[Aiwendil]

Kalessin:

In this way it is possible, if difficult, to say with certainty that something is 'good', on the basis of measurable factors that it possesses. We can of course choose to like it or not, but it's quality is objective and unarguable. This, I think, I something close to your position.

It is indeed my position if one alteration is made: I would not say that we can "choose to like it or not"; our liking of something is a function of the things inherent quality as well as interfering, non-aesthetic factors.

The second argument is that we cannot possibly come to an objective statement about a work of art, because our individual experience of it is a completely integral part of its properties.

It seems to me that for this argument to be true, one would have to accept either of the following axioms: 1. that individual human beings are so dissimilar in their basic nature that there is no common standard of aesthetic beauty that can be appreciated by all or 2. that non-aesthetic factors should be taken into consideration when we evaluate the quality of art.

I refuse to accept axiom 2. If it were true, then, for example, Britney's "image" would have to be considered to increase the quality of her "art". Axiom 1 I can accept; I do not personally believe it, but I admit that it is a realistic possibility. In any case, this view amounts to saying that art is subjective.

It is as inappropriate to apply the theories of physical science to art, and all the terminology that surrounds art, as it is to simply say that that if a thousand people like Britney and one likes Mozart, then Britney must have more merit.

I disagree. While of course we cannot apply specific physical theories to art ("if this book moves close to the speed of light, it will have better characterization!"), we can treat art in a precise and rational fashion. The fact is that experiencing a work of art amounts to making an observation or measurement of it. If art is objective, then there is room for error in this assessment.

but as we all know there is more to good language than grammar.

That there is more to good language than grammar certainly does not necessitate that good writing is not objective. If there is an objective "theory of writing" it is certainly far more complex than simple grammatical rules.

Yet that at the same time, intangible or variable factors ARE part of the meaning of art as well, which make the subjective experience valid

There are two things here that I fail to understand. First, what are "intangible or variable factors"? If they are the aesthetic factors that vary from person to person, then it seems art is ultimately subjective. If they are merely factors that we do not understand, that means that art is still objective, but we do not fully understand the objective standard. Second, what do you mean when you say "make the subjective experience valid"? Do you mean that there are two standards by which art can be judged - objective (by inherent qualities) and subjective (by individual reaction)? If so, then a great deal of confusion has arisen from the conflation of the two meanings of "quality" - objective and subjective. Or do you mean that there is a sort of subjective fuzziness or uncertainty around the quantitative, objective value of a work of art?

Cudae:
I certainly agree that balance is an important component of aesthetics. Your example concerning the mathematical nature of music is, I think, very pertinent. It is also an excellent example in that it demonstrates the way in which complexity operates in seemingly dry, mechanistic systems. Beauty in music is a perfect example of an emergent property in a complex system. Many no doubt are dismayed by attempts at the "reduction" of creativity into mathematical concepts. I, on the contrary, find the emergence of beauty, emotion, and intelligence from purely mathematical or quantitative systems to be inspiring.

However, I don't think that balance is the only, or even necessarily the primary, criterion for aesthetic beauty. There is something to be said for imbalance as well - the unexpected accelerando toward the end of Beethoven's 5th symphony, the startling plot twists of Hitchock's Vertigo, the disparity between the in-depth and the summary chapters of The Grapes of Wrath.

This creates an affect something like x=y in mathematics. While in Tolkien's books, both the past and the future are indefinite- x=x.

I'm not sure I understand you here. What do x and y represent?