What objective criteria exist which allow us to distinguish between various pieces of art?
Chuzzlewit, two points.
First, you have resolutely ignored my objections to your use of the word "objective," as raised in these two paragraphs in a post to which you never responded:
Let me elaborate, briefly, on some observations I made in the first post.
1) Philosophers have been arguing for centuries over the meaning of "objectivity" and
"subjectivity." The last I looked, they still were. Yet you write as if "everybody knows" the difference between them. I think that when you are talking about Science vs. Art you need to use different terms: empirical truth vs. experiential truth, perhaps?
2) As to whether Beethoven is superior to hip-hop or not, yes, there are standards.
Again, I eschew your word "objective," because you have booby-trapped it by linking it exclusively to scientific method.
Message 10097045
Secondly, you are shifting the discussion from an important point -- Is Science Superior to Art, Because Its Truths Can Be Demonstrated by Means of Scientific Method? Does Art Have Any Truths At All? -- to one I regard as secondary: how do you prove the superiority of one work of art to another? (The presumption apparently being that if I can't prove it to your satisfaction, that in turn proves that the "truths" of Art have no "scientific validity." Because when you say "objective" you mean "scientific."*)
Now, more or less to the point:
1) It does not matter whether or why Mansfield Park is superior or inferior to Bleak House (although I personally would opt for the latter). It is not necessary to rank works of art. Tastes can differ, and they can change from era to era. But I can recognize a "work of art" as such, even when it does not particularly appeal to me.
2) The important thing is to be able to distinguish Art from Garbage. And there are good, common-sense standards for that. Say you are Christopher. You are playing a French Horn in an orchestra, and the oboist next to you is playing off tune. You will know instantly that he does not meet The Standard! <g>
Or, you are the judge in a Sonnet Contest. One poet submits a version that not only observes the proper rhyme scheme and the proper meter, but is also full of original images and striking ideas. Another submits a piece of doggerel that does not even scan, that is full of cliches and moon/June rhymes, and that is full of borrowed notions. You will know instantly that the second poet does not meet The Standard!
3) Asking me to compare Beethoven and hip-hop is like asking me to compare apples and oranges. And I submit that if you were to ask the hip-hop musician the same question you asked me, he would say something like - "You crazy, man?" He knows the difference, even though you profess not to. Not all music is Art, or designed to be. Some of it is just for dancing, or for letting off steam, or whatever. Which is okay, too.
4) You maintain that there is no "objective" (that word again!) "methodology" (another ugly one!) -- defined as one that does not rely on the personal experience or opinion of the investigator -- to determine the quality of a work of art. I am tempted to respond with a personal anecdote.
My youngest son recently said to me: "Ma, you remember when we used to argue about books, and I would tell you - 'Huh! That's just your opinion!" - and you would answer, 'Well, some people's opinions are worth more than other people's opinions!' You know something? You were right!"
4) Do not confuse individual works of art with the aesthetic experience, which in some ways is quite close to the mystical religious experience. Like the contemplation of Nature, the contemplation of Art can evoke the same feelings of awe, of Unity with the Universe, whatever, that a religious experience can.
Mircea Eliade uses the word "hierophany" to describe an object that has been invested with religious significance: the Cross is an obvious example; and to an animist, any tree, any stone, can be a "hierophany." The hierophany symbolizes, foreshadows, something beyond it -- something mysterious and profound. I submit that works of art can also be "hierophanies": it is not so much what they say, as what they foreshadow, what they evoke. In other words, the "truth" emerges not so much from the "work of art" itself (which, in fact, may actually be "untruthful," in the literal sense of that word), as from the reality, of the experience of it.
I could go on, and on, and on...However, I have house guests coming in a couple of hours, and I really must clean up this (ugh!) pigsty.
Joan
*P.S. I think I've got it! Your argument is tautological! The truths of Science are superior to the truths of Art because the truths of Science are scientific! No way I can win that one...<g> |
