Thanks Littleman, articulate and thought-provoking as always [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
I'm happy for the nits to be picked, as the small components making up a line of reasoning should be rigorously tested in themselves (as well as the collective conclusion) to ensure their validity [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]
The argument that there can be no 'objective' may be considered a recent aspect (of postmodernism) in art theory, but in Western philosophy the limits of empiricism (and the mediation of "reality" by perception) were being examined hundreds of years ago - hence the reduction and subsequent dismissal of just about all axioms. Acknowledging humanity - and the perceptive subjectivity that comes with it - is not in itself postmodern, nor was my argument an attempt to invalidate aesthetic evaluation per se. Quite the opposite! My argument was simply that there are contradictions and 'shifting ground' within which we collectively and individually apply these criteria. But let's continue to apply them by all means, simply taking that into account in order to stay open-minded and retain a certain humility in our assertions.
Quote:
|
I think it would be more consistent to say that a chair or car has at least an artistic component
|
Well, I did say that these objects had some artistry in them. However, all artefact is designed to some degree, so if having design qualifies something as art - we arrive again at
reductio ad absurdam and would of necessity have to incorporate 'efficiency' or 'efficacy' as criteria of value [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
Quote:
|
cross-cultural aesthetics acknowledge quality of craft, depth of insight, thematic scope, and breadth of applicability that separate genius from giftedness, both from pedestrian, and all three from the mundane
|
Indeed. But the words are used to arrive at different conclusions. I do not accept that every single culture or individual will place Mozart and Beethoven at the top of the tree. And, if aesthetic merit has no relation to 'popularity' or enjoyment, then who are the arbiters? Perhaps only we, the priveliged elite [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]
This was the essence of my first point -that 'craft', 'insight', 'scope' and so on do not logically
in themselves lead us to the conclusion either that (a) the art we like is the best, or that (b) the best will always be the most liked.
If we accept the nature of the consensus, we can still make and share our insights and evaluations into art, and apply criteria with conviction and sincerity. We don't have to be postmodern or publicly deconstruct at any opportunity [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
Lots of right answers ... take your pick [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]
Peace
[ May 04, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]