[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.