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

[littlemanpoet]

Aiwendil: I'm afraid the truth is that there's no more than a genetic program at work there. Aesthetic beauty, I think, is quite different from this (or - a useful definition of "aesthetic beauty" would be quite different from this). Aesthetic beauty appeals to the rational mind; beauty of that sort appeals fundamentally to irrational impulses and drives.

I disagree with your "no more than a genetic program" point. Such an assertion necessarily begs the question, "where did the genetic programming come from"? Which is answered (at least for me) in my little aphorism, beauty is being what a thing was meant to be: there is a maker/designer behind the genetics.

I think that any human's first response to art is not rational. ("Irrational" has connotations I'd rather avoid.) The individual's need to make sense of her world brings about the rational attempt to explain the first response .... within the work of art ... which is projection, isn't it? (uh oh) Thus aesthetics could be construed as the rational attempt of the appreciator to explain something within the self that connected to the work of art. Jungian. Tripe? No. It simply explains (to me) the subjective part of aesthetics, since in our modern age, aesthetics is done by individuals more so than ever.

The Saucepan Man:The fact remains that there will be works that some people find aesthetically beautiful and others don't.

Well, of course. Which has as much to do with exposure and education as personal taste. Just as striking as the wide variety of individual points of view on beauty, is the universal agreement among all humans as to what constitutes beauty.

The Saucepan Man:I can think of works of art which I don't find aesthetically pleasing, but which nevertheless stir such a reaction within me that I would (subjectively) class them as "good".

I attempted to account for your objection by including the rendering as well as the art itself. As Estelwyn aptly illustrates in her distinction between J.S. Bach and "P.D.Q. Bach".

Lalwendë

Lalwendë ... judgements on whether art is good or bad are made by those 'professionally qualified' to do so, not by the consumers.

It has been my experience that market forces typically trump professional judgments. This is best seen in the movie industry. I've watched some movies that were classed as real stinkers by the elite, and they were really quite good, as well as popular (since they did well in the market). And I've watched movies that were proclaimed brilliant, and found myself faced with postmodern tripe that was so disgusting and/or absurd that it could have been grist for C.S. Lewis's mill in his writing of The Abolition of Man. Market forces do more to decide what's good or bad art than any other force in our day.... sad to say? At times, yes.

Sometimes too much exposure breeds contempt, which is the problem with critics. They're so deep into their art form that the tried and true is for them merely boring. I wonder how much this affects our discussion of the fantasy genre?

Lalwendë:I like a lot of music that really winds other people up, and it's definitely not aesthetically pleasing, but it's me-pleasing, and I would say that this is a non-aesthetic reason by choice. I like to hear cathartic or discordant music as much as I like to hear Vaughan Williams.

The Saucepan Man So, although you may not consider it to be aesthetically pleasing, and others may consider it to be "bad", you nevertheless consider it to be "good". That illustrates precisely the point that I am trying to make.

No, I don't think it does, SPM. I think that Lalwendë is saying that to her it's "enjoyable" even if it's not "good". There is a difference. It's the same thing Estelyn pointed out regarding the two Bachs.

Firefoot:If there is something that one person thinks to be beautiful, but everyone else in the world thinks it is not, does it make the thing any less beautiful to that one person? If that is what the one person truly thinks, then no, it doesn't. So is it beautiful or not? Most people would say no, but as long as the one person thinks so, that thing must hold some element of beauty.

With your "no, it doesn't", you suggest that the one person is right just because the one person holds an opinion of any kind, as to beauty. It could just as easiliy be because of individual human fallibility, failure of education, and/or misperception.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I'd like to add another point to the discussion of recognition and appreciation of beauty - that of acquired taste. Whether it be a fine wine, a new style of music, or a type of literature previously unfamiliar, each of us has to learn to enjoy some things that would generally (by experts in their fields) be considered aesthetically pleasing. We do not start out with the same level of enjoyment that we develop through experience and training. I know that I learned to appreciate the beauty of Medieval madrigals and (some ) early 20th century symphonic music through my college education in music. We develop and refine our tastes during the course of our lives, by exposure to new forms of art or variations of old ones.

For this reason it is good to share opinions with others, to test our own opinions for their worth and to be willing to give something new a chance before judging it to be the 'good', the 'bad', or the 'ugly'!

[Aiwendil]

The Saucepan Man wrote:

Aiwendil, I can only conclude that you and I differ only in our definitions. Yet again.

If there's one thing that generates more needless debate than any other, it surely is differing definitions. Glad we straightened it out, though.

