An interesting exchange [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] ... on a subject which has inescapably philosophical resonance - regarding the attempt to quantify external or objective truth, from Platonic essences to Cartesian dualism, and so on.
Keneldil, you said -
Quote:
In my subjective judgement of their opinions Michelangelo’s diversity of experience, as well as his universal acclaim would make me lend more credence to his thoughts on art.
Let’s say you polled 100,000 people and the majority thought the same thing regarding Mike’s superiority in art matters. Within that subset of 100,000 people, the collective subjective opinion eliminates individual subjectivity and forms an objective consensus view.
Popularity rules. Makes me sick somehow. For art, I can deal with that though. If a particular piece of art moves more people to “vote” for it, then it is a “good” piece of art. If no one “votes” for it, it has failed to move anyone. Art that does not produce a reaction of some kind is pointless, yes? Well, no the art could still serve a purpose for the artist alone. Hmm……
|
Your first point is accepted. We are always entitled to choose who and what to believe (or not), simply because we are always in a position to do so.
But I can't help feeling that "the collective subjective opinion eliminates individual subjectivity and forms an objective consensus view" is neither an
a priori, inherently self-evident statement OR an
a posteriori statement that can be verified by experience, observation or reference to the outside world.
Why does the collective subjective view necessarily become an objective consensus? If 10,000 people say that day is night and 10,000 people say that night is day, does that mean there are two equally valid objective "consensuses" (or consensii, or consensae etc. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img])?. Or if 10,000 say that God is female and 3 say that God is male, is the female assertion automatically an objective consensus?
"Popularity = Good"? Well, good is, in a precise sense a 'moral' term, and subject to relativism wherever it is used. An efficient machine-gun might be described as 'good' ... it's normally only the judgement as to why something is or is not good that allows one to agree or otherwise. If quality is simply a synonym for popularity, then 'good' is actually an unnecessary term.
Surely the real point is that, whether by way of human psychology, or some other factor/s, we are at least predisposed to attempt to rationalise our own intuitions or sympathies into something that we feel has external validity, hence the irreconcilable polarities of critical opinion. Why does this happen? Hume, for one, postulated that we can't empirically prove that the moon will still be up there tomorrow, but we inevitably turn observed conjunction into expectation, assumption, and a collective acceptance of the uniformity of nature.
The attempt to assert objectivity in art criticism is as much part of human nature, and yet the notion that popularity is an indication of quality is not meaningful. To measure aesthetic quality requires aesthetics. To assert beauty requires a conception of beauty. There is no reason why popularity in and of itself confers any of these mistifying epithets upon a work of art.
I'm probably being pompous and pedantic (hmm, I think so), but as an old-school romantic idealist I am determined to confront the utilitarian principle as an affront to the incalculably diverse and meaningful expression of humanity that we call art! Nothing pompous (or even grammatical) about that, huh [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]
You also said ...
Quote:
|
If it is impossible for us to discern that objective standard for art, then for all intents and purposes it doesn’t exist
|
This is perhaps a kind of existentialist viewpoint, but the argument itself doesn't really follow - just because it's impossible for us to discern an objective truth, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or should be discounted. Mediaeval surgeons may have been unable to discern genes, but we would not say genes did not exist, nor that (in hindsight) genes did not have practical significance or effect despite the absence of knowledge.
Where I agree with you wholeheartedly is that it is probably impossible for two views passionately held in opposition to each other to be reconciled by reference to qualitative terms that can be applied equally by both arguments! I could say that John Coltrane's melodies were subtle, polyrhythmic and suffused with spiritual intent, and that this is why his works are masterpieces, and you could say that Mozart's compositions were the same, only more so [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] and so on.
But ... we can change our minds!!! Finally, a Tolkien reference [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] - I waded through about half of Lord of the Rings when I was in my teens, and found it tiresome, dreary and uninspiring. At that time I was a passionate lover of fantasy and science fiction, and a voracious reader of a range of literature. Yet I re-discovered Tolkien a few years ago and found the work gripping and powerful. Did objective truth change? By definition, not at all. Was Tolkien more popular, and therefore better, when I picked him up recently? Probably not. But I had changed, and have and do accept that such changes are always possible and indeed inevitable.
Thanks again, Keneldil, for such thought-provoking and articulate posts on this topic. And apologies to Aiwendil for succumbing to temptation, I fear we will soon be knee deep in irreconcilable argument again [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img].
Peace.
Kalessin
[ November 29, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]