[ddarko]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boy Blunder

Okay, again, you're saying I'm wrong for having an opinion and a personal preference different from yours. Stop. Just stop right there.

Moving on now.

You misunderstand, I am actually saying that evaluation of a costume ( or beauty) is not a matter of personal opinion or taste. Rather, it is based on an objective judgement.

What this means is that even I would be incorrect if I had found this costume better than the old. So it is not a personal attack is what I am trying to clarify....

I didn’t mean to upset you or anyone or make a huge deal because in regards evaluating the beauty of fictional characters, it is really not a big deal to get it right anyway... Sorry if I upset anyone...

[lordbest]

What an amazing coincidence that what you say is an objective evaluation just happens to match your opinion of the matter.

Taste *is* subjective. You saying it isn't doesn't change that fact. I think the new outfit is better, as do others. We are not wrong, because it *is* better to us. You, and others, think the old costume is better, you are not wrong because for you it *is* better.

[ddarko]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lordbest

What an amazing coincidence that what you say is an objective evaluation just happens to match your opinion of the matter.

Taste *is* subjective. You saying it isn't doesn't change that fact. I think the new outfit is better, as do others. We are not wrong, because it *is* better to us. You, and others, think the old costume is better, you are not wrong because for you it *is* better.

Well, I definitely do understand why you would feel this way. After all, most people today do tend to think that art in general is purely a matter of taste.

But if I might try and explain, briefly, why this subjective notion is incorrect, think of the following. Suppose I were to make a statue of a dog. One would rightly evaluate the quality of the statue in how well it captures the "dog-ness" of the dog. If I made a statue that had a human head for the dog, some might say they like that statue. BUT, objectively speaking, that would be a garbage piece of art (considering the clear intent to communicate a representation of a dog) because it does not convey the "dog-ness".

Such is the case here. There is very little in this figure that makes it stand out as a representation of a superhero. The dominant features of this figure simply communicate that this is likely the average girl you meet on the street. Or at best, some fan of Spiderman.

Now it is quiet possible that you were indeed personally looking for that figure of an average girl you meet on the street. In that case, this figure will look excellent. However, it still does not contradict the fact that objectively, this design is all wrong in terms of what it should truly represent!

EDIT: If I may also add, the reason why most people have gotten accustomed to thinking of this matter as subjective is because due to certain philosophical trends, we like to evaluate art as separate from the intention of the author. This comes, in my humble opinion, from a philosophical error that is too nuanced to discuss here. However, as you can see, if we forget the intended meaning of the author (to communicate a superhero), then we are ultimately left with having to construct this intention on our own. In such a situation, everything boils down to how we conceive the intended meaning (which is what we generally mean "its a matter of taste").

[Boy Blunder]

Why. Why do you keep going. Why do you keep insisting on having the last word, on being "right" in a conversation about subjective values.

You can word-vomit all you want, but the thing is, you. Are. Wrong. And not in your opinion of the costume (christ, this is all about a fictional character's costume), because unless an opinion is actually harmful in some way, it's not wrong. It's a subjective value, unable to be quantified in any objective way. Personal taste is just that - personal.

You keep insisting that this design for Spider-Woman is 'objectively' failing at representing a superhero. But the thing is, there are clearly people who do not feel that way. Hell, Marvel didn't feel that way, as they approved the redesign and have continued to use it for the past two years. If they had felt differently, this design would never have seen official print.

If you feel that the design doesn't get the intended idea across, that's fine. Your opinion is valid, and I respect it and your right to express it. Just as my opposite opinion in support of the costume is just as valid. Neither of them are right or wrong outside of ourselves.

It's like saying that someone is wrong for liking a green shirt, because the shirt isn't being used in a specific way to represent some particular idea. Tell me that doesn't sound balls-out ridiculous.

Also, where did this even come from? Nobody attacked your stance on her costume, people only expressed their opinions that they like it. And lo, it devolved into an attempt to pseudo-intellectually prove everyone who liked the costume "wrong". Not to mention that every teacher I had in art school would be having an aneurysm reading through all that justification, especially that little end note.

People like what they like. Unless they're being hurtful in doing so, why crap on their parade?

[ddarko]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boy Blunder

Why. Why do you keep going. Why do you keep insisting on having the last word, on being "right" in a conversation about subjective values.