Mark12_30 wrote:

It doesn't make sense to me that her beauty appealed fundamentally to irrational impulses and drives.

Well, it does make sense to me. I fear that if we go down that road we'll drive the thread completely off topic, though.

Estelyn wrote:

Aiwendil's mention of the music of P.D.Q.Bach (pseudonym of Peter Schickele), in contrast with the music of J.S.Bach, makes me want to clarify the difference between enjoyment and aesthetic beauty. I definitely enjoy the former's parodic music, but a good deal of the humour involved is based on the fact that it is not aesthetically pleasing, though it is composed with skill and for the purpose of producing the effect which it does, successfully so!

Apparently, I am using "aesthetic beauty" more broadly than you. In my view, humor is aesthetically pleasing in its own way. But this is a mere matter of definition or convention. If I had a better term, I'd use it. The only trouble with "enjoyment" is that it refers specifically to the reaction of the audience, whereas beauty refers to the object itself.

Mark12_30 again:

It just bothers me to hear something ridiculed for the sole reason that it's a trend; something is cheesy and lame just because it can be purchased at Wal-Mart or Home Depot. "It's a trend-- good!" turns to "It's a trend-- Bad!" without any examination of the inherent virtues or flaws of the thing.

A good point. There's certainly nothing wrong with popularity - in fact, in my view, good art will most likely become popular sooner or later. The only point of my trend-bashing is the fact that a lot of bad art becomes popular too.

Littlemanpoet:

I disagree with your "no more than a genetic program" point. Such an assertion necessarily begs the question, "where did the genetic programming come from"? Which is answered (at least for me) in my little aphorism, beauty is being what a thing was meant to be: there is a maker/designer behind the genetics.

Going down this road will definitely drive the thread way off topic.

[littlemanpoet]

Aiwendil: One cannot transmute a linguistic argument into a broad sociological one, much less a metaphysical one.

Regarding a metaphysical, in his Poetic Diction, Owen Barfield, close friend of both Tolkien and C.S. Lewis, does precisely that. He shows how the process of distinction that has been going on for years in language (whether Greek, Latin, English or other) has had both the salutary effect of development of knowledge, and the unhappy effect of divorcing our understanding of concepts from their concrete origins. In other words, we think about metaphysics in certain ways because of what has happened to our speech patterns. The same is true of sociological, or any field of knowledge, precisely because it must make use of the language. Tolkien is known to believe that our language is less good than it used to be precisely because of this development of language. I do not do justice to Tolkien's nor Barfield's thoughts on this. I recommend a reading of Poetic Diction.

Aiwendil: The derivation of the word "amuse" simply cannot prove anything about the relation of humor to art in a broader sense.

Whereas it cannot "prove anything", the derivation is still there, and therefore that derivation is part of the history of that word. That most people are unaware of that, is precisely the disease that Tolkien saw with the language as it is now. People have forgotten where the words they use come from. It is always this way. Whereas it has been said that "myth is a disease of language", Barfield and Tolkien would more likely say that "language is a disease of myth".

The Saucepan Man: Of course, one cannot really compare different forms of art, save in very limited respects.

Quite. The very limited respect was what I had in mind.

The Saucepan Man: ...we are left with two different opinions, neither of which can, ultimately, claim to be fact.

I have been attempting to show just how much of that which is simply assumed to be fact, is no more than opinion; such as the popular understanding that opinions in themselves, by virtue of the fact that they are held and aired by someone, are valid for that person just because she or he has them. Nonsense. Opinions can be uninformed (in which case they're ignorant), unexamined (in which case they are mere prejudice), examined and still wrong (in which case they are the result of imperfect reasoning), or true as far as they go but missing useful information, or just maybe, accurate.

But that's just about opinion. Subjective versus Objective is a distinction which, like all distinctions, does just as much harm as good. Whereas the distinction has value, there is just as much value (ane maybe more) in transcending the duality. Can you look past the distinction to the unity that used to be what was known?

The Saucepan Man: ..."high quality" is judged by what standard?

By the standard of that which endures. Such as Tolkien's LotR. It is standing the test of time. So did Dickens. And Sir Walter Scott. And Shakespeare, etc.

The Saucepan Man: But there will be others who consider it to be "good art". They might even consider it to be "better art" than the works of Tolkien. You and I may disagree with them, but we cannot deny their honest and genuine reaction.

But we can understand that however honestly they hold their opinion, it could still be wrong.

[The Saucepan Man]

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.

[littlemanpoet]

The Saucepan ManTaken to its extreme, this would suggest that, ideally, we should all assess the merit of art in an identical manner.

