🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 25 Apr 2024 00:37:05 UTC No. 16144562

>modern art is unpleasant to behold and serves to demoralize us instead of glorifying god and his creation
god isn't real

Anonymous at Thu, 25 Apr 2024 01:42:37 UTC No. 16144616

>>16144559
Quantification of art is a fool's errand. Its value comes from a lot of eclectic places, not unnotably 'how much you like it'.

Anonymous at Thu, 25 Apr 2024 01:43:42 UTC No. 16144617

>>16144559
Are you a baby who needs all the art in the world to tell you about how indomitable le human spirit is?

Anonymous at Thu, 25 Apr 2024 04:42:36 UTC No. 16144754

>>16144559
Art changes us, and we change the world. There's your quantification. Pic related

Anonymous at Thu, 25 Apr 2024 22:48:18 UTC No. 16145993

>>16144754
how much is that statue worth?

Anonymous at Fri, 26 Apr 2024 05:55:14 UTC No. 16146405

>>16145993
Today, maybe $10k. There are a ton of busts of Octavian that are better preserved. But to Octavian, it was priceless (JK he obviously had this commissioned) to put himself on display for all the plebs, so that they would recognize and revere him. If op is trying to find a formula to quantify the value of art monetarily, this is very difficult, since in all but the last 60 years or so, the main value of art has been it's use as propaganda, and only in rare, advanced societies did the wealthy value art that they didn't commission themselves. My advice to op: get some rich, "cultured" friends.

Anonymous at Fri, 26 Apr 2024 23:42:20 UTC No. 16147611

>>16146405
you can actually get them with the nose intact for about $100

Anonymous at Sat, 27 Apr 2024 08:29:43 UTC No. 16148165

>>16147611
R You havin a lil troll? I think you're looking at cheap replicas. The one I posted was an authentic museum piece that last sold for $30k

Anonymous at Sat, 27 Apr 2024 08:36:47 UTC No. 16148169

Yes, you can quantify the value by weight or by water displacement. For paintings you can also use surface area.

Anonymous at Sat, 27 Apr 2024 12:54:18 UTC No. 16148392

>>16144559
Currently no,
In order to find such a baseline we’d have to first quantify the human experience and since there is no mathematical equation to even calculate consciousness yet, I think the “for time being” answer is no.
But in the long run, with AGI/ASI, we will be able to do so but by then it will be pointless to focus such effort towards because we’ll be focusing on so much other massively important things that art will not be the focus of equations

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Apr 2024 00:13:04 UTC No. 16149242

>>16148165
that was a counterfeit, if you're going to buy a counterfeit, why not buy one thats open and honest about what it is?
i'd rather have 300 replicas than one counterfeit, plus the replicas look better

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Apr 2024 00:15:08 UTC No. 16149246

>>16144754
>the best
not hadrien?

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Apr 2024 04:29:58 UTC No. 16149494

>>16148392
IDK. I think you just need a little class and taste to buy a successful art buyer
>>16149242
There's literally no reason to buy a counterfeit unless you got scammed. Maybe as an expensive prop for an indie film

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Apr 2024 05:17:35 UTC No. 16149512

>>16144559
The boolean of my erection

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Apr 2024 05:48:31 UTC No. 16149518

>>16144616
>>16144617
>>16148392

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Apr 2024 06:43:16 UTC No. 16149549

No one will define art let alone scientific quantify the value of specific pieces because they have their own biases that they like being able to say arent art like modern slop. I would just describe it as something made with sovl that in some way is mean to be admired for its beauty/emotional aspects

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Apr 2024 10:27:32 UTC No. 16149678

No, you're dumb for even asking.

Anonymous at Mon, 29 Apr 2024 00:29:45 UTC No. 16150882

>>16144616
>Its value comes from a lot of eclectic places,
money laundering & insurance fraud aren't as exotic as you think

Anonymous at Mon, 29 Apr 2024 02:13:52 UTC No. 16151045

>>16144754
>>16146405
>>16149494
>>16150882
Looks like we found a few ways to quantify the value of art. Successful thread, op?
>>16148392
Retard

Anonymous at Mon, 29 Apr 2024 21:56:24 UTC No. 16152266

>>16144559
probably

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Apr 2024 06:02:42 UTC No. 16152769

>>16144559
>value
is all a social construct by definition, to the artist it will always be how long it took for them to make the painting or to learn / evolve a (new) skill during the painting process. To the masses it will always be whatever was paid for the drawing or whatever is written in the jewish article, to the rich old man buying the painting it will be what the jewish mediator told them and to the jewish mediator it will be what he thinks he can get away with telling to the rich old man and what the artist is willing to give the drawing up for (usually a non-factor as it will be much less than what the old man is going to offer)

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Apr 2024 23:40:12 UTC No. 16153932

>>16152769
so are you saying that it is or isn't possible to scientifically quantify the value of art by a standard other than the financial value of the artwork?

Anonymous at Wed, 1 May 2024 20:21:20 UTC No. 16155241

>>16144559
Science is too dumb to develop a means to do that

Anonymous at Thu, 2 May 2024 06:52:27 UTC No. 16156068

>>16144559
If you're talking about paintings then quantifying them by area might work, bigger being better of course. With statues it would be by mass or maybe by volume.
The bigger a work of art is, the more impressive it is. Thats why Mt Rushmore and Stonehenge are so popular.

Anonymous at Fri, 3 May 2024 00:28:41 UTC No. 16157115

>>16144559
If you could do that then it would affect the financial value of the artwork

Anonymous at Fri, 3 May 2024 19:31:39 UTC No. 16158105

>>16156068
>Stonehenge
Its fake, they built it in the late 1800s

Anonymous at Sat, 4 May 2024 05:48:21 UTC No. 16158600

>>16158105
Mt Rushmore was made in the 1920s, is that fake too?

Anonymous at Sat, 4 May 2024 23:50:40 UTC No. 16159873

>>16158600
its still a work in progress

Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 00:04:47 UTC No. 16159903

>>16144559
Modern artists often overly rely on the "idea" or "statement" of a peice and don't put any effort in tying their art to those concepts. You can say you want to open a dialogue with your art but it still has to believably be related to that topic.

Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 19:20:05 UTC No. 16161082

>>16158105
is that how the druids assembled it?

Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 19:27:34 UTC No. 16161108

>>16144559
Not without quantifying the qualitative. One can fashion at least a fascimile of quantifying the qualitative by virtue of applying their minds rationally (or irrationally?). But that's just thinking at that point. We've arrived back at the starting point of "I think" being a self-justified sentiment.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 03:50:31 UTC No. 16161692

>>16149512
Plethysmography isn't necessarily categorical.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 13:50:16 UTC No. 16162261

>>16144559
>Is it possible to scientifically quantify the value of art by a standard other than the financial value of the artwork?
yes

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:21:57 UTC No. 16162725

>>16162261
how?

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:44:36 UTC No. 16162787

>>16144559
yeah
just rate it one out of ten bro
and ask a bunch of people, to make to scientific

Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 03:11:13 UTC No. 16163428

>>16162787
That would still result in what was effectively a financial value rating

Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 18:34:42 UTC No. 16164333

>>16144559
no, it isn't.

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 03:31:14 UTC No. 16165175

>>16164333
why not?

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 20:17:57 UTC No. 16166288

>>16165175
Because scientists are too low IQ to figure out how