[Aiwendil]

Keneldil:

What the consensus view names a better opinion is perhaps as close as we can get to an objective view.

Okay. That I can accept as a self-consistent and workable view of things, even if I disagree with it.

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

Does it? I think there is an important but subtle distinction to be made here. You can on the one hand say that the aggregate opinion constitutes a nearly objective standard of art, and then impose that standard on individual subjectivity. In that case your original individual subjectivity more or less disappears, surviving only insofar as it affects the aggregate opinion. Or you can merely say that the aggregate opinion is simply a matter of the popularity of certain subjective opinions. In the first case, you essentially have an objective standard of art, and it makes sense to say that Michelangelo's opinion is better than the truck driver's (because it is closer to the aggregate opinion); but you must also acknowledge that one work can be better than another. In the second, you would have to admit that Michelangelo's opinion is no better - simply more popular; but you would also get the result that it is meaningless to say that one work is better than another.

I agree with neither of these views, but either one constitutes, I think, a cohesive theory. An amalgamation of them in which you can call one person's opinion 'better' but you cannot call any work of art better than any other is, I think, not a cohesive theory.

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.

Now we're talking about meta-subjectivity! It's interesting (and correct) that you call your judgement of the two opinions subjective. So you might value Michelangelo's opinion more, but does that make it better or only better to you? Of course, on the meta-level, we have all the same questions we have on the base level: is there an aggregate opinion regarding Michelangelo's opinion? If so, does the popularity of his opinion make it better (in a manner analogous to the popularity of a work of art making it better)? Etc.

If a particular piece of art moves more people to “vote” for it, then it is a “good” piece of art.

Your realize, I hope, that this criterion necessarily leads to the conclusion that, say, Britney Spears is better than Mozart. I personally find that conclusion to be quite unacceptable.

Unless I misunderstand you, I am saying the same thing.

I think our difference lies here: I called the concensus "implicit". You, I think, would call it "explicit". That is, if I understand you correctly, you would say that the quality of a work of art translates directly or nearly directly into how many people favor or would "vote" for it. The near concensus lies here (though I would point out that there seems to be anything but a near concensus in terms of what is good). In my view, there are factors that interfere with a person's opinion between the state of inherent concensus on what is aesthetically pleasing and the actual expression of the person's views. For example, there are many who like various modern pop singers due to the image associated with those people rather than due to a pure aesthetic appreciation of the music. My contention is that if all such factors - a work's or artist's image, reputation, accessibility, etc. - were stripped away, then there would be something close to a concensus. Of course, this cannot actually be done, which makes the near-objective standard of art very difficult to actually articulate.

The statement ["Jordan is a bad writer"] is not meaningless, but it is false.

First, note that the statement you just made is equivelant to saying "Jordan is not a bad writer". So the nature of the statement "X is a bad A" is such that the negation of the statement is equivelant to "X is a good [= not bad] A"; merely the opposite opinion. So literally, the content of your above statement is that Robert Jordan is a good writer. Second, you're statement forces you into the position that popularity is what determines an objective standard of art. If you really believed that the quality of art is subjective, you would not be able to say that such a statement, a mere statement of an individual's opinion, is false.

Things make a bit less sense when we substitute "any writer" for Robert Jordan (though indeed that was the initial meaning). Would you say that any statement "X is a bad writer" is false? If so, you are merely saying either that all writers are good or that "good" and "bad" cannot be used to describe writers at all. Perhaps that last is what you mean; I suppose that would be workable. But I don't think that's what you mean, because later you indeed say that Jordan is a good writer.

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.”

I simply don't see how this could be. If I make any statement of fact, it seems to me that that is equivelant to my stating that I think that fact is true. If I say "Jordan is a good writer" that must mean that I think Jordan is a good writer, unless I am lying.

Perhaps you mean to make this distinction: on the one hand one can say "X is a good writer"; on the other hand you can say "the writing of X pleases me". I don't think this distinction is valid either, to tell you the truth, but I can see how you could arrive at it if you believe that the objective standard of art is popularity.

