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

[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.