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

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

The Saucepan Man wrote:
Quote:
... what is "good art"?

Who cares?

What I mean is: is a working definition of "good art" really necessary for the discussion in this thread to make sense? Of course it's an interesting question in its own right . . .

And I thought that you were the master of quantification.

The reason that I asked is that assumptions are being made on this thread as to what is "good art" or "bad art". Who decides what is "good" and what is "bad" at any given time? Is it some cultural elite? Is it the majority of consumers (the popularity argument)? Or is it simply down to personal taste? I have a lot of time for the works mentioned in my previous post, and yet they certainly don't have mass appeal and there are many (probably the majority) who find them pointless and entirely devoid of merit.

And must "good art" necessarily reveal some truth as to the human condition (customarily, I avoid the dreaded capital 'T' )? And, if so, who is to say what those truths are? In any event, surely the individual can simply enjoy art without having to feel that they have learned some basic truth. Or can simple enjoyment be classified as a basic truth of human experience?

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

More specifically, I mean that a work of art becomes 'good' when sufficient of the right kind of critics have judged it to be so. It does not become 'good' when mere mortals say so, otherwise the overwhelming popularity of Tolkien would mean that he was judged 'good' by even more people. Until the right kind of critics judge Tolkien to be 'good', his work will remain excluded.

But who are these "right kind of critics", and why should they determine what is good and bad for the rest of us?

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Perhaps a more pertinent question is whether there is such a thing as "good art". I recall having a long debate about that in another old thread - perhaps I'll go and see if I can unearth it.

Precisely the point that I was driving at. Isn't it all, ultimately, subjective? Of course, in communities such as this forum, where one's very presence is driven by a particular interest (the works of Tolkien in our case), there will be a broad (though not exclusive) consensus on many areas of artistic endeavour. But there will always be disagreement on the fringes (if not the central ground).

Originally Posted by Rimbaud

Indeed, perhaps that’s the point; that it’s choice rather than a form of objective qualitative analysis for which we should be striving. I rather agree with Aiwendil above with a distaste for classifying ‘good art’; it is moreover in my opinion a phrase to be avoided.

Since the merits of an individual work of art are entirely subjective, I would agree that there can be no such thing as “good art”. A piece of art cannot, objectively, be classified as “good” simply because a certain group of academics regard it as having academic merit, although it is certainly “good” to them. Neither can it be classified as “bad” because others regard it as having little merit (by reference to their own criteria). Similarly, with the works of authors such as Danielle Steele, or Jeffrey Archer, or Terry Brooks. Like tar-ancalime, I would not exclude works such as these from the general definition of "art" simply because they are regarded as “mere entertainment” for the masses. They are popular with, and therefore regarded as “good”, by a large section of society, while others regard them as drivel and therefore “bad”. Objectively, they are neither.

Of course, works of art can come to be regarded as good by a sufficiently large or influential section of society, such as they become generally regarded within that society as “good” (and this will change over time). That is not to say that only art which is popular is to regarded as “good”, but it is surely one determinant of quality. If the works of a particular author or artist or director are popular, then they must be doing something right.

I would agree with Rimbaud concerning the desirability of choice. And I would say that there is a sufficiently wide range of shared tastes within our society to prompt the "producers" and those who market their "products" to give us a sufficiently tolerable choice. There may be those within society whose particular tastes are not catered for, but such tastes would surely be very eclectic indeed. Otherwise, while those who have less “popularist” tastes may need to search a little harder (whether that be by surfing the net, tuning into the right radio station, going to the right bookshop and so forth), that which they find to be “good” will generally still be there somewhere.

[mark12_30]

And must "good art" necessarily reveal some truth as to the human condition (customarily, I avoid the dreaded capital 'T' )? And, if so, who is to say what those truths are? In any event, surely the individual can simply enjoy art without having to feel that they have learned some basic truth. Or can simple enjoyment be classified as a basic truth of human experience?