I am merely pointing out that relegating this matter into the realm of the subjective is based on an incorrect understanding/philosophy i.e. removal of the intent of the author, and nature of the original object that is the subject of his art, from the work itself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boy Blunder

You can word-vomit all you want, but the thing is, you. Are. Wrong. And not in your opinion of the costume (christ, this is all about a fictional character's costume), because unless an opinion is actually harmful in some way, it's not wrong. It's a subjective value, unable to be quantified in any objective way. Personal taste is just that - personal.

I think you may have misunderstood me again as saying you are morally wrong. That is not what I meant to say. I am only saying that it is wrong as in incorrect. Eg. 2 + 2 = 5 is incorrect, but it is not morally wrong!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boy Blunder

You keep insisting that this design for Spider-Woman is 'objectively' failing at representing a superhero. But the thing is, there are clearly people who do not feel that way.

The key word is exactly what I have bolded and underlined above. As soon as you start using the word "feeling" that is a sign that we are pretty much entering the realm of the subjective. My point is not a denial that most folks today are used to evaluating art on a subjective basis. I think it is sadly a thought process that has even infected certain art-schools. So what I am actually saying is that this detachment from the objective is wrong (or to prevent misunderstanding, incorrect).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boy Blunder

It's like saying that someone is wrong for liking a green shirt, because the shirt isn't being used in a specific way to represent some particular idea. Tell me that doesn't sound balls-out ridiculous.

So lets take a look at your example. Yes, wearing a different colored shirt usually has no meaning. However, now consider someone wearing a green shirt to a ceremony at the navy. That would be problematic, yes? Or suppose someone wore just a green shirt to their wedding instead of a tux or a suit? We might say their attire is lacking, right?

That is exactly what I am pointing out here. As long as we are speaking of a situation or work that has an intention behind it, and a clear set of qualities attributable to the object, we cannot simply separate the intention from the work itself! So as long as there is an intent, we can evaluate the result/actions in terms of the intent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boy Blunder

Also, where did this even come from? Nobody attacked your stance on her costume, people only expressed their opinions that they like it. And lo, it devolved into an attempt to pseudo-intellectually prove everyone who liked the costume "wrong".

I am not attacking anyone either though I am just explaining my position and what I think is wrong with the opposing position. If anything, it is you and others before you here that are going on the offensive. I mean, look at your comment above. You suggested that I was engaging in some pseudo intellectual argument instead of actually addressing anything I said, no?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boy Blunder

Not to mention that every teacher I had in art school would be having an aneurysm reading through all that justification, especially that little end note.

Sadly, you are probably right. But this is because most teachers in art-school have unknowingly been influenced by functionalism and deconstructionist ideas that took root in society around the early 20th century. As I keep saying, like those who criticized these philosophical positions, I too reject those philosophical ideas because they contradict our human experience.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boy Blunder

People like what they like. Unless they're being hurtful in doing so, why crap on their parade?

I am honestly not trying to ruin anything for anyone. I apologize if I am coming across that way. What costume is worn by a fictional character, as you put it, is not really important to get right anyway.

However, I do hope that you will at least be convinced of the importance of preserving the tight connection between the intentions of the author, the qualities of the object that is the subject of his work, and the work itself. Moreover, I hope that you would at least be convinced to rethink seeing art as merely a subjective thing.

To also add, the reason why you like this particular figure, as I explained in my previous post, is simply because you see some truths about the character as being conveyed to you by this particular costume design. I am not trying to make you look bad on that. I am merely saying that there were some other important truths about the character that have been poorly articulated in this design.

[Jeddostotle7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ddarko

Sadly, you are probably right. But this is because most teachers in art-school have unknowingly been influenced by functionalism and deconstructionist ideas that took root in society around the early 20th century. As I keep saying, like those who criticized these philosophical positions, I too reject those philosophical ideas because they contradict our human experience.[/B]

how

explain to me in detail how art is somehow objective

[ddarko]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeddostotle7

how

explain to me in detail how art is somehow objective

I thought I explained, no? But admittedly, even I wouldn't read this thread if I just started reading lol. So here goes...

If the objects of our artistic expression are knowable or well defined, then we know what qualities/attributes must belong to them. These qualities will be objective (since they are knowable).

If the intentions of the artist can be stated or described, then that also exists objectively.

