>>4467336>Bad and good art exist in neurologyNeuroaesthetics do not change anything to art subjectivity. All it does is measure the fact that pieces of art have a physiological impact on us. It's not at all the same as saying that art appreciation itself is objective. It only means that subjective art enjoyment can be objectively measured. They haven't even found the recipe to create art, it's only about using machine learning to subject AI to art and make it predict if it's likely to be art or not, but it's kind of the same as asking an art curator their opinion.
>According to them, art OUGHT not be objective.according to who exactly ? Sounds like you read something in diagonal and didn't quite understand it yet, but you'll get there eventually
>In china, the CCP fights against degenerate art, and elevates objective beauty. I've seen a handful of recent chinese movies that would be considered "degenerate" and that where pretty beautiful subjectively (like Moneyboy and An Elephant Sitting Still on the top of my mind). Care to give an example of what you consider objective beauty in modern chinese art ?
>https://thecritic.co.uk/modernist-architecture-melts-our-brains/I've read the scientific article it's based on and it seems to be much more about isolation due to the confinement then architecture
[1/2]