Those who believe in transcendant Truth would say yes, that enjoyment of something Good leads to a deeper (not necessarily intellectual) understanding of that Good; that enjoyment of Truth leads to deeper understanding (again, not necessarily intellectual) of that Truth. Further, the reason that such enjoyment is subjective is due to the variety and subtlety inherent in the individual's perception of Truth, not because the Truth itself is inconsistent.

Those who neither believe in, nor pursue, Good or Truth, would say there are no such effects.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

Those who believe in transcendant Truth would say yes, that enjoyment of something Good leads to a deeper (not necessarily intellectual) understanding of that Good; that enjoyment of Truth leads to deeper understanding (again, not necessarily intellectual) of that Truth. Further, the reason that such enjoyment is subjective is due to the variety and subtlety inherent in the individual's perception of Truth, not because the Truth itself is inconsistent.

But is this true of every work of art that one who believes thusly perceives? And surely much the same might be said of art which such an individual considers to be "bad" - that the negative reaction enhances understanding.

Originally Posted by mark12_30

Those who neither believe in, nor pursue, Good or Truth, would say there are no such effects.

And does that render valueless to the believer the enjoyment of art by the non-believer that he or she finds to be "good"?

[littlemanpoet]

I dare say "good art" is not nearly as subjective as has been asserted; certainly not completely subjective. Standards have always applied throughout the history of art. Cultures that have done art (which is probably all of them) have conformed to styles and standards. What kinds of standards? At least those of skill and beauty; or, when beauty was precisely that which was being rebelled against (such as early 20th century), then a vigor in ugliness was a kind of standard - because of the skill with which it was achieved.

The word "good" implies standards. If there is "good", there has to be "better" and "best". It's only in our own culturally and philosophically relativist era that standards of "good art" have become subjective. Tolkien found the relativistic tendencies in modern art and literature to be quite repulsive. He, being perhaps an extreme example, considered any literature in the English language that had been produced after 1800 (I think), not to be worthy of the term.

Back to my main point. There are necessarily objective standards for art, precisely because humans cannot avoid thinking and behaving in terms of standards of good, better, and best.

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

[Aiwendil]

Tar-Ancalime wrote:

I am a professional in the performing arts, and I really take issue with the whole idea that there is some discernable boundary between what is art and what is "just" entertainment. I expect the same respect for my craft regardless of the nature of the work I'm performing. I think that when we begin to talk about the "real art" vs. "the stuff that fills the bookshelves," we're setting up a false dichotomy.

I agree wholeheartedly. I asked about such a distinction only because I wondered whether it is part of Althusser's/Fordim's view. I still think we can make a qualitative distinction between what some would call "high" and "low" art (whether that is a good/bad distinction or merely a stylistic, thematic, cultural distinction). But I don't think we ought to make a fundamental distinction or judge them by different standards (as I said in the popularist vs. literati thread).

Lalwende wrote:

That's plainly going too far, but market forces these days all too often prevent the kind of experimentation which in the past has resulted in so much fantastic music!

I think I agree - though it's hard for me to say, since I dislike pretty much all music from after about 1973. Maybe this is why.

Estelyn wrote:

There is one very notable example in music history; J. S. Bach* was considered old-fashioned by his own sons and their generation. Had not Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdy rediscovered him many years later and brought his Matthew's Passion to public performance, who knows if we would be familiar with him today?

Ah, but Mendelssohn did rediscover him. Bach is the perfect example, in fact, of the "test of time" theory working - he was vastly underappreciated in his own time but now he has the recognition he deserves. Further, it's quite unlikely that any future change in musical fashion will drive him back into oblivion (though of course there may be smaller scale fluctuations in his popularity).

Insofar as you're saying that without the happy accident of Mendelssohn championing Bach, Bach would be unknown today - I must say that I doubt it. It need not have been Mendelssohn. Given time, I think it was very probable that someone would have rediscovered him. As a matter of fact, he wasn't ever wholly forgotten. Mozart, for example, knew and thought very highly of his work in the 1780s. I would say that it was almost inevitable that, given time, he would achieve the popularity he now enjoys.

