Quality in the arts

[Belacqua]

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.

[Mr.Obvious]

By what method do you suppose to calculate this ranking?

[Belacqua]

By what method do you suppose to calculate this ranking?

That's a key question.

First, I don't think I'm aiming at calculation in the sense of using a numerical formula or assigning a quantifiable score. So that's a good point. Science uses the language of math to describe actions in nature, but I don't think that's reasonable for the arts. 

This means that unlike quantifiable stuff, like which runner is fastest or which system is most efficient, judgment in the arts will always be fuzzier. Especially in close cases, like discussing whether Rembrandt's 1660 self-portrait is better or worse than his 1669 self-portrait, no decimal-place result will come out in the end to settle the matter forever. 

Maybe the way to think about it is: in purely preferential statements, like chocolate over strawberry, no reasons can be given for the choice. But in arguing for the superiority of one work of art over another, we can make arguments based on reasons. The debate can proceed based on reasonable persuasion.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

But in arguing for the superiority of one work of art over another, we can make arguments based on reasons. The debate can proceed based on reasonable persuasion.

But that's not actually an objective standard.  Without an objective standard, one can't make objective statements.

Boru

[Belacqua]

But in arguing for the superiority of one work of art over another, we can make arguments based on reasons. The debate can proceed based on reasonable persuasion.

But that's not actually an objective standard.  Without an objective standard, one can't make objective statements.

Boru

Is it possible to respond objectively to an if/then statement? 

For example, "if originality is better than cliches, then work X is better than work Y."

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Now you've got the trouble of defining 'better' and explaining why originality is better than clichés.

I think that attempting to view art objectively is doomed to failure, as art and art appreciation is inherently subjective.  By way of example, which of these two sculptures is 'better':



or



And why?

Boru

[Belacqua]

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? 

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?

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.

[Belacqua]

Now it occurs to me that some adjectives will always be subjective. For example, "interesting" probably always means "is of interest to me." So that is a description of my own state, and it's different from a judgment like "unoriginal." The word "interesting" sounds like it's about the object, but it's really not. 

However, I'm sticking with the idea that some evaluations will be objective descriptions of the work of art. If we decide that a work is imitative of other works, tells us nothing new or doesn't present familiar things in a way that is original, those evaluations can be argued for. Opinions will still differ -- this isn't measuring the speed of light or something -- but reasonable consensus is possible. 

Then, suppose someone says that he enjoys movies which are cliche-ridden repetitions of older movies, aimed at 12-year-olds and only popular because they flatter us and massage our prejudices. (I'm thinking of Marvel comic-book movies.) Maybe we couldn't say to him: "You like bad movies."

We could, however, say to him that he likes movies which are cliche-ridden repetitions of older movies, aimed at 12-year-olds and only popular because they flatter us and massage our prejudices. Because those are objective descriptions. 

As far as I'm concerned, that's bad enough.

[Alan V]

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 have been thinking about art since I considered trying to become a professional artist when I was a teenager.  I think it is only possible to talk about "better" or "worse" in art in relationship to the specific goal the artist wanted to achieve.  Since art has many different possible goals, as is illustrated by the contrast between the Michelangelo and the Rodin sculptures, you have to qualify what you say for each artistic work.  

So for instance, Marvel movies work better as entertainments than most Oscar-worthy productions which are trying to embody some truth about humanity.

Further, there is also the question of who is seeing the art.  Some young person may find the ideas expressed in even a Marvel movie to be new and interesting, whereas an older and regular movie-watcher may be habituated to and jaded about even the best of the best.

My bottom-line assessment is that there are times and places for a diversity of art forms, because of the above and other, similar considerations.

[Angrboda]

I'd say that there are objective differences which people base their aesthetic preferences upon, but it's not necessarily true that there are objective aesthetic facts. It is supposed that people evolved to find certain human physical traits more appealing than others, because mating with people who possessed those traits lead to more and healthier offspring, and those judgements are projected onto our aesthetic sense when it comes to visual stimuli. I suppose a similar argument could be made about other aesthetic judgements, that they likely trace back to evolved preferences. So one could argue the case, and if one argues morality similarly, then there is a parallell there. However, many moral realists argue that it goes beyond the question of evolved moral preferences to acknowledgement of facts which are objectively true about the world. I don't think you could make a similar argument about aesthetic sense as easily.

Aside from that there is the question of how art shapes the standards of art. The King James bible was a standard of literature for centuries because of its religious content. As a consequence, various aspects of the work have become standard bearers for literary excellence and beauty, but would we have the same reaction if it had not been arbitrarily held forth as a literary masterwork? Forces both within and outside the artistic community work to promote certain aesthetics and to diminish others. It's hard to see that side of aesthetic preference as anything but cultural and subjective. It's said that we fixate on certain styles of music during our adolescence, yet the music we listen to during adolescence is driven by many factors which often eclipse the aesthetic. Can a person say they have any kind of objectivity about musical taste given this phenomena? And what does it mean that we do fixate in this way? Is it possible that our visual tastes also have a critical period during which they are formed? Our literary tastes?