Of course there are real variations in taste. I acknowledge that personal tastes vary from person to person. Such extreme identicality can only exist in theory, that is, in one's personal fancy; not in reality.

The Saucepan Man 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.

Yes, true, but favour and acknowledgement as something as good art are two different things. There is, and has been for millenia, consistent and wide agreement as to what constitutes good art. If you consider the millenia of those in the past who have agreed that a work of art is in fact not good, then you are either better at judging such things than millions of people in the past, or you are guilty of chronological snobbery, to use a term from C.S. Lewis. That is, "if".

Dickens as good art and Dickens appealing to your tastes, are two separate issues. Surely you can acknowledge something as good art while not liking it particularly well. For example, I know that Mahler's music is good, but I don't particularly like it.

[Aiwendil]

Littlemanpoet wrote:

Regarding a metaphysical, in his Poetic Diction, Owen Barfield, close friend of both Tolkien and C.S. Lewis, does precisely that. He shows how the process of distinction that has been going on for years in language (whether Greek, Latin, English or other) has had both the salutary effect of development of knowledge, and the unhappy effect of divorcing our understanding of concepts from their concrete origins.

One can certainly make a linguistic argument to establish a psychological point about human views of metaphysics (which is what, in my understanding, Barfield's argument is). One could even, in principle, start with linguistic premises and arrive at a metaphysical conclusion (though I cannot think of an example and I don't know whether any exist). What I said (or meant to say) is that one cannot make a purely linguistic argument with a linguistic conclusion and then simply transfer that conclusion onto another plane. The derivation of the word "amuse" may say interesting things about human views of humor - and I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I find the information contemptible or uninteresting - but it does not by itself establish any broader point about the nature of humor or art, or of their relation. As I think you agree:

Whereas it cannot "prove anything", the derivation is still there, and therefore that derivation is part of the history of that word.

I certainly did not mean to question (and don't see that I did in any way question) the argument of Tolkien and Barfield that, as you say:

Whereas it has been said that "myth is a disease of language", Barfield and Tolkien would more likely say that "language is a disease of myth".

Littlemanpoet also wrote:

If you consider the millenia of those in the past who have agreed that a work of art is in fact not good, then you are either better at judging such things than millions of people in the past, or you are guilty of chronological snobbery, to use a term from C.S. Lewis.

I do not mean to speak for The Saucepan Man, and I hope he'll forgive me for jumping in here. But I think that the view of art which is in question here, one which I almost agree with, could be clarified succinctly with regard to this point: it is not a matter of saying "this is bad art; those people in the past who liked it were wrong". It is rather saying "it is meaningless to say simply that a work of art is good or bad; we can only say 'I like it' or 'I dislike it'".

Again, I'm sorry if I've misrepresented The Saucepan Man's view - but in any case, the sentiment thus expressed does defend relativism against the kind of argument made by littlemanpoet.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

The Saucepan Man:The fact remains that there will be works that some people find aesthetically beautiful and others don't.

Well, of course. Which has as much to do with exposure and education as personal taste. Just as striking as the wide variety of individual points of view on beauty, is the universal agreement among all humans as to what constitutes beauty.

Well, I would say that exposure and education goes towards making up personal taste. Otherwise I would agree with what you say, with the substitution for "significant degree of" for "universal". But the impression as to what is "good" or "beautiful" is still a subjective one, even it is one on which the majority agree. Beauty remains in the eye of the beholder.

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Lalwendë:I like a lot of music that really winds other people up, and it's definitely not aesthetically pleasing, but it's me-pleasing, and I would say that this is a non-aesthetic reason by choice. I like to hear cathartic or discordant music as much as I like to hear Vaughan Williams.

Quote:
The Saucepan Man So, although you may not consider it to be aesthetically pleasing, and others may consider it to be "bad", you nevertheless consider it to be "good". That illustrates precisely the point that I am trying to make.

No, I don't think it does, SPM. I think that Lalwendë is saying that to her it's "enjoyable" even if it's not "good". There is a difference. It's the same thing Estelyn pointed out regarding the two Bachs.

Surely if someone finds something "enjoyable", it is "good" in their mind? I define "aesthetic beauty" more narrowly than Aiwendil, but I agree that the physical composition of a work of art is not necessarily the only element which influences the individual's assessment of its quality.

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

The only trouble with "enjoyment" is that it refers specifically to the reaction of the audience, whereas beauty refers to the object itself.