The Saucepan Man wrote:

And I thought that you were the master of quantification.

A time to quantify, a time to refrain from quantifying (even though you can).

And must "good art" necessarily reveal some truth as to the human condition (customarily, I avoid the dreaded capital 'T' )?

My answer is a resounding "NO" - and not just because I fear another "canonicity" argument. There are any number of criteria that might define "good art". Personally, I still say that good art is that which is most aesthetically pleasing.

Precisely the point that I was driving at. Isn't it all, ultimately, subjective?

This is exactly the question that I argued in that "Tolkien Template" thread I linked to. And I still think that either the quality of art is not in fact subjective or you get fairly strange results. I don't claim to know, with certainty, which of those options obtains - but I do think that a kind of objectivity can be derived from the relative invariance of the human mind, given a definition like "good art is that which is most aesthetically pleasing". A whole debate could be had of course concerning just how invariant aesthetic pleasure is from mind to mind - but I think that would be beside the point.

On the other hand, if you really want to say that art is subjective you cannot even claim that a Mozart symphony is superior to the noise I banged out of a piano when I was three. Now that's a coherent position, but I suspect that few people really agree with it deep down.

Like tar-ancalime, I would not exclude works such as these from the general definition of "art" simply because they are regarded as “mere entertainment” for the masses.

Another distinction ought to be made (I wish I could have a nickel for every time I've said that). One could (and I would) say that such works (those of Danielle Steele and the like) are in fact "true art", just the same as Tolkien or Joyce or Homer, and yet say that they are "bad art".

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

There are necessarily objective standards for art, precisely because humans cannot avoid thinking and behaving in terms of standards of good, better, and best.

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

I do think that a kind of objectivity can be derived from the relative invariance of the human mind, given a definition like "good art is that which is most aesthetically pleasing".

Indeed. Hence my point:

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Of course, works of art can come to be regarded as good by a sufficiently large or influential section of society, such as they become generally regarded within that society as “good” (and this will change over time).

The merits are still subjectively assessed. It's just that a significant section of society (whether in terms of numbers, influence, authority or whatever) reaches broadly the same conclusion. I accept that that this equates to what Aiwendil describes as a "kind of objectivity". But, ultimately, it boils down to the subjective assessment of the individual. The proof being in the fact that there will always be works of art that some consider to be "good" and others consider to be "not good".

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

On the other hand, if you really want to say that art is subjective you cannot even claim that a Mozart symphony is superior to the noise I banged out of a piano when I was three. Now that's a coherent position, but I suspect that few people really agree with it deep down.

I entirely accept that certain "producers" are more able to satisfy a greater number of individual tastes than others. Does that make them "good" artists? Well, yes in terms of those (the majority, the culturally influential etc) who assess it positively and therefore yes in terms of that society's assessment, but not to those who do not find such art to their tastes.

Originally Posted by mark12_30

To that I would echo Elrond: it is dangerous to study too closely the arts of the darkness.

Well, I wasn't necessarily thinking of art that the believer might consider to be evil. Or does the believer consider all "bad" art to be contrary to his or her Truth? But, with regard to the point that you make, Sun Tzu would disagree with you, counselling rather that it is better to know your enemy.

Originally Posted by mark12_30

In fact, the 'believer'(Truth-seeker) should expect that in enjoying 'Good/True art', something is happening deep within the the 'non-believer' (Indifferent) that has, or might have, or hopefully will have, the effect of drawing him towards Good and/ or Truth (same thing, in the end)-- and in that the Truth-seeker would rejoice. In fact, the Truth-seeker may actually place a higher value on the Indifferent one's enjoyment, since the Truth seeker has hopes that the enjoyment may, in the end, have an eternal effect.

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.

