel who have daughters.
The story even set up that Ellie
(the daughter figure) wasn't guaranteed to live by the time the new character found her. The facts...do not matter to these people because they FELT that it was ok.
Subjective feelings can not.. always be facts...you can experience a science experiment where the outcome will always be the same unless a new variable is introduced. Facts do not care about how you feel.
So what makes great art great....might not always be what the crowd says is great but how you personally feel about it.
But how you personally feel about it might not be how the majority feels about it.
So....idk about you...but this experience happens to me a lot.
This could be happening because other people experience do not dictate quality, or how I personally feel about anything, or
Maby i have shit taste.
Meh... probably the last one.
The heroes journey and other story telling formulas exist and people have used them even if they don't fully commit to it.
Um what is the point of rhis video...art is not subject...how is it not?
Because... because.....ah..i got it.
Because a love story can't be a love story without at least one character falling in love...any type of love will do with any type of message. Unrequited love with lesson being there are other fish in the ocean ,or you don't haft to date to show love, or the difference between love and a obsession.
Through other people i know that
Doom Eternal was not a love story.
And that's how through other people i judge....ok ...i don't even think a 5 year old with no writing lessons at all would say
That game is a love story.....but i know a child with no experience with love as a concept could be tricked into thinking it was a love story of some kind...so .... yeah... because as humans we need reference to identify abstract things ,
you can judge artwork objectively.
This is a love story. Is it a good love story? Well no because this stories idea of love is fucked up. It says to show love you must cut off the head of the person you like.... it's not even saying that ironically.. it's just saying love is murder.
What..you like it...the fuck is wrong with y.... what ...you like it as a peace to show what not to do? Ok i guess...wait... it's your favorite love story because it's a show case of what love isn't and your going to make a video explaining it.....uh..ok... sounds fine as long as you agree it's not a good love story.
I remember a lot of UA-camrs i wach always saying that about terrible movies and shows. That they are great think peaces on what not to do... sometimes knowing all the wrong answers can help..but seeing there can be almost infinite wrong answers to the question what is a love story...i can see why people follow and study and copy successful love stories.
Ok after typing it all out to help me think...
Yeah. Great video.
Oftenheimer is ironic af tho😂.
Or whatever his name is.
Edited... shit i should have let the rest or your vid play out.
Art is like cooking.... because you can be competent at both....ok...so it's like science because you need to be really good at ether to be considered a professional.
I fucked up.......all well.
But now that i get your meaning....
Um...yeah still good video.
8:16
I had 2 minutes left but i didn't think a line would come out that would help me understand further. 🤣 Dang.
you still missed the point lmao art and science are the same process entirely just different fields of study@@kharijordan6426
@@ArchWizardCj
Dang. So it's the process...not you saying it's the same... just the process is the same. What was the process again.
Observation, question, hypothesis, experiment,
Result?
Ok...is this art good at making you feel afraid?
It can't make everyone afraid because not everyone is afraid of the same things.
Just because someone can be afraid of the scary movie doesn't mean it's a good scary movie or used any film techniques at all to gain the desire effect.
Ok I can see why you say it just the process of Art being the same process of science.
This is why test audiences exist..to experiment and get the right formula for I show or movie to get a desired effect. It doesn't need to click with every just enough people to make bank.
@@ArchWizardCj Plato on Identity, Sameness, and Difference
I think i kinda disagree but i like the vid made me think.
W vid tbh
This argument just falls flat because you're twisting the definition of science with no consistancy.
Scientists don't focus on the intangible, Science is just a synonym for knowledge that was arbitrarily picked up to contain a set of subcategories of knowledge less than two hundred years ago. The standard definition of science includes fields such as chemistry, biology and geology which study very tangible things, gravity is a cherry picked example that just makes you sound pretentious. Choosing Einstein over a famous chemist or anatomist is just as much cherry picking even if your Einstein-Picasso/Van Gogh comparison holds (which it might from a point of view).
Most scientists can't explain the theory of relativity very well.
