Are There Any Valid Criticisms? (aka Kalessin's Rant)

[Rimbaud]

If one really believe that art is subjective, one cannot refer to any art as "good", etc. - it just is. .... which is untenable.

LMP, I do not actually agree that this is an untenable position. However, I would posit that the stronger position, were one to hold it, would be that ‘Art is not’. Does one judge the artistic merit of a sunrise against a painting of that sunrise?* If one does, then both are art, as would be my bathroom floor. Cleaner then to hold that neither is ‘art’, and the ‘art’ is oneself and (my favourite word again) one’s perception. Which, neatly, puts one in the uncomfortable position of making commentary not upon the object, but upon oneself. Thus, there can be no rational or widely applicable standard, and one is left alone. This, quite naturally, is unpopular to a social animal and so, even in these flights of intellectual whimsy, we depend on each other for the reassurance of agreement, to aid with basic self-recognition.

This position then followed, all that which one considers their own ‘taste’ is a process of individual and then collective aggrandisement. However; this argument falls down for me when we come to what I consider to be the crux: synaesthesia.

We are all synaesthetes, to varying degree, and to my mind, it is this mingling of the senses, of which we understand very little, that shapes our initial response to everything. Our primitive receptors are fired off in unexpected, different and unique sequences by any number of ‘events’: a piano key, a leaf, my bathroom floor, the sound of the wind, your loved ones talking. As our synaesthesias are unique, so thusly are our responses. These miniature arts form our daily sensory symphony, and it is these hardwired responses to the individual stimuli of a whole work that are similar enough to create what has been termed above the 'relative invariance of the human mind' with regard to aesthetics, and separate enough for 'each wo/man to be an island'. It is for this reason that ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ can be misleading in this context, as subjectivity suggests an amount of conscious analysis non-commensurate with the truth of initial reaction. This gives us roughly 6,470,523,588 objective opinions, which I rather like.

~~~

* Not in agreement with Renaissance delineations in this quarter...

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

A work could be aesthetically beautiful and yet, for one reason or another, not liked by anyone.

Aesthetically beautiful by whose standards? I don't understand how a work can be described as aesthetically beautiful if no one perceives it as such.

Originally Posted by Rimbaud

Cleaner then to hold that neither is ‘art’, and the ‘art’ is oneself and (my favourite word again) one’s perception. Which, neatly, puts one in the uncomfortable position of making commentary not upon the object, but upon oneself.

But surely this is another way of saying that the value in art is subjective? It lies in the response of the subject viewing it, rather than the object itself. I agree one's reaction to a work is subconscious to a significant degree, but I don't see "subjectivity" as necessarily implying conscious assessment.

[Rimbaud]

Yes, exactly, that initial argument leads to subjectivity. I went on to say that we have an individual objective standard manifested as 'initial reaction' that is superseded only by deliberate thought - and that assessment itself is necessarily 'corrupted' by one's objective initial reaction. I suppose what I'm saying is that we all have a hard-wired reaction to things which tempers the way we consider them: to develop and/or counter these feelings does indeed require an element of conscious assessment. I deliberately circled around where this leads, as my feelings on it are ambivalent: but the view results in questioning the veracity of any reaction other than the primitive response.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Rimbaud

I suppose what I'm saying is that we all have a hard-wired reaction to things which tempers the way we consider them: to develop and/or counter these feelings does indeed require an element of conscious assessment. I deliberately circled around where this leads, as my feelings on it are ambivalent: but the view results in questioning the veracity of any reaction other than the primitive response.

Agreed. Although I would say that environmental factors will also determine our initial (subconscious) response, in addition to biological factors. Upbringing, life experience, social and cultural values etc will all play a role.

[Rimbaud]

Good point. And this was partly why I mention the synaesthete, although I did not explain myself fully. This intermingling of sensory data is accumulated through the years, different smells, sounds, textures. The links thus formed give us a detailed response pattern to any 'art' as all these little neurons fire off in response to this sensory memory and confusion of sight, smell, sound and touch. Obviously, this accumulated data is (wince) 'as unique' (stop wincing) as the form and level of synaesthesia and hard-wired reaction of each individual.

[mark12_30]

Aiwendil, I certainly meant no offense, and I apologize if any was taken. My point in using the term "Indifferent" was geared strictly towards the pursuit of Truth within the work of art. One viewer (Saucy's "believer") is actively seeking Truth as the art is considered. The other (Saucy's 'non-believer') is, as the art is perused, consciously indifferent to the impacts and effects of Truth on his enjoyment of the art. He ony cares whether he enjoys it or not. Hence, for that moment, regarding the connection between Truth and the art, he is Indifferent.

I prefer these words because there are plenty of 'believers in Truth' who don't expect it to shine through a painting at them. Nor do they expect to pick up a faery tale and experience a glimpse of evangelium. THey stand before a painting Indifferent to Truth, for **that** moment. Are their lives less rich for their lack of expectations? I cannot say, for the art may be working its transcendance on them unbeknownst to them.... like Frodo's dreams of the sea. That inner working is, I think, what Tolkien desired and expected.

Difficult topic to discuss on the Downs. There is plenty of vocabulary that I have set aside.

Saucie

So the non-believer's enjoyment of the art would be valueless to the believer if it did not in fact lead the non-believer to his or her Truth.

No, that's not what I said.

Rimbaud:

Does one judge the artistic merit of a sunrise against a painting of that sunrise?* If one does, then both are art, as would be my bathroom floor.

Since the sunrise is Creation and the painting of the sunrise is sub-creation, to do so would be to compare the Creator to the sub-creator. If one is seeking to understand the Creator as an artist, then one may well ponder the sunrise in such terms. Many do.

I have never seen your bathroom floor. But if it is a thing of beauty-- perhaps on the level of showing the sheen on a single leaf-- why should it not be a work of art? There are many glorious mosaic floors in the world, and even some commercially available linoleum for which the original design work was very creative and tastefully done. Just because we find it mass-produced and available at Home Depot, does that mean we cannot allow it to affect our soul?

And that comes back around to the consumerism thing, and popularity. If a thing sells well, is it therefore not art? Hardly a fair stance.

Back to Aiwendil:

I don't believe in your transcendent Truth (though perhaps only because I still don't really understand what it's supposed to mean).

...how do parallel fourths violate Truth? How can an abstract object like that violate Truth?

In that last sentence, do you imply that Truth transcends abstract objects (like parallel fourths?) I would say, there are truths that are transcended (one might say 'trumped') by higher truths; justice can be trumped by mercy, without truth being violated. There are many times when the parallel fourth law is a good one (as is the law of justice, a good law); but there are also times when a different, higher harmony (like mercy) will prevail. As in Frodo's protection of Gollum, it may not seem to make sense; but in the end, the Truth will shine through.