I think some of you misunderstood what I meant by “everyone knows what beauty is”
I wasn’t talking about definitions. I was simply saying that if I say something is beautiful you either agree or disagree. We don’t tend to ask “What do you mean?”
I am somewhat obsessed with that site. I tend to use it as a dictionary - funnily enough “kalos” is one term I’ve had a long fascination with.
Sausage Dog -
Yes, we all have different tastes. You may find tattoos disgusting or repulsive whilst others find them beatuiful (due to the canvas they’re on). The same can be said for music, paintings or other artistic media. It is precisely this disagreement that I am saying opens people up to understanding subtle differences, tastes and such. Like H&N says when we learn about the ways we can look at a piece of art our appreciation can grow. If we know what to look for we don’t then tend to see all tattoos as terrible or badwe don’t hear all death metal as streams of noise without any talent or qualitative distinction.
Because of this I am saying there is a beginning of a way to move into less logical fields and strecth rational argumentation. Unlike basic arithmetic there is the possibility of “opinion” about how to provide answers and express ourselves. A pure logical approach to debating is anti-intellectual in the sense that it draws out the question as being one to which an empirical answer is always justified (eg. Should stupid people be made into slaves? We can have an opinion about this, even avoid the question by toying with definitions, but we can never conclude a “truth” as we can with 1+1=2)
The fact that such an education is possible, that one who has examined a painting and sought out its beauty can successfully present in language what she has discovered, reveals that there is something truly objective about taste, which really means that we all have the requisite constitution for apprehending art in the same way, not at all unlike talking about good food, music, and so on. If we can talk about it and find agreement, objective standards are present.
Yes. Our tastes can and do shift through time. You may hate Jazz and your friend may be obsessed with it. Overtime you’ll find yourself asking why they think it is good and what the hell they see in it. If they’re able to express some minute part of their taste to you then you’ll be furnished with a new appreciation of the musical style and it may even grow on you.
In debates we have two views under inspection. We bring political, epistemic, ontological, ethical or any number of items into a debate. When it comes to debating “good” and “bad’ art the field is much more open and abailable to all. Literally everyone I have ever met has a strongopinion about a song, painting, movie or poem. In the Critique of Art what is liked is liked. A person’s taste is always “true” and always plastic to some degree or another.
As an example Sausage Dog may insist that someone has a poor tattoo and go and tell them so. They would, most likely, say they have it because they like it not don’t like it. Their tastes may change in the future and they may look at the tattoo and say “what was I thinking?”, and they may not.
Note: If I was rich enough and had the time I’d most likely be covered from head to toe in in patterns and pictures (but I’d only go for henna because I know my moods and tastes are prone to shift over time.) I’m going to ask my cousin why he has tattoos (he is covered from neck to ankle literally.)