Help Me Settle This Argument

So I've gotten into an argument about art elsewhere on the site and some claims were made.

I thought, let's settle this somewhere elsewhere instead of being off-topic. This forum seems general enough and I couldn't find an art forum so it'll have to do. Feel free to move it.

First there is the claim that taste isn't a part of someone's character. I say that this is clearly the case with the definition of character being:
"character: the way someone thinks, feels, and behaves : someone's personality".

Claim number two is that Japanese art isn't simplistic, I made the claim that it is simpler and the techniques less sophisticated than say paintings by artists such as Rembrandt. This isn't to say that I think the art is bad, that is another question entirely.



That was an example of an artist whose name was dropped. Would you say that this painting is as technically sophisticated as say this one:



And which one would you say is stylistically closer to comics? The former or the latter? Only one is characterised by simple lines and monochrome colouring.

Moving on.



This mural here was lifted up as an example of a painting that was the result of great technique. I made the claim that it wasn't particularly impressive and the technique was nothing special. That it was similar to early medieval European art and that technically greater art can be seen almost everywhere.


(Right click and open the picture in a new tab for full resolution)

The claim was made that this Lord of the Rings panting above was hideous. Out of these two latest paintings, which work would you say is more sophisticated? And which artist would you say is a more accomplished artist if we're talking about pure technical skill?

Well, that's it. What's your take? Am I completely wrong about this?

Taste and character, no correlation.


Japanese painting, cartoon ish
Lions, more technical

Lord of the rings painting far more sophisticated and technically proficient. Leaving taste out of it. (And assuming "paint on canvas")

Art like beauty is in the eye of the beholder....In art there is no right and wrong.

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

It's hard to say because you don't know what they were trying to translate.

If the worlds best artist tries to make art like a child would make, art from the heart of a child, so to speak, and he is successful, wouldn't you say that his work had technical skill?

Technique is not measurable unless you know what they are trying to achieve.

If however, you both were trying to use the same spirit (the same expression of the same style, same mood, etc.) and one was more precise then you can measure it. Basically, you need to know the spirit or will of the artist to know whether or not he is a good translator of that will.

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

In my opinion, you lost the point...IT'S ART. There is no right. There is always a subjective aspect. Simple does not make it bad.

ETA, your second example(third image) although is Asian, is far from Japanese...

a reply to: jappee

Nowhere did I make the claim that simple is bad. I'm talking about the purely technical aspect here, which one is more involved and sophisticated?

a reply to: BadBoYeed

Thank you for participating.

Just to clarify, when I say taste I don't mean taste as in one of the five traditional senses.

In sociology, taste is an individual's personal and cultural patterns of choice and preference. Taste is drawing distinctions between things such as styles, manners, consumer goods and works of art and relating to these.

This is the taste I speak of. Personally I don't see how this isn't a part of someone's character.

The first one is a painted mural, but leaving that out of it I'm talking specifically about the end result.

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

Again, just my opinion. The "end result" is the effect on the soul, not the quantity, nor quality of the depiction, or medium.

And to judge another person from the result of the effect they have from art on their soul, is just bad form in my opinion.

I don't think you're wrong, I just think you're wrong for even suggesting a comparison be made. Traditional Japanese art is painstakingly disciplined, not simplistic and that is what most of their art expresses. Western art is more of an escape and free evolving technique.

The reason you can never compare contrasting cultures in art is that what you are in fact comparing are completely different cultures. The universal master technique of all illustrative art is the successful and speechless translation into the universal emotional range. An individuals 'taste' in, or judgement of art, is representative of their own depth in awareness of that range. Higher levels of which make this argument irrelevant.

To add,

The Japanese have been making simple yet beautiful art and landscapes captivating for more than a millennia . Seen a Zen rock garden?

Rocks, and sand...ART

a reply to: rexsblues

I thought I made it clear that I don't mean simplistic in a pejorative sense at all. I enjoy Japanese art, but objectively it is a simpler and cleaner style of art. Another example is the art of Nicholas Roerich, it's simple but what he manages to convey with that simplicity is often sublime. I'm not speaking of superiority or inferiority, I'm talking specifically about the technical aspect here.

a reply to: jappee

I agree with that.. you can easily be touched by art that others find mediocre. In addition to that I still think there's a technical aspect to it though. Having said this, a technically great piece doesn't necessarily have to be great at all.

Nostalgia and circumstance can be a huge factor too, as well as subjectivity but I think that goes without saying.

And to judge another person from the result of the effect they have from art on their soul, is just bad form in my opinion.

I don't know where you got that from at all..

The Japanese have been making simple yet beautiful art and landscapes captivating for more than a millennia . Seen a Zen rock garden?

I've already mentioned I too appreciate simplicity numerous times already. Sheesh..

Again, just my opinion. The "end result" is the effect on the soul, not the quantity, nor quality of the depiction, or medium.

This is the subjective aspect.. there is an objective factor in art, it's what separates the arbitrary doodles of a child from the work of a renaissance master. Acting like they're both the same is just lazy relativism.

Once again, simplicity does not imply inferiority.

Representative art style verses realism..like comparing classical music to rock and asking which one is more classical music sounding.

aka, not on equal grounds to compare.


As far as taste being part of someones character..I dont buy it. people can like things significantly different than their character. biker vegans listening to classical music while doing meth, etc. if people were soo easily coded, we could quickly figure out personality types a hell of a lot easier than we do already. we can get clued into a persons personality by their tastes, but its not fully telling.