This just came to mind…..the only way I can see art being objective is if it is inherent to the universe.

Well, I don't think that art is inherent in the universe. I think it is a concept invented by humans. But, then, as I said before, I don't think that art is literally objective - I think that there is a nearly objective implicit concensus on what is aesthetically pleasing. That shifts the question from a physical one to a psychological/neurological one. I think that humans are similar enough that what is aesthetically pleasing to one, once all interfering factors are removed, will be aesthetically pleasing to another.

Kalessin:
So, we meet again. Actually, though, I think I agree with you on several points in this discussion. Anyway:

But I can't help feeling that "the collective subjective opinion eliminates individual subjectivity and forms an objective consensus view" is neither an a priori, inherently self-evident statement OR an a posteriori statement that can be verified by experience, observation or reference to the outside world.

I sort of agree. "Sort of" in that I think the collective subjective opinion does constitute an objective standard - but it's an arbitrary objective standard. We could create an objective standard in which the quality of a work of art is proportional to the number of letters in its title. This would be a completely workable standard, but it would of course be absurd.

If 10,000 people say that day is night and 10,000 people say that night is day, does that mean there are two equally valid objective "consensuses"

In such a case, no one would suggest that the concensus view is the objective truth - the objective truth is that which is obtained through observation, clarity of syntax, etc.; when it comes to art, such tools do not avail us. Nevertheless, your example points to an important fact: in any evaluation, there is the possibility of error. So if we say that quality is indicated by popularity, we must mean that it is not the actual attributes of the work of art that determine the quality - otherwise, we would need to take some account of the error that people can make in assessing that quality.

Well, good is, in a precise sense a 'moral' term

I disagree. Surely there are two definitions of good - there is the moral good and there is the functional good. A machine gun that fails to work is functionally bad - but it may be morally good.

Surely the real point is that, whether by way of human psychology, or some other factor/s, we are at least predisposed to attempt to rationalise our own intuitions or sympathies into something that we feel has external validity

Is it? I think Keneldil and I would agree that there is no external objective standard for art - I acknowledge that art is a human invention. My contention is, rather, that as an invention it has a precise enough implicit definition that there is an objective standard.

There is no reason why popularity in and of itself confers any of these mistifying epithets upon a work of art.

I agree.

I'm probably being pompous and pedantic

No need to apologize. I've been known to be pompous on occasion, and I actually take an almost perverse pleasure in pedantry.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it is impossible for us to discern that objective standard for art, then for all intents and purposes it doesn’t exist
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is perhaps a kind of existentialist viewpoint, but the argument itself doesn't really follow

What you quoted from, I believe, Keneldil, is reminiscent of the uncertainty principle, and so it's a bit surprising that I disagree with it. But the fact that we do not know something does not mean that it does not exist. So I agree with Kalessin here.

But I had changed, and have and do accept that such changes are always possible and indeed inevitable.

In my language, the interfering factors surrounding your appreciation of Tolkien had altered (decreased, I should say!) and as a result your assessment of LotR's objective quality had changed. I know that this is not how you would put it.

Again Keneldil:

While I appreciate the examples, I question their relevance. Day and night are definitive

I agree. But, as I said above, I think that Kalessin's example does expose the possibility of error, which it seems needs addressing in your theory.

Those who do not accept the Bible as proof could be said to have a different God, and therefore comparison is apples and oranges

I don't think so. If they really had "a different God" that would mean that two Gods exist. What they have is a different opinion about God.

What is popularly seen as beautiful does indeed come to define beauty.

Does it? Can popularity really change the nature of beauty, or does it merely change what people believe beauty to be? Still, I take your point that popularity can be taken to constitute a conception of aesthetics.

A work of art may not be seen as beautiful, and yet still be considered a good, perhaps for it’s ability to evoke emotion, etc.

I disagree. Isn't the ability to evoke emotion part of beauty? I think perhaps that we have syntactical differences here in our definitions of beauty.

[ December 02, 2002: Message edited by: Aiwendil ]