[Aiwendil]

The aggregate opinion is constantly changing. That doesn’t seem to lend itself to objectivity.

It could still constitute a time-dependent but otherwise objective opinion; but then you'd have to accept that it's possible for a good work of art to become bad. If you think, as I do, that the quality of a work of art is a characteristic of that work, then you cannot accept that a work could be good at one time and bad at another, without the work itself having changed at all. So popularity cannot then be the objective standard for the quality of art.

Too bad you don’t want to argue for objectivity, might help clear this up some.

Well, I've already sort of outlined my ideas. I have no hard proof that art is objective, but I could make an argument of sorts. First of all, I find a few things unacceptable:

1. That there is no such thing as a bad or good work of art.

2. That someone's professed liking of, for example, a modern pop singer over Mozart can make that pop singer's music better than Mozart's, even for that person.

3. That the quality of a work of art can depend on anything other than the characteristics of that work of art.

I cannot prove that these three things are not true; but I accept as axiomatic that they are false. This leads in a fairly straightforward manner to objectivity.

Another argument: it is possible to construct sophisticated models that describe art and then predict what will be pleasing and what will not. For example, traditional music theory predicts that, in general, ending a piece with a perfect cadence will be pleasing and ending with an imperfect cadence will not be - and it is correct. There are situations where ending with an imperfect cadence may be pleasing, but such instances are exceptions within the theory and predictable by the theory. The theory is not complete, of course, but it is succesful. The fact that objective theories can be set up to judge works of art I take as evidence that there is an objective standard of art (though a full description of it would be extremely complex).

I stated the individual personality disappears in the aggregate opinion.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this. Do you mean that in formulating a popular standard, individual opinions tend to be negligible? If so, I don't see how that implies that the popular standard must be at all right.

Better in terms of the group. As I have said, I think this semi objective thing operates only on the group level

Okay. But the point is that you must accept the same level of objectivity for the quality of an individual's opinion as for the quality of a work of art. If A's opinion is better than B's and A favors work X while B favors work Y, it follows that work X is better than work Y. This is assuming for a moment that X and Y are the only works of art that exist; otherwise it gets a bit more complicated - but the point remains the same. Which is: you cannot say that there is objectivity of opinion but not of works of art, or vice versa.

At the individual level you are always going to find those who do not conform, and you cannot tell them that their opinion is not just as valid as anyone else’s, or any group’s for that matter. Kinda seems to make the whole thing moot doesn't it?

It makes the whole thing subjective, if you say that everyone's opinion is just as true.

The problems are consistent at each level. So to simplify perhaps we can do away with opinions, opinions on opinions, and go back to considering only art itself?

Agreed.

That made me laugh out loud. Right there is enough to throw this whole thing in the trash. Way back when I fomented this mass of verbiage I said I didn’t like where it was going. There is something wrong with my premise.

In my humble opinion, yes. I hope we can all accept the following axiom: Mozart is better than Britney Spears.

It assumes that there will in fact be some kind of consensus. That must be false. If it were possible to poll all of humanity no doubt opinions would be scattered, presenting no majority.

Well, you could still simply (in theory) integrate the subjective opinion of every human being concerning the quality of each work of art and get some answer. Then we'd have to invent popular aesthetic calculus as a branch of socio-mathematics (I guess we'd have to invent socio-mathematics too). But it could be done in theory. I think the problem with the theory is not merely one of measurement; I think it is deeper than that. Simply: I don't think that there is a direct relation between popularity and quality.

Thinking something is true and having it actually be true are two different things.

Yes, but we're not talking about things actually being true. If I say statement X, that doesn't necessarily mean that X is true. Anything that I say is only my best understanding of truth. If I say X, that is equivelant to my saying "I think X". It is not equivelant to X actually being true.

Stating an opinion that is thought to be true is not the same as stating a fact.

Isn't it? I don't see a distinction. If I say "Tolkien is a better writer than Jordan" I am stating an opinion, one that I believe to be true. If I say "The sun is yellow" I am also stating an opinion that I believe to be true. I am only quite a bit more sure about the latter (though I can never be absolutely sure about anything other than that I exist). Anything I say can automatically be prefaced by "I think that . . . " simply because I am the one that is saying it.

how can someone say that a writer who has entertained (entertainment being the purpose of fiction) thousands of people is bad?

Easily, unless that person believes that popularity constitutes an objective standard that then enforces itself upon individual opinions.

A person could say “I don’t like his stuff,” and be fine. I’m saying a person cannot say “He is a bad writer,” and be making a legitimate, factual statement.

The only difference between saying "I don't like his stuff" and saying "He is a bad writer" is that a person can be a good deal more sure about the former. Either one can be prefaced "I think that . . ."

When you say “2+2 = 4” you don’t say “I think 2+2=4.”

Essentially, you do. This is a simple example, so it's of course very, very unlikely that you are wrong. But the possibility exists. All you are really saying is that you think 2+2=4. That this is the case can be seen by considering that there is a near-continuum of complexity from such simple operations to things like surface integrals and differential equations. Clearly, when I give the solution to a complicated differential equation, I may be quite insecure about it being right. The insecurity is simply far less for simple arithmetic.

Note that none of this has much to do with actual fact. We have touched little or not at all upon the question of whether, for example, Robert Jordan is a bad writer. The question is whether it is valid to make such an evaluation.

This is a whole different can of worms. In order to accept my rudimentary idea (I haven’t thought much about it in order to flesh it out) you’d need to accept that the universe has a Creator. Without having that much common ground it would be impossible to convince each other of anything.

Agreed.

Maybe that is what I have been trying to say all along. That idea would fit with my “inherent in the universe/ imbued by a Creator” idea.

Hmm. Then has this whole discussion been pointless (it's been fun, at least)?

How does it not?

I think the burden of proof lies with you on this one. How does popularity automatically translate to quality?

I said if the standard was impossible for us to discern then for all practical intents and purposes it does not exist. When I said “impossible to discern” I meant literally impossible.

Something can be literally impossible to discern and still exist. For example, it is literally impossible for me to know the exact number of humans alive at any moment; first, there are huge numbers of people dying and being born all the time; second, I do not have the means to travel across the world counting people within a time frame that would provide anything like accuracy, nor the resources to persuade a sufficient number of other people to aid me. But at any given instant, there is a precise integral number of human beings alive; there is no quantum effect on such a scale (and even if there were, it is not the cause of my inability to know).