[Keneldil the Polka-dot]

I think part of the problem here is my inability to adequately express my meaning, not an inordinately contentious attitude on your part.

You are right. What I say in describing a better opinion isn’t objective. But it does tie in to what I suggested may be the closest we can get to an objective truth about art. To quote myself:

I hate to say popular = good, but given the fact that there is no objective truth, perhaps the closest we can get to objective truth about art is the collective, subjective opinion of the masses.

What the consensus view names a better opinion is perhaps as close as we can get to an objective view. You said something similar:

If you want to elevate that diverse subjectivity of opinion into an objectivity (which I'm not sure whether you want to do), the only way to do it is to say that the popularity of an opinion makes it better.

In the aggregate opinion, the individual personality disappears, eliminating subjective bias.

the truck driver who spends all his time on crude and vulgar signs. What would your analysis of his opinion be?

Now, if awareness, experience, and the like are what determines the quality of an opinion, we must consider the two evenly matched.

In your example I would not consider Michelangelo and the profane sign constructing truck driver evenly matched. In my subjective judgement of their opinions Michelangelo’s diversity of experience, as well as his universal acclaim would make me lend more credence to his thoughts on art. Let’s say you polled 100,000 people and the majority thought the same thing regarding Mike’s superiority in art matters. Within that subset of 100,000 people, the collective subjective opinion eliminates individual subjectivity and forms an objective consensus view. Popularity rules. Makes me sick somehow. [img]smilies/mad.gif[/img] For art, I can deal with that though. If a particular piece of art moves more people to “vote” for it, then it is a “good” piece of art. If no one “votes” for it, it has failed to move anyone. Art that does not produce a reaction of some kind is pointless, yes? Well, no the art could still serve a purpose for the artist alone. Hmm……I can just see the whole can of worms opening up here.

. However, I think that there is a nearly objective implicit consensus on what is aesthetically pleasing.

Unless I misunderstand you, I am saying the same thing. I accept the word “nearly” because unless someone took the consensus of every human being on the earth whatever subset was sampled could have a described bias (cultural, regional, etc.).

According to your opinion, you would be compelled to say that the statement "Jordan is a bad writer" is meaningless.

Again, with the disclaimer that Jordan is our stand-in: “Jordan” = any one of many authors. The statement is not meaningless, but it is false. Jordan has entertained tens of thousands of people. If we used the group of people who read fantasy fiction in the United States to form a consensus, a lot of them are voting Jordan to be a good writer as reflected in how many books he sells. I hesitate to say the majority because I can’t back that up but I would guess it is true. In the search for an objective opinion on whether Jordan is a good writer, and accepting my idea that the consensus subjective view forms the nearest thing to an objective opinion, the result is that he is a good writer, regardless of whether I personally like his stuff or not (fact is, I don’t like some of his latest stuff much at all).

There is a subtle difference between stating the fact “Jordan is a bad writer”, and stating the opinion “ I think Jordan is a bad writer.” In reality, the second statement is saying, “Jordan’s work does not entertain me,” while the first is saying “Jordan’s fiction does not have the ability to entertain anyone”.

I challenged you to convince me that art is objective because I think it is an impossible task……and I would like to find out if it really is impossible. This just came to mind…..the only way I can see art being objective is if it is inherent to the universe. The way it could be inherent is if the Universe has a Creator and that Creator imbued the creation with His/Her own sensibilities in the realm of art. I do personally believe in God, so I guess from that standpoint I’d be willing to accept that an objective truth for art does exist.

While it may exist, what does that mean in practical terms for us? If it is impossible for us to discern that objective standard for art, then for all intents and purposes it doesn’t exist. Perhaps the way in which the objective standard is revealed is in the collective consensus view.