If art is the intention of the artist to communicate certain attributes/qualities/properties about an object, then the language itself must be objective. (This one, while less obvious here, is important for other artistic creations eg. choice of columns/pillars for a building etc)

Knowing the above, one can read the piece of art to see
a) Whether it is expressing true qualities about the object it portrays/represents (does the author have a misunderstood view of the object? does the author express all the important properties etc)
b) Whether the artist has correctly used the established language to communicate his intentions? (i.e. whether the artist has used language incorrectly? use of expressions that communicate attributes/properties/qualities that contradict a true quality etc.)

(Note: Although I expressed the above as two questions, it can be thought of as one question)

If it fails the above evaluation, then it is a bad piece of art. Depending on how well it excels in the above, it could be a great piece of art.

[lordbest]

Objective appraisal of art is impossible because it would rely on the assumption that everyone is viewing and interpreting the art in exactly the same way with the same priorities and preferences. Which is impossible, thus objective art is impossible.

I can only speak for myself, but for a character like Spider-woman I have the following priorities regarding costume:
Does it look like she can fight effectively in it?
Does it look like it will provide some measure of protection?
Does it fit with how I think the character would dress?

I have some relevant conscious biases:
I hate body stockings and swimsuit style costumes
I like colourful costumes
I like layered costumes

Based on all this the new Spider-woman costume is superior on almost every front, to me. I don't hate the old one, it has some nostalgia value and I do like the bright colours and pattern. But the new one is better.

Your comment that the old costume is objectively more of a superheroine costume is clearly false. Nothing about a spandex bodystocking, complete with breast socks, says superheroine. It says fetish model. The intention behind those old costumes was to have the superheroines as close to naked as possible for a presumed straight male audience to enjoy. Again, not superheroic.

As for art needing to depict something literally, I've seen abstract cartoon images of cats for example that capture more of a cats personality than I've seen in photorealistic artwork of cats. What a dog or cat looks like can be conveyed simply, what a dog or cat *is* less so. There is more to art than just blindly recreating something however perfectly.
It is ironic that you criticise teachers for embracing aesthetic functionalism when you are making that same argument yourself, that art is objectively good based on how faithfully it recreates something.

You talk about the intent of the author, but if one cannot judge art without knowing the intent of th author, then it becomes impossible to judge art without knowing the intent of the author. It also ignores the fact that how the old outfit was drawn varied through the years and from artist to artist. So by your criteria in order to judge this costume we need to know the intentions of EVERY artist that ever drew it, which is impossible. Can you even say what Sal Buscema intended when he created the outfit? How do you address the fact that it was considerably less form fitting and bodystocking-like in 1977 than it became in later decades? Or the fact it includes a cowl when later depictions did not?

[ddarko]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lordbest

It is ironic that you criticise teachers for embracing aesthetic functionalism when you are making that same argument yourself, that art is objectively good based on how faithfully it recreates something.

I am not sure I see the issue/contradiction you are trying to get at. Functionalism in art isn't saying that things have a function (which seems to me like what you are thinking). It is obvious that things have functions and no one is denying that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lordbest

I can only speak for myself, but for a character like Spider-woman I have the following priorities regarding costume:
Does it look like she can fight effectively in it?
Does it look like it will provide some measure of protection?
Does it fit with how I think the character would dress?

Well, my point here is that one cannot just make up expectations/priorities. These priorities are bound by the truths about the object. Notice how nothing in your priorities even refer to asking what separates this costume from what the general population would wear. Or what aspects of her costume communicate to me that she is a super-heroine. Given the subject matter, it should have already been at the top of the list. Now I know you are probably about to say "but that is not how I think". My reply would then be that if you were to only evaluate in terms of your personal preferences, then you can only say that you personally think that the costume satisfies those particular criterion, nothing more. The problem though is that you would want to go further and say that this costume is great for the super-heroine spider-woman. But to make such a claim, your priorities must be objectively judged as are incorrect/insufficient.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lordbest

Your comment that the old costume is objectively more of a superheroine costume is clearly false. Nothing about a spandex bodystocking, complete with breast socks, says superheroine. It says fetish model. The intention behind those old costumes was to have the superheroines as close to naked as possible for a presumed straight male audience to enjoy. Again, not superheroic.

