Philosophy Discussion Forums

But, cavacava, the proof is in the pudding: Some things are inherently superior to others just by virtue of their aesthetic affect. Hard to argue such a thing, just as it is hard to argue about the objectivity of ethics and value, but once apprehended, the quality is simply apparent in the experience itself. I have gone different ways on this, sometimes just to be contrary, but in the end, I think some aesthetic experiences are simply better than others IFF the issue is MUSIC and about beauty and not complicated by other content (making a political statement, culturally significant, and the like).
But when it comes to the complex examples you mention, Casablanca, Warhol, Rockwell, these are examples of VISUAL art, and as such are embedded in a broad range of representational possibilities (unlike music which is representationally weak) that thrust art into the world at large, and here, among images and ideas of living and breathing, it gets cluttered with non artistic content. This is exactly why art appreciation in the visual arts is so complicated: The eye is so much more cognitive than the ear (that is, auditory aesthetic, not language, of course), you might say. And the formal aesthetic properties cannot be isolated. What is Warhol without the postmodern crisis of the trivialization of the individual; what is Casablanca without WWII contexts? Not at all like Bach, is it? Bach may take orientation, but it is not so much ideational orientation.

Greta:
If we remove our "goggles of judgement" and don our "David Attenborough lenses" then we observe that psychopaths are just predators and parasites. We live in a competitive concrete jungle and the apex predators naturally found their niches. People looking up to their psychopath leaders are largely akin to smaller African species fearing and respecting lions.

Keep in mind that there has been recent speculation that being a psychopath or sociopath is the hallmark of being a good surgeon, or whatever requires explicit control in otherwise stressful conditions: Without the sensitivity of humanity and empathy, the psychopath is well suited to things other would have a hard time with. Also, I think conservatives thinking is mostly like this, trying to make things great at the cost of the least advantaged. They think nothing of using others as means rather than as ends. the scary part is, this actually does produce results. It is much, much easier to make money if you don't have to worry about the tired, poor, huddled masses.

China does this with the environment and has been a long time; just take a trip to Beijing and see... oh, wait, the US does this too, now that we have a moron in office.

Some things are inherently superior to others just by virtue of their aesthetic affect.

So then the intensity of the affect of a work of art determines its value in relative to a listener, a reader, or a viewer. You suggest that these intensities

... are inherently superior to others just by virtue of their aesthetic affect.

and you go on to suggest that in music the value of a works intensity is easier to discern. How does one sort out these intensities? And how does intensity of feeling entail objective reality.
People have intense feelings for all kinds of art. Are people who swoon at the sight of a Thomas Kincade 'inherently superior' to a person nonplussed by Picasso's Guernica? Does Schonberg's 12 tone have inherently less value because its aesthetic affect is more theoretic and is intensively less felt?

What is Warhol without the postmodern crisis of the trivialization of the individual; what is Casablanca without WWII contexts? Not at all like Bach, is it?

I don't think the ideal state you suggest is real or possible

IFF the issue is MUSIC and about beauty and not complicated by other content

. Works of art always have precedents, which are always presented in some context, regardless of age, content, medium and so on. Even John Cage's silence had a context and a history.

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, right?

And there's the rub. If the beholder is not a fully developed human, it's possible that something passing for a work of art will please, whereas for a fully developed person it might seem unworthy to be called art. So yes, there is good and bad art, there are people with enormously different life experiences who will approach the same work of art, some calling it good, some calling it bad. In truth, the final judge is usually history. The bad art will perish as it should. The good art will last beyond its time. The great art will last forever unless some fool deliberately destroys it.

LuckyR wrote: ↑May 16th, 2018, 2:52 am

kordofany wrote: ↑May 16th, 2018, 1:54 am If artistic tasting is a purely personal matter, how do we divide art into bad art and good art?

Purely personally?

I have spent about 1/3 of my life well away from the U.S./West. A lot of locales still exist where the sense of what is art is in large part collective. A certain shared consensus indexed to shared history/ethnicity. Arguably the "purely personal" standard for what is art represents a breakdown more than it does liberation.

Art is the artist trying to communicate an experience to you, to present you with a means of having a particular experience. I suppose it could be said to be bad art if the artist fails in his/her endeavor to evoke a feeling and/or understanding out of the viewer or listener. It could be that it is bad art because technically the exhibit was not skillful, while still evoking the intended feelings and/or understanding or vice versa. Art is communication and like all communication it can be as bad in as many ways as any other form of communication can be. Art like many other things involves the skills necessary for the making of a functioning whole, for example, one could use the template of song structure in the writing of a short story, both are but the making of a whole. So, art can be bad due to a lack of skill and/or the lack of success in evoking or directing the listener or viewer to a desired experience.

