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

[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.

[Lalwendë]

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

I should have answered this sooner which was rude of me. By these comments I was referring to the fact that judgements on whether art is good or bad are made by those 'professionally qualified' to do so, not by the consumers. I was being a bit sarcastic, as I see that this is indeed the case, but I do not want it to be like that! And when I say 'professionally qualified' I am again being a little sarcastic, as it is clear to me that there is a certain amount of elitism involved in judgements about 'art' and culture.

A work, then, could be aesthetically beautiful but, for one reason or another, not liked.

I think this is entirely possible. I understand that the artist Raphael, who produced perfectly rendered paintings, fell out of favour with the contemporary cultural elite (Rossetti, Burne-Jones et al) some time in the 1800s. It is only now that his art is in favour once again. The reaction against his style of art gave rise to the term pre-raphaelite. Nobody could deny that Raphael's art is aesthetically beautiful, but it certainly was not liked for some time.

To take a contemporary example, (so I can't be accused of being elitist ) let's look at music, and just because it was the first thing to come to mind, look at Gareth Gates. He has the right looks and image for a pop star, he sings beautifully, and he has been supplied with well crafted songs. All very aesthetically pleasing. Yet I would not say he is liked by music fans. What are they buying instead? A good comparison is the success of The Darkness, four fairly ugly blokes dressed like something from the early 70s and churning out old fashioned rock music. Not aesthetically pleasing at all, but a wider range of people like them.

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.

Definitely true. And at both ends of the spectrum from pop to alternative. I happen to like quite a lot of 'alternative' music (amongst other things), and I have no doubts that this grew from my teens when I shuddered at the very thought of being seen dead buying anything by Wham. So when I saw characters like Morrissey or Bob Smith in my copy of Smash Hits I went and bought their records.

I think there are a great many popular works of art that are not good, but are liked for non-aesthetic reasons

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.

Before I start on a long essay about why some of my favourite bands are so ace, I'll round off by saying that what we like is strongly related to the shifts in our personal truth, and that our taste is not always, in my opinion, related to any concrete definition of good or bad art, but to what the influences of the world around us (media, friends, even people we want to irritate) thinks is good or bad. This is a good thing, as those who only consume the things in culture which they have been told are 'good' are rapidly going to become insular, locked in their high or low brow mindsets. Those who are willing to explore are going to find more enrichment. I hope this makes sense!

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

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.

No. Aesthetic beauty must always rely on subjective assessment. The fact remains that there will be works that some people find aesthetically beautiful and others don't. How can aesthetic beauty be objective when this is the case? And, in any event, aesthetic beauty, to my mind, doesn't (for the individual) necessarily have to be the defining characteristic of "good" art. 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". Many of the works of artists such as Jake and Dinos Chapman, Damien Hirst and Tracey Emin, would fall within this category for me.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I should have answered this sooner which was rude of me. By these comments I was referring to the fact that judgements on whether art is good or bad are made by those 'professionally qualified' to do so, not by the consumers.

But that's precisely my point. Why should any individual be told by some cultural elite what is "good" art and what is "bad" art? Surely we Tolkien fans should understand this only too well. We get irked when Tolkien's works are not accorded the academic respect that we think that they deserve, and yet it has been suggested here that certain other artists are not "good", even though they might stir a positive reaction within others. I simply cannot see how the two views can match up.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Nobody could deny that Raphael's art is aesthetically beautiful, but it certainly was not liked for some time.

Conceivably, there might be individuals who could honestly say that his art was not aesthetically pleasing to them. Unlikely, maybe, given the mental invariance that Aiwendil talks of (which leads to that "kind of objectivity"). But possible nevertheless. And, in any event, aesthetic beauty is not the only determinant of "good" art for the individual, in my view, as I said earlier.

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

... 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.

What is wrong with "image" as one determinant of "good" art for the individual? The example of The Darkness that Lalwendë gives is a telling one for me. When I first heard their music, I considered it to be terribly derivative and I reacted negatively to it. Then it occured to me that they had their tongues halfway (at least) in their cheeks. They were poking fun at the whole 70s glam rock thing. Once I realised that, I approached their music with an entirely different mindset. It isn't necessarily aesthetically beautiful to me, but I enjoy the joke and now consider their art, taken as a whole package, to be "good".

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

This is a good thing, as those who only consume the things in culture which they have been told are 'good' are rapidly going to become insular, locked in their high or low brow mindsets.