Well, whether we like it or not, tight fitting spandex suits, capes, cowls, masks and so forth have become the language of comic book superheroes. Was the language borne out of a fetish? Perhaps. But it doesn't change the fact that there is an already existent language. There is a reason why people immediately think comic book superheroes when they see the spandex, cowl, mask etc.

More simply, it is expected that the superhero or superheroine would have something in their costume that communicates their "super-ness" i.e. difference from the common folk.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lordbest

As for art needing to depict something literally, I've seen abstract cartoon images of cats for example that capture more of a cats personality than I've seen in photorealistic artwork of cats. What a dog or cat looks like can be conveyed simply, what a dog or cat *is* less so. There is more to art than just blindly recreating something however perfectly.

What we are speaking about here in communicating truths about an object is not photorealism. Even a photo that depicts something false or contrary to that particular object would be a bad piece of art.

[lordbest]

Aesthetic functionalism (a hugely complex and contradictory philosophy) broadly states that an objects aesthetic value is derived from how well it functions. You are arguing that the function of the superhero costume is to convey superheroics, and that it should be judged solely on that criteria. That is a functionalist argument. The contradiction is that you are putting forward a functionalist argument, while attacking functionalism.

If by "made up" you mean I sat down and thought about the sort of things I like and why I like them, then yes. That is the very essence of aesthetic appreciation. Figuring out what we like and why. No, they are not bound to the truths of the object, because we aren't dealing with objects. We are talking about a costume, that appears in a comic book. Not only is the object not real, how it is depicted varies from year to year and artist to artist even what is ostensibly the same costume.
Nothing in my priorities refers to what separates it from the general populace because that isn't a valid concern, I think superheroes are characters not costumes. In the comic series where this costume debuts the character is working as a detective, standing out from the general populace is not something she wants or needs to do. Another reason why your claim to objectivity is silly when you do not even understand the intended function of the object yourself yet claim to have an perfectly objective opinion of it.

Quote:

My reply would then be that if you were to only evaluate in terms of your personal preferences, then you can only say that you personally think that the costume satisfies those particular criterion, nothing more.

YES. EXACTLY. That is literally what I and others who like the costume are saying. We like it, because to us it is better than the old one. We are not claiming it is objectively better, because objectivity is impossible. You are claiming we are wrong, we are not claiming you are wrong.
In my opinion this costume is better for the character, yes. In my opinion, based on my criteria and preferences. Your criteria and preferences differ, so you have come to a different conclusion, because taste is subjective. The difference here is that you are telling me I am wrong, and citing the very subjectivity you claim does not exist as proof of my being wrong.

Yes, they did become the language of superhero costumes, they weren't always though, and they aren't universally. That language, like all language, is changing and adapting as the tastes of the user (in this case the comic reader) change.

I'm not going to reply again, this is getting ridiculous and it's become sadly apparent that your knowledge of Aesthetics is insufficient to actually have an informed discussion about why your statement that taste is objective is utterly and demonstrably false.

[ddarko]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lordbest

Aesthetic functionalism (a hugely complex and contradictory philosophy) broadly states that an objects aesthetic value is derived from how well it functions. You are arguing that the function of the superhero costume is to convey superheroics, and that it should be judged solely on that criteria. That is a functionalist argument. The contradiction is that you are putting forward a functionalist argument, while attacking functionalism.

Aah, I see where the confusion has arisen.

Functionalism is not the position that it attributes some function to the field of art. Rather, it is the position that an art design itself must be solely based on functionality! So put it another way, attributing a function to the field of art is not either for or against functionalism. Did this clarify?

Quote:

Originally Posted by lordbest

If by "made up" you mean I sat down and thought about the sort of things I like and why I like them, then yes. That is the very essence of aesthetic appreciation. Figuring out what we like and why.....

Well, what you are essentially telling me is that you have embraced the functionalist view for aesthetic appreciation. My objection is that you were wrong to even embrace it in the first place. It is by your embracing of it that you have reduced art to merely the whims of the individual. This might seem great at first, but ultimately, it is meaningless because your whims change. Your whims today are not the same you will have tomorrow.