The arts is also a relatively recent subcategory for sets of skills (hence artisan having the same etymology despite artisans not necessarily being artists) but that just means that art and science are both domains of skill and knowledge, doesn't mean art = science. Etymologically you can call painting and chemistry 'sciences (eg fields of knowledge) but that's just egotistical wankery that confuses people used to common word usage.
"Arts and sciences" is a common term for technical knowledge that implies that these are separate domains. Arbitrary domains but useful ones. Science was defined by excluding art from it for a good reason, no matter how arbitrary that exlusion was and what overlaps exist between the two categories.
Artistic standards might be a form of social knowledge and your justification of such is fine but that IS NOT peer review. Peer review is a specific
kind of knowledge creating social activity that is just too narrow for the kind of broad equivilance you're trying to draw (pun intended?)
Pointing out that artistic standards and scientific theories are both socially defined is all well and good until you go deliberately ignoring colloqial language use just to confuse people. The same social activities that define scientific fields also split art from the sciences, you can complain about how they're really similar in a lot of ways all you like in the end you just sound like you want to associate your craft with 'science' as a prestige marker and don't actually respect science for its distinctiveness.
A scientific theory is not 'words on a page'. Its defined by its predictive theory. Lord of the Rings might have just as much ability to effect the world as a patent for a steam engine but a machine isn't science either, its engineering. The steam engine is INFORMED by scientific theories but novels are informed and understood by LITERARY THEORY. Come on for ****'s sake, the arts literally have their own fields of theory which are the direct equivilant to scientific theory, calling a novel trilogy the artistic equivilant to theory is the dumbest argument I've heard this year.
Science is also founded on sensory data, that's what 'empiricism' means (you acknowledge this latter but that just means your early point was a disconnected waste of time). Science is also subjective, direct measurements (using arbitrary units) is a small subpart of science and using 'objectivity' to define science is just ignorance. Artists make direct measurements (often using the same units) all the time but your definition treats those as fairly trivial.
It takes the same neurons to die of alchohol poisoning as it does to test the tensile strength of steel, doesn't make them both art. Chemists and meterologists are both humans, doesn't make them identical to each other any more than artists and scientists both being human does.
Art and science can equally cause chaos and death so that's just idealistic pablum. There's a lot of art about science causing chaos and death, including a lot of the superhero media you claim is so important (a non-scientific claim if there ever was one since we don't have a parrelel earth where the only difference is no superhero fiction to make that test).
You're using the colloquial understanding of science when the entire point of the video is addressing the rampant misuse of the colloquial understanding of science. You also got my video entirely wrong and its annoying you typed a wall of well articulated nonsense to rebuttal a video that specifically engages with the human processes of both. Idk why you did this , and liking your own comment on top of it lol
Might have misclicked if I liked my own comment.
Maybe I misunderstood your point but you blathered a lot so it was easy. I'll admit half my comment is notes that don't come together that I didn't bother deleting because I spent too much time on this already and had no interest in tidying it up.
The colloquial understanding of science is also the useful modern one. Inventing your own definition for an argument is fine but it doesn't help what I understood the argument other youtubers were having.
Mostly I just find 'physics envy' inherently unworthy of respect and wouldn't have agreed with the premise no matter what arguments you made.
"Well articulated nonsense' is an oxymoron, I'd rather you called it badly articulated half formed opinions.
I did leave out the parts of your argument I agreed with so I'll just reply that I agree that you can't define art as a category by its quality. @@ArchWizardCj
"blathered alot" it's a 10 minute video you niggas will never not bring that excuse out instead of just admitting you're confused and don't know what the fuck you're talking about lol it's alot more believable when people say that on the hour long vid, not one you can watch while you shit 💀
Also no, you're still wrong. Colloquial understanding is not the "useful" understanding, it is a surface level understanding of science and its processes, the literal thing I'm addressing and speaking against in the video since pseudo intellectuals take said understanding and try to conflate it to being all science is (You)
And sure , what you typed was dogshit cloaked in buzzwords , based in conjecture and your inability to engage with the video in good faith. I was trying to be professional but honestly it's annoying watching a bunch of anons try to out intellectual me in my comments all the time just to be wrong @@AC-dk4fp
Are you aware of EFAP and what they’re all about? What are your thoughts on them?