Quote:
|
Originally Posted by littlemanpoet
But we can understand that however honestly they hold their opinion, it could still be wrong.
|
And so the discussion becomes cyclical. Wrong by what or whose standard? By insisting that there are works of art which are, from an objective standpoint, "good" and those which are "bad", you allow no possibility for individual (and valid) variations in taste. Taken to its extreme, this would suggest that, ideally, we should all assess the merit of art in an identical manner. Which would surely produce a very dull society.
All that the "endurability" test really indicates is that a large section of society values a particular work of art over an extended (possibly limitless) period. It does not say anything about the objective quality of the art because (in my opinion) there is no such thing. Different societies, and different sections within an individual society, may favour different (and possibly diametrically opposed) styles of a particular art form over an extended period. Which is right and which is wrong? And there will be individuals within society who do not regard a work of art which has stood the test of time as being particularly good. Are they wrong? For example, the works of Dickens have stood the test of time, but I do not like them. They do not appeal to me. Am I wrong? I do not happen to think that I am. I cannot (and do not) accept that my opinion in this matter is uninformed, unexamined or the result of imperfect reasoning. But neither do I accuse those to whom Dickens' works appeal of being guilty of such things. I simply put it down to personal taste.