But one could use the word "enjoyable" instead, which would refer to the object. So, a person could say "I found that piece of music enjoyable" just as one could say "I found that piece of music beautiful". They might mean the same thing with both sentences or they might mean something different. Both would indicate to me, however, that they found it to be "good". And, while they are undoubtedly referring to the object (the piece of music), the reaction is a subjective one on their part.

[littlemanpoet]

Aiwendil: Apparently, I am using "aesthetic beauty" more broadly than you. In my view, humor is aesthetically pleasing in its own way.

I was recently listening to a tape on Tolkien, from Mars Hill, and an incidental remark came up that the words "amuse" and "muse" are related as opposites. "Muse" is a source of inspiration. "Amuse" is, literally, "no muse"; that is, not inspiration, but the displacement of inspiration. Thus, amusement was originally understood to be the opposite of creativity, hence, of the process of art. Of course, time has worn its typical ravages upon language, and now we talk about the art of amusement. This is just one more instance that bears out Tolkien's view that language has become less able to do its job as it has developed, contrary to what is generally believed to be true about language.

The Saucepan Man: Beauty remains in the eye of the beholder.

I love it when someone uses this aphorism, because it is assumed to be an obvious truth whereas it is no such thing. Rather, it belies the whole philosophy of the human subject as the arbiter of truth (and beauty). This aphorism grew out of humanistic renaissance philosophy, not out of some inherent understanding of reality. Obviously, the aphorism suggests that beauty is relative, whereas no such opinion can claim to be fact. By contrast I would suggest that "Beauty is in the eye of the Designer", who designed both human ability to perceive beauty, and beauty itself.

The Saucepan Man: Surely if someone finds something "enjoyable", it is "good" in their mind?

"In their mind" is an important qualifier in your question. You are implying the subjective, with which I disagree. But yet another distinction is necessary regarding the term "good". This time, it's not moral versus artistic, but good as pleasure-providing versus good as of high quality. So I would say "yes", anyone will find a work of art that is enjoyable to them, as "good as pleasure-providing". But that does not necessarily carry over to "good as of quality". I relate instance after instance, from parents' enjoyment of children's simple performances, to Monty Python's tongue-in-cheek Arthurian tale (which is a-musement, by the way) to a third rate love song or poem that, though awful, a given person finds enjoyable at a certain time in his or her life. Good? No, not as art. Enjoyable? Certainly.

Which brings me to a recent abortive attempt at fantasy reading, which happens to bring this thread right back to its auspicious origins: I recently attempted to start reading the novel, "Kingdoms of Light" by Alan Dean Foster. I should have been suspicious when the jacket revealed that a wizard's pets were going to be the protagonists of the story. I tried the first chapter anyway, and was disgusted by the sheer awfulness of the writing. Everything was in cartoonish overload, outlandish and full of stock nonsense. I felt insulted. It was as if this writer, who has written over 70 novels, decided that he "knew what that kind of reader liked", and threw together this mishmash that fairly insults the reader. I can't say any more good or bad about it, as I stopped reading in disgust. So, not enjoyable. Maybe he was trying to be a-musing. I could believe that.

[Aiwendil]

The Saucepan Man wrote:

But one could use the word "enjoyable" instead, which would refer to the object.

The only problem with "enjoyable" is that I still think I want to refer to a specific category of enjoyment - not sensual pleasure; I would not call eating candy the enjoyment of art. "Aesthetic" seemed to be a reasonable counterpart to "sensual" to me. At any rate, it seems pointless to go on about a definition that apparently only I am interested in.

Littlemanpoet wrote:

I was recently listening to a tape on Tolkien, from Mars Hill, and an incidental remark came up that the words "amuse" and "muse" are related as opposites. "Muse" is a source of inspiration. "Amuse" is, literally, "no muse"; that is, not inspiration, but the displacement of inspiration.

One cannot transmute a linguistic argument into a broad sociological one, much less a metaphysical one. The derivation of the word "amuse" simply cannot prove anything about the relation of humor to art in a broader sense.

Edit: Also, that derivation of "amuse" is simply not correct, according to the OED.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Thus, amusement was originally understood to be the opposite of creativity, hence, of the process of art. Of course, time has worn its typical ravages upon language, and now we talk about the art of amusement.

I can see no difficulty with regarding "the art of amusement" as an art form in itself. Of course, one cannot really compare different forms of art, save in very limited respects. So, one can little more compare a Monty Python film to a Fellini film than one can compare it to a painting by Renoir (I would say "no more" rather than "little more", but they are rendered in the same medium, which allows for some limited comparison).

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Obviously, the aphorism suggests that beauty is relative, whereas no such opinion can claim to be fact. By contrast I would suggest that "Beauty is in the eye of the Designer", who designed both human ability to perceive beauty, and beauty itself.