I guess Hereandnow is right about it being easier with music. If music is about beauty "and not complicated by other content (making a political statement, culturally significant, and the like)" then I think beauty is a criterion by which I can judge music. Bach's music is, to me, just sublimely beautiful. I love its rationality and its architecture. Beethoven's music runs a close second for its beauty, drama and pathos. But then, others hate such music and think heavy metal is beautiful. WRT visual arts such as painting, it's much harder for me to judge. I hate pretty paintings that could serve as pictures for chocolate boxes. But that's sort of a cultural thing - there's been some learning involved in my tastes in painting, and it's also due, in part, to the fact that photography can do that sort of thing better than painters these days. I think there's something in what popeeye1945 said about the artist trying to communicate some "feeling" to the viewer. A painting might succeed on that basis but, again, a lot will depend on viewers who may like a painting (or not) for all sorts of idiosyncratic reasons that won't necessarily have much to do with aesthetics. So, when I boil it down, I guess it all depends on what a viewer or listener is looking for. And, very importantly, and what they are open to. A lot of people just know what they like, and what they like can often be just what they know. In the end, we cannot objectively fault people's tastes any more than we can objectively prove that an action is morally right or wrong. I guess it all boils down to our subjective aesthetic feelings and our moral intuitions.

Morally wrong, is when one intently makes another creature's life more difficult than it otherwise need be. Such an act/reaction is devoid of identifying with others, devoid of compassion, and thus, devoid of all morality. This applies to all creatures. The rest of your post, EXCELLENT!

I pretty much agree with you about morality, popeye1945. The difficulty is in proving objectively that I am right.

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑January 26th, 2024, 10:48 am I pretty much agree with you about morality, popeye1945. The difficulty is in proving objectively that I am right.

There is nothing objective about morality, it is entirely subjective, on an individual level, and a collective subjective level. Those it does not work for are psychopaths or varying levels. Intent is all important, and remembering that moralities proper subject is always the security and wellbeing of a conscious subject.

The meaning of 'good art' and 'bad art' depends . A definitively good work of art is evaluated according to some criterion that respected critics agree on. We are free to disagree with the critics. However our subjective opinion will not be respected unless it's well argued.

Does it not depend upon how effective it is in content, in context, and the skill of its deliver. Does the artist succeed through his/her particular medium? Good point though Belinda, depends on the authoritative collective because it is directed at a collective.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑January 28th, 2024, 11:59 am Does it not depend upon how effective it is in content, in context, and the skill of its deliver. Does the artist succeed through his/her particular medium? Good point though Belinda, depends on the authoritative collective because it is directed at a collective.

Maybe the ultimate authority is the maker of the work of art. In that case the performance of Bach could be a lot less good than that of a skilled performer of the work.

kordofany wrote: ↑May 16th, 2018, 1:54 am If artistic tasting is a purely personal matter, how do we divide art into bad art and good art?

Not all aspects of art are purely subjective
It is perfectly possible to apply objective criteria to many aspects.
In sculpture the persuit of accuracy in shape and form is essential to the creation of believable statues and busts of recognisable persona, animals and items of a geometric nature.
Much the same can be said of 2D art espacially as found in portraiture where a likeness to the subject is very important.
There are also more esoteric factors such as balance and adherence to the golden ratio, which if understood can offer the viewer of the art recognisable qualities that are thought to be universal.

Recognition of such things can give an indication of the skill and the personal engagement of the artist to their craft.
For my money the value of a good artist is where such qualities exist,

popeye1945 wrote: ↑January 26th, 2024, 10:19 am Morally wrong, is when one intently makes another creature's life more difficult than it otherwise need be. Such an act/reaction is devoid of identifying with others, devoid of compassion, and thus, devoid of all morality. This applies to all creatures. The rest of your post, EXCELLENT!

How do you excuse your own behaviour in this respect.
Every vegetable you eat makes you reseponsible for the deaths of potantially thousands of insects.
THe land used for pasture could other wise be home to other living things, and the highway you drive on was once the territoriy of afully funcitonisn ecosystem.
Yet you intend to live on in this civilisation which is slowly destroying the world and all that would otherised have a happy life in the absence of the human disease.