There is not necessarily anything wrong with liking something because others have told you that it is "good". It depends whether, deep down, you actually believe it to be "good". If you do, fine. If not, then you are simply deceiving (and short-changing) yourself. Personally, I have never been one for "trends", so I can't undersatnd the mentality which persuades one to like something because one is told one ought to. As they say, I like what I like. Perhaps there is value in going along with one's "peers" because it accords one with some kind of security within society. But that has little to do with the subjective assessment of the art itself.

Edit, having cross-posted with lmp:

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Not long ago, I asked myself just why it was that the form of a woman is so aesthetically pleasing to me. I was not satisfied with strictly gender related reasons. Indeed, gender relatedness begged the question! Why is it that most human males are absolutely convinced that they know a beautiful woman when they see one? How do they know? What is the standard? Is there a standard? Why, in short, do I say that the form of a woman is beautiful?

Two words. Biological imperative. But even that doesn't provide the complete answer, as there are males who do not find the form of a woman to be beautiful. And, once again, I would not insist upon aesthetic beauty as the only determinant of "good" art.

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Mark12_30 and I have stated the bases for our points of view. I would appreciate it if someone who holds to the "good art is a subjective, relative thing", would kindly provide a reasoned basis for such a position. Thanks!

Well, I've given it my best shot, so I'm not sure what more I can add without repeating myself.

[Aiwendil]

Littlemanpoet wrote:

I'd like to start with a distinction regarding the word "good" in terms of "good art". There is moral good and aesthetic good. One can write a book that is morally bad but aesthetically good; or one that is aesthetically awful while morally good.

A very good point, one which I think I failed to articulate properly to Kalessin in the old days of this thread.

Not long ago, I asked myself just why it was that the form of a woman is so aesthetically pleasing to me. I was not satisfied with strictly gender related reasons.

Here I must disagree. 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.

The Saucepan Man wrote:

No. Aesthetic beauty must always rely on subjective assessment.

I don't think I understand your "no". I said that if there is sufficient invariance among human minds then aesthetic beauty can be treated as a mere property of objects. You can certainly disagree about whether there is such invariance. But given sufficient invariance (whatever that may amount to) aesthetic beauty would have to be definable in such a way. To take the limiting case, if all human minds were exactly identical, then obviously it would be definable.

Yes, people like different things. I offered some possible explanations that could account for these differences that are unrelated to aesthetic beauty (popularity, accessibility, etc.). Now, maybe these are enough to account for the variety of tastes and maybe they're not. But they do show that it is not simply differing standards of aesthetic beauty that result in different likes and dislikes.

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 think perhaps that you may be taking my use of "aesthetic beauty" too strictly. It is certainly not a perfect term for what I mean, though I can think of none better. Many things can contribute to aesthetic beauty in my view. Comedic value may contribute; allegory may contribute; dissonance and even ugliness may contribute. I've never heard of The Darkness before. But I am a fan of "P.D.Q. Bach". Schikele's music is not good in the same way that J.S. Bach's music is, and if I didn't get the humor I wouldn't like it. But I do get the humor, and I think that this does give it value. Similarly, I would say that The Darkness could be aesthetically good for precisely the reason you like it. This is not at all what I meant by "image". I meant the tendency for certain people to "like", for example, a certain form of music only because it is the popular thing to do - or to like another kind for precisely the opposite reason. In other words, to like a work of art for essentially non-artistic reasons.

You address this yourself at the end of your post:

It depends whether, deep down, you actually believe it to be "good". If you do, fine. If not, then you are simply deceiving (and short-changing) yourself. Personally, I have never been one for "trends", so I can't undersatnd the mentality which persuades one to like something because one is told one ought to. As they say, I like what I like. Perhaps there is value in going along with one's "peers" because it accords one with some kind of security within society. But that has little to do with the subjective assessment of the art itself.

I have certainly never been one for trends either, so I can't understand the mentality any better than you. Maybe, as you suggest, there is indeed a kind of social value in such things. But as you correctly point out, that has little to do with the assessment of the art itself. That is what I meant.

[mark12_30]

Here I must disagree. 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.

lmp is *specifically* separating the two.

A man may paint the form of a woman, and achieve something merely impulse-driven; or, he may paint the form of a woman and achieve something transcendant. Luthien was a transcendant beauty. It doesn't make sense to me that her beauty appealed fundamentally to irrational impulses and drives.

[The Saucepan Man]

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

[Estelyn Telcontar]

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! Mostly, it plays with the standards of beauty of that musical age, interspersing jarring elements that emphasize the difference. I chuckle over those pieces, but I am not deeply moved by them in the way that I am moved when I hear and play J.S. Bach's music.

To bring that point back to Tolkien, the same thing applies to parodies of his work; I can enjoy them tremendously, when they are well-done, and there is certainly an element of skillful use of language in those that are well-written, but beautiful? I don't know...