[Aiwendil]

Mark12_30 wrote:

I think rather than using the terms "believer" and "Non-believer" (really, ARE you trying to get me excommunicated from the Downs??)... Personally for the sake of this argument I would prefer something more along the lines of Truth-seeker and Indifferent.

Wait a minute - there's a big difference between a "non-believer" and one who is "indifferent". I don't believe in your transcendent Truth (though perhaps only because I still don't really understand what it's supposed to mean). But I'm most certainly not indifferent toward the matter. The question of whether there is such a thing interests me greatly, even if my answer is "no". I seek truth but I don't think I'm a "Truth-seeker" in your sense.

Aiwendil, I would point to "most aesthetically pleasing" and say that beauty, goodness, truth, and Aesthetically pleasing all derive from (capital 'T') Truth, which is (capital-G) Goodness, and (capital-B) Beauty.

Then perhaps (surprisingly enough) we agree on the criterion for good art, but disagree on the reason the causes of aesthetic beauty.

I must say, though, that I can't see how certain areas of aesthetics could be derived from "Truth", unless my understanding of the term is even less than I thought. In tonal harmony, for example, voices are not supposed to move in parallel fourths. Of course, sometimes this rule is broken, often succesfully, but in general it really does hold value - there is something displeasing about about parallel fourths, and they are often detrimental to the aesthetic value of a composition. Now if aesthetic pleasure really does derive entirely from Truth, there must be something "unTrue" about such a composition. So I ask: how do parallel fourths violate Truth? How can an abstract object like that violate Truth?

The Saucepan Man wrote:

The merits are still subjectively assessed. It's just that a significant section of society (whether in terms of numbers, influence, authority or whatever) reaches broadly the same conclusion. I accept that that this equates to what Aiwendil describes as a "kind of objectivity".

Then perhaps our difference is one of definition rather than of substance. However, I should emphasize that it is not in my view popularity, with any segment of the population, that makes art good. A work could be aesthetically beautiful and yet, for one reason or another, not liked by anyone.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Back to my main point. There are necessarily objective standards for art, precisely because humans cannot avoid thinking and behaving in terms of standards of good, better, and best.

lmp, I'm still pondering the ramifications of this-- especially in light of some of Aiwendil's points. I think I agree with you; but I'm wrestling with those standards.

At the risk of creating a maelstrom, I will say.... ---- nah. Maybe I'll PM you instead.

No, doggone it, I can do this.

It all goes back to Tolkien's concept of "sub-creation"-- which is done, according to Tolkien, in *honor* of the Creator because we are made in His image.

(And to that I hold... )

That in my opinion is the final standard, and will be the standard to which the Truth-seeker will adhere **to the degree which he understands it himself**, which comes back around to both a cultural and a heart issue. To the degree that the artist is capable (here we have a heart-judgement which only the Creator is capable of)-- is this sub-creative work in **honor** of the Creator? If it is, it will ultimately be judged as Good. It will to some degree draw those who enjoy it to the Truth, because, being made in honor of the Creator, it will reflect Truth to some degree.

Back to your point about cultures: each culture reflects what revelation of beauty they have. Rohan reflects horses, elves reflect trees and stars. So cultural standards differ. And when cultures merge, some understand the other's sense of beauty and some do not. I'm not quite sure where this goes yet. But in the end, it's a heart issue, of that I am certain; and a work made as a sub-creation to reflect the Creator, which causes in the enjoyer the faintest glimmer of transcendance-- Tolkien's evangelium-- will meet that standard.

[tar-ancalime]

In tonal harmony, for example, voices are not supposed to move in parallel fourths. Of course, sometimes this rule is broken, often succesfully, but in general it really does hold value - there is something displeasing about about parallel fourths, and they are often detrimental to the aesthetic value of a composition. Now if aesthetic pleasure really does derive entirely from Truth, there must be something "unTrue" about such a composition. So I ask: how do parallel fourths violate Truth? How can an abstract object like that violate Truth?