In short, the person who evaluates art on such a subjective notion is only fooling themselves. The ones who purchases art based on such notions are wasting money because when their taste changes, they can no longer appreciate the art. Why? Because their initial appreciation was never grounded in anything real. They were all merely stuff he/she arbitrarily made up in their mind at the time of purchase.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lordbest

YES. EXACTLY. That is literally what I and others who like the costume are saying. We like it, because to us it is better than the old one. We are not claiming it is objectively better, because objectivity is impossible. You are claiming we are wrong, we are not claiming you are wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lordbest

Yes, they did become the language of superhero costumes, they weren't always though, and they aren't universally. That language, like all language, is changing and adapting as the tastes of the user (in this case the comic reader) change.

Aah, its too much to get into on a toy forum, BUT, these are indeed things that can be discussed quiet a lot.

Can language change? Yes! However, the problem with coming up with a new language is that it is most likely that not everyone will know how to read it. If that is the case, is there a value to it as a language? A language must be judged on how well it can communicate and be understood by everyone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lordbest

I'm not going to reply again, this is getting ridiculous and it's become sadly apparent that your knowledge of Aesthetics is insufficient to actually have an informed discussion about why your statement that taste is objective is utterly and demonstrably false.

Perhaps so. But I would like to point out that it may be just the case that you have embraced a notion of aesthetics that is also quiet meaningless. I am essentially saying that we must evaluate everything objectively. You are arguing that we should just evaluate according to your tastes at the time. One leads to a timeless appreciation of art. One leads to a "spur of the moment" appreciation of art. Which one would you prefer or consider superior?

[Parademon1]

Wow,so now Lizard has been "supersized" to Hulk like proportions in the comics too? BTW, modern Spiderwoman civvy look sucks. I collected comics to see colorful spandex clad superheroes/villians do battle, not see characters sporting clothes I can see in real life. MCU is too blame for the slow departure of spandex costumes in comics to realistic outfits in comics. 2000 X-Men started it with the black/yellow MC outfits, gone down hill since then. One of the many reasons I quit collecting comics.

[Brownfinger]

Just wanted to add that I think Marvel Legends are neat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ddarko

I am actually saying that evaluation of a costume ( or beauty) is not a matter of personal opinion or taste. Rather, it is based on an objective judgement.

This is frivolous thing to go on about so I don't mean to dump gasoline on it, but you seem to be defeating your own point better than anyone else can.
In matters aesthetic, there is no such thing as "objective beauty". There can be a largely agreed-upon consensus, and that's as close as you'll get. None of these arduous mental gymnastics will dissuade anyone from the notion that it's okay to like a different version of something than you do. Arguing to the contrary will always give you these same puzzled responses. With probably thousands of super hero designs in comics culture at this point, large spaces of uninterrupted spandex are a bit played out. Deviations should be expected, but you are very much welcome to embrace tradition. The guy above me says he quit reading comics because designs became more intricate and everyone stopped wearing spandex. Now I think that's a bit nuts and it takes more than tight stretchy fabric to define these characters, but his point of view has merit because it's his.

I just know that I prefer what we have right now over this guy:

[Parademon1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brownfinger

Just wanted to add that I think Marvel Legends are neat.



This is frivolous thing to go on about so I don't mean to dump gasoline on it, but you seem to be defeating your own point better than anyone else can.
In matters aesthetic, there is no such thing as "objective beauty". There can be a largely agreed-upon consensus, and that's as close as you'll get. None of these arduous mental gymnastics will dissuade anyone from the notion that it's okay to like a different version of something than you do. Arguing to the contrary will always give you these same puzzled responses. With probably thousands of super hero designs in comics culture at this point, large spaces of uninterrupted spandex are a bit played out. Deviations should be expected, but you are very much welcome to embrace tradition. The guy above me says he quit reading comics because designs became more intricate and everyone stopped wearing spandex. Now I think that's a bit nuts and it takes more than tight stretchy fabric to define these characters, but his point of view has merit because it's his.

I just know that I prefer what we have right now over this guy:

Being non muscular & having the wrong facial features for Cap is also a major reason this comic based outfit didn't work back in the early 90s.

I have zero problem with the MCU outfits/costumes. My issue is with the comics. The comics have adapted to the MUC since the 2000 X-Men movie & especially since IM in 08'. Once I saw that they were going away from the classic spandex costumes to the MCU type looks, that's when I knew it was time to quit the comic collecting hobby. Not to mention the price hikes, & PC based gender swaps/race swaps of well know heroes just to appease that minority fan base while basically saying "FU if you don't like it" to the rest of us.