To add some context, this is how the argument started:

- if someone is touched by bad writing there's inherent subjective worth

Oh, it’s not just subjective. It makes the purveyors of bad taste a lot of money. And the world becomes an uglier and more ignorant place with the appearance of each of their hideous productions.

-there's worth to be found in poetic emotions.

Poetic emotion and bad taste are not the same things. Would you like me to recite you some Shakespeare, or would you prefer one of the Romantics, or perhaps someone a little more recent, such as T.S. Eliot, Philip Larkin or Robert Conquest? Or someone contemporary, even, like Clive James?

Frankly, I suspect it would all be a bit of wasted effort. So here’s some Ogden Nash, that well-loved bard of pablum Middle America for you.

- this is about the personal experience of someone having been subjectively touched by writing

Cheap at the price, I should say. Like dating someone who has no head for alcohol.

And about here is where any type of discussion involving actual arguments ended..

a reply to: SaturnFX

Representative art style verses realism..like comparing classical music to rock and asking which one is more classical music sounding.

No, not an apt comparison at all. If I translated your analogy to this situation it would read: "like comparing Japanese art to renaissance art and asking which one is more Japanese art like". My comparison involves three categories, and yours only two. You're ignoring simplicity which is a factor outside of genre, you only mention genre.

As far as taste being part of someones character..I dont buy it. people can like things significantly different than their character. biker vegans listening to classical music while doing meth

Actually liking something is a part of someone's character. Do you mean to tell me that the taste of a hipster or an art critic isn't part of their character? You're citing an example where someone has contradictory qualities, like people can't have contradictory aspects in their character. What is taste then, if not a part of someone's character?

It's right there in the definition of character: the way someone thinks, feels, and behaves : someone's personality.

They way a person thinks and feels about, food, art, movies etc.. A persons taste is the way they feel and think about certain subjects.

Everybody views art differently or sees 'art' where somebody else might not.

The Japanese Zen Garden is beautiful, the Asian or Japanese example you posted is not (in my eyes). I agree it's cartoonish or "simple" .

So are you saying it didn't take much talent to whoever made it? If it was 'too easy' to make its no good or not art? Splattering or throwing random paint against a canvas takes no real effort, yet the results can be quite beautiful. The talent may lie in knowing when to stop or choosing the colours. I don't know but let's say there would be unseen factors at play. I don't think it's fair to judge art based on the time it took to create it or the tools used

It comes down to Individual opinions. If that's "taste" that's fine.
Personally, I don't like Van Gogh. His work is cartoonish and does not please my eyes to view it. It in fact stirs negative feeling in me. I just don't like it and don't understand how his awful work garnered such attention or fame. Was he five years old when he painted all this crap? I realise others love his art like 'starry Night'. I also hate the Mona Lisa. Just my opinion.

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

Of course taste is a facet of someone's personality, not sure about defining that as character. Character to me is more about behaviour and not about what they like or don't like.

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

That argument doesn't seem to be what you are now talking about. That argument came across as my education versus yours or a cultural clash. One person was British?

Although I am by no means a connaisseur i do like hearing the different opinions people come up with, so I will chip in too.

As far as taste and character go, if you're not talking about visual taste alone, and even then, I'm of the opinion that they don't correlate well once you get into the finer details. Broad genres, like an art-style, or spicy food, or the feel of wool-products might have some links to characterisation, but deeper down the line it gets harder and harder to predict someone's tastes. I follow SaturnFX's opinion on this.

On your second point I guess talking about technical difficulty of one style of painting versus the other, one would have to have a lot more information. Like the age of the painters, if your first picture is painted by let's say a 6 year old, that would mean tremendous technical skill. Or the amount of time spent on it, those hairs on the first picture look meticulously done. The availability and kinds of paints, the different brushes or no brushes at all, the setting in which the painting was made and other factors like skill and talent.
The final outcome is in the eye of the beholder, but the technical difficulty is entirely dependent upon other factors. In my modest opinion.

a reply to: rexsblues

I agree with this.

Japanese art is all about being minimalist, so you aren't going to get the realism and technical details you would get in most European forms.

I would be like comparing haiku poetry to the more lush European forms. Each takes its own degree of mastery to perform and do well.

So, I read your OP and this is my take:

What is 'taste' but one mans interpretation on the world around him.

Art, in whatever form, is a soul-trigger. Now, let me explain. Each of us is unique insofar that we perceive life slightly different from the next fella because I love Nissan GTR's, tattoos, Opera and Art such as this...

(Roberto Ferri)

www.robertoferri.net...

Roberto Ferris works are held by some of the most esteemed Art collectors alive today and a quick glance at his work will tell you all you need to know, both darkly evil and heavenly at the same time.

Some of his works have undertones of sadomasochism imo, which you will clearly see if you take 10 mins to review his stuff (but I can't post those images here)

So, my taste on things make up my character, Japanese Art inspires cultural and traditional values and the plain-ness attributed to Japanese portrait-art is to depict righteousness in the eyes with minimal expression - yet no-one can Zen like a multi-generations-old Japanese horticulturalist.

Art is so subjective that people have been known to kill people because of depictions in Art.

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

Thanks for posting the context! It made one thing perfectly clear... snobbery is alive and well in the 21st century.

I think the 'taste is part of character' is true, if you think of character as 'characteristics that define the whole of the individual'. So, part of my character is an appreciation for American Impressionist art.

When most people think of character, they think of it more in the line of just the moral aspect of one's being. That whole 'character is how you behave even when no one is watching' kind of thing.

About technical difficulty... I guess you could say one piece's composition is more involved than another... requires more steps and more tools and more materials. Which makes the skillset and money and time required to produce it more substantial.