The only compositions in which parallel fourths sounds "displeasing" are those written in the functional harmonic style of the 17th through 19th centuries. In fact, while these works were being written there was no such "rule." There was a style of composition, just as there are always fashions in art. At the time a composition using parallel fourths would probably have been judged "bad," but so would a composition that broke from the prevailing style in any other significant way. (Which is why we are able to look at the style now and pick out its characteristics--if anything and everything could be good art in a particular time and place, it would be very difficult for a prevailing style to develop.) What such a composition would not have been is "unTrue--" it's always just as possible to reveal something badly as it is to do it well.

What I'm trying to say, in my long-winded way, is that this "rule" about avoiding parallel intervals is a modern construct, placed on a particular style of art from the past. It's a style characteristic, not a decree from on high. The only way to violate it is to write a composition that adheres to the style in every other way, and also uses parallel fourths, which would stick out like a sore thumb in that context. The "rule" would be violated, but the work wouldn't somehow lose its relatipnship with the truth. Not even the historical truth of the style would be violated--the context of the rest of the composition would speak loudly enough, and the parallel fourths would sound out of place, just as they should in such a work.

Which, I suppose, boils down to a restatement of what I was trying to say before--the craftsmanship (or, if you like, the degree of its adherence to a particular style) of a work has nothing to do with its ability to show us something about our experience.

Reading this, it occurs to me--am I sidling up to a position that what makes good art is the degree to which it fits into a prevailing style? I certainly hope not! I'll have to think about that.

[Aiwendil]

The Saucepan Man wrote:

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.

Well, as I said earlier:

A whole debate could be had of course concerning just how invariant aesthetic pleasure is from mind to mind - but I think that would be beside the point.

If there is sufficient invariance among human minds that "aesthetic beauty" simpliciter could be defined, then aesthetic beauty would be a simple property of objects. So, though aesthetic beauty is defined in relation to the human mind, it would be perfectly sensible to talk about the aesthetic beauty of a work of art without reference to any human.

A work, then, could be aesthetically beautiful but, for one reason or another, not liked. Maybe there are non-artistic prevailing attitudes that disincline people toward the work (this I think is the case with many "serious" composers for a big part of the population). Maybe the work is not accessible for some reason (a novel written in Tocharian A could in principle be great, but only a few philologists would be able to read it). And I think there are a great many popular works of art that are not good, but are liked for non-aesthetic reasons - for a surprisingly large segment of the population, I think, musical taste is dictated by "image" rather than by the aesthetics of the music itself.

Mark12_30 wrote:

Aiwendil, I certainly meant no offense, and I apologize if any was taken.

None at all. You'll have to try much harder if you want to offend me.

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.

So essentially the distinction is between those that share your theory of art and those that do not. I only harp on this because, as you know, all these capitalized terms give me a headache; I would prefer to state things clearly and plainly.

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.

An interesting analogy. But I'm afraid my question was intended in the most crassly literal way. If aesthetic beauty derives from "Truth", then the details of what is beautiful must derive from Truth. My concern is that I don't see how this is possible in some cases. What is it about Truth that makes parallel thirds aesthetically pleasing and parallel fourths not so?

Tar-Ancalime wrote:

The only compositions in which parallel fourths sounds "displeasing" are those written in the functional harmonic style of the 17th through 19th centuries. In fact, while these works were being written there was no such "rule."

As I said, in traditional tonal harmony. But traditional tonal harmony is still quite prevalent outside avant-garde circles. Even a lot of the important modern composers (like Copland, Holst, Shostakovitch) used tonal harmony (of course, there have been major stylistic changes in the past 400 years, but with the exception of serialism and the like, they've been changes within the context of tonal harmony). As far as the avoidance of parallel fourths not being a "rule" in the 17th through 19th centuries - I must disagree. True, no one at the time said "parallel fourths are to be avoided", but that does not make it any less true that such avoidance was an implicit or emergent rule of the style. Nor do I think that it was merely a convention followed because of style. I know that I have heard pieces where something struck me as unpleasant, and only later discovered that the reason for the this was motion in parallel fourths, or some other violation of a "rule" of harmony.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

But is this true of every work of art that one who believes thusly perceives? And surely much the same might be said of art which such an individual considers to be "bad" - that the negative reaction enhances understanding.

