(October 13, 2018 at 4:54 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Now you've got the trouble of defining 'better' and explaining why originality is better than clichés.
Yes, good. I don't think we can prove that originality is better than clichés, in the way that science can prove the earth is round. I do think it's a reason for judging.
Here I think we have to do that tedious philosophy thing, and define our terms. For me, I don't think that an objective judgment has to be one which is provable, universal, and eternal. It is just a judgment which is about the object rather than the subject. "It's original," is objective, because it's about the object. "I like it," is about me.
So we can say that a work is more original, or tells us more about our lives, or gives us an experience we have never imagined before, or does all of these things. We can say that objectively. And then to argue against a work with those qualities, someone would have to say that these are not things that we want to have in an artwork. Obviously people will disagree, but at some point you're down to saying that boring is good and enthralling is bad -- and would any reasonable person make that argument?
Quote:art and art appreciation is inherently subjective.
That may well be true. Do you have an argument about why it's so, or does it just seem right?
Quote:By way of example, which of these two sculptures is 'better':
[...]
And why?
Is the modern one a Rodin or a Claudel? I forgot. (Not that the quality depends on that.)
This comparison is helpful to me, because I see now that I've been focussing too much on the better/worse, horse race side of things. These two sculptures are apples and oranges, because the goals and the effects of the two works are so different.
Still, I could make an objective argument as to why both are objects of quality. It isn't just a case of me liking them for no reason. And I believe we can make an objective case as to why a poor copy of the David is not as good to see as the original.
