In case you're not getting enough of the endless debate about objective morality, I think there's a similar fight we could have in the Arts section.
I'm leaning toward the conclusion that it's possible to make objective statements of quality in aesthetic matters. I think if we say, for example, "Proust's books are better than Dan Brown's," that may be a truth-statement and not just a preference-statement.
Granted, there will still be times when you'd choose to read The da Vinci Code instead of À la recherche du temps perdu. Like if you were in an airport, you'd just taken three Ativan tablets, and your ex-wife was a Proust scholar. But those are local and contingent reasons, and Proust is still of higher quality.
Any arguments pro or con? In part, I think aesthetic questions are similar to ethics questions, in how we approach them.
I'm leaning toward the conclusion that it's possible to make objective statements of quality in aesthetic matters. I think if we say, for example, "Proust's books are better than Dan Brown's," that may be a truth-statement and not just a preference-statement.
Granted, there will still be times when you'd choose to read The da Vinci Code instead of À la recherche du temps perdu. Like if you were in an airport, you'd just taken three Ativan tablets, and your ex-wife was a Proust scholar. But those are local and contingent reasons, and Proust is still of higher quality.
Any arguments pro or con? In part, I think aesthetic questions are similar to ethics questions, in how we approach them.