To that I would echo Elrond: it is dangerous to study too closely the arts of the darkness. I refer you back to the Victorian pornography; studying it would enhance understanding of what? And is it worth it? If there is ultimate Truth and Goodness, then the answer to "Is it worth it" is most likely No-- with the narrow exception that someone might be trying to reach out to victims of the not-good, and thereby be pursuing enough understanding of what is not-good to be able to counter it. Yet I still call that risky.

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

And does that render valueless to the believer the enjoyment of art by the non-believer that he or she finds to be "good"?

I think rather than using the terms "believer" and "Non-believer" (really, ARE you trying to get me excommunicated from the Downs??)... Personally for the sake of this argument I would prefer something more along the lines of Truth-seeker and Indifferent.

But to answer your question: not at all. In fact, the 'believer'(Truth-seeker) should expect that in enjoying 'Good/True art', something is happening deep within the the 'non-believer' (Indifferent) that has, or might have, or hopefully will have, the effect of drawing him towards Good and/ or Truth (same thing, in the end)-- and in that the Truth-seeker would rejoice. In fact, the Truth-seeker may actually place a higher value on the Indifferent one's enjoyment, since the Truth seeker has hopes that the enjoyment may, in the end, have an eternal effect.

Is a eucatastrophe-- a glimpse of Truth-- any less of a eucatastrophe if the person who gets the glimpse doesn't fully realise what he is seeing? I think it depends on the heart; and who can judge that? The glimpse of Truth may sow something transcendant in the soul that that does not come to fruition for many years.

(Frodo's dreams of the sea come to mind.)

On to Aiwendil's post:

Quote: And must "good art" necessarily reveal some truth as to the human condition (customarily, I avoid the dreaded capital 'T' )?

My answer is a resounding "NO" - and not just because I fear
another "canonicity" argument.

(poor Aiwendil!)

There are any number of criteria that might define "good art". Personally, I still say that good art is that which is most aesthetically pleasing.

Aiwendil, I would point to "most aesthetically pleasing" and say that beauty, goodness, truth, and Aesthetically pleasing all derive from (capital 'T') Truth, which is (capital-G) Goodness, and (capital-B) Beauty. I will go further, and call that Tolkien's Evangelium; and I will go yet further, and state that everything "beautiful" in all of Tolkien's works is his sub-creative reflection of Truth. Other sub-creators form other reflections. But having said all that, and recognizing that there are many on this forum and on this thread that do not consider Truth to exist in it's "capital-T" state, that if one finds something aesthetically pleasing, and it is indeed something which (for example) Tolkien sub-created in a reflection of Truth, then that aesthetic enjoyment (in my opinion) works because the Truth was there to be reflected in the first place.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I'd like to toss a single crouton into this very mixed salad, one cut from a slice of Tolkien's own bread; this statement:

Originally Posted by mark12_30

Is a eucatastrophe-- a glimpse of Truth-- any less of a eucatastrophe if the person who gets the glimpse doesn't fully realise what he is seeing? I think it depends on the heart; and who can judge that? The glimpse of Truth may sow something transcendant in the soul that that does not come to fruition for many years.

reminds me of the Queen of Faery's comment on the diminutive fairy decorating the cake in Smith of Wootton Major:

Do not be grieved for me, Starbrow. Nor too much ashamed of your own folk. Better a little doll, maybe, than no memory of Faery at all. For some the only glimpse. For some the awaking.

Various "levels" of art perhaps have the merit of offering various people different "levels" of Faery, so that each one can find that with which s/he feels comfortable. Some may go on, some may stay there...

[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.