Well, then we are left with two different opinions, neither of which can, ultimately, claim to be fact. Your argument assumes the existence of a Designer, which cannot be proved as a matter of fact (but is rather a matter of faith).

But, even assuming the existence of a Designer, then surely there is still scope for subjectivity in assessing the quality of art. I accept, in this scenario, that art which goes against the will of the Designer will, objectively, be "bad art". But, excluding such material, that still leaves a wide range of art on which different people can have widely differing opinions. Is it not therefore the case that this Designer intentionally invested us with sufficient free will to allow us to be able to determine for ourselves, on a subjective basis, which is "good" and which is "bad"?

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

This time, it's not moral versus artistic, but good as pleasure-providing versus good as of high quality.

And "high quality" is judged by what standard? I do accept that the individual may make a distinction personally between art which is merely "enjoyable" and art which they consider to be "high quality". In both cases, they consider the art to be "good", but they may well accord more value to that which they perceive as "high quality". The assessment is still, however, a subjective one in my view.

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Everything was in cartoonish overload, outlandish and full of stock nonsense. I felt insulted. It was as if this writer, who has written over 70 novels, decided that he "knew what that kind of reader liked", and threw together this mishmash that fairly insults the reader. I can't say any more good or bad about it, as I stopped reading in disgust. So, not enjoyable. Maybe he was trying to be a-musing. I could believe that.

So, to your mind, it was "bad art" (and, from your description, I would probably agree with you). But there will be others who consider it to be "good art". They might even consider it to be "better art" than the works of Tolkien. You and I may disagree with them, but we cannot deny their honest and genuine reaction.

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

The only problem with "enjoyable" is that I still think I want to refer to a specific category of enjoyment - not sensual pleasure; I would not call eating candy the enjoyment of art.

There are no doubt many top chefs who would disagree with you that the inspiration of sensual pleasure cannot be considered an art form.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet
Lalwendë:I like a lot of music that really winds other people up, and it's definitely not aesthetically pleasing, but it's me-pleasing, and I would say that this is a non-aesthetic reason by choice. I like to hear cathartic or discordant music as much as I like to hear Vaughan Williams.

Quote:
The Saucepan Man So, although you may not consider it to be aesthetically pleasing, and others may consider it to be "bad", you nevertheless consider it to be "good". That illustrates precisely the point that I am trying to make.

No, I don't think it does, SPM. I think that Lalwendë is saying that to her it's "enjoyable" even if it's not "good". There is a difference. It's the same thing Estelyn pointed out regarding the two Bachs.

As something I have said is being used in a debate, I thought I ought to clarify some points I have made.

Some things which I enjoy others may find aesthetically displeasing and 'bad', and I myself would agree that these things are definitely not aesthetically pleasing, as most would define that quality. But I do not find these things to be 'bad' in any way. In fact I would not like them if I did not see some 'good' in them. One of those 'good' things being that they stimulate my mind, or enable me to feel some kind of visceral pleasure. I consider to be 'good' (in fact marvellous) some bands/artists who, among other things, variously play down- tuned guitars, shout through megaphones, have narrators instead of singers, write songs about anti-depressants, etc., just about anything which by any definition could be called non-aesthetically pleasing. I enjoy these things with the same level of pleasure which I get from 'things' (for want of a better word) more widely accepted as 'pleasing'.

By the same token, I can find pleasure in driving along a perfectly smooth, wide and empty road through a beautiful landscape. Yet the paradox is that this very road has spoiled that beautiful landscape. This hypothetical road is not aesthetically pleasing, but it is also 'good' to me. I could sit and look at one of Damien Hirst's installation artworks and while I would say, yes, it is not aesthetically pleasing, it gives me the pleasure of mental stimulation and so is 'good' to me.

Enjoyment is vital, I find, to us considering any work to be good. If we do not get any enjoyment out of it, then it is bad. This enjoyment might include laughter, a sense of recognition, learning, catharsis, adventure, understanding, the sensation of freedom, or simple joy. If we do not find enjoyment in one of its many forms, then what do we find? Boredom. Books are a particularly good example of this - they take a lot of investment from us in terms of time, and if we are gaining nothing from that book then we are not enjoying it, in other words, it is boring, and we consider it 'bad'. Yes, it's annoying when we hear people dismiss books we hold dear as 'boring'. A young person might openly say something is boring, while a critic will express the concept of their finding something 'boring' in a rather long-winded way! I do get the feeling I might have to explain some of this further...