[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

There are necessarily objective standards for art, precisely because humans cannot avoid thinking and behaving in terms of standards of good, better, and best.

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

I do think that a kind of objectivity can be derived from the relative invariance of the human mind, given a definition like "good art is that which is most aesthetically pleasing".

Indeed. Hence my point:

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Of course, works of art can come to be regarded as good by a sufficiently large or influential section of society, such as they become generally regarded within that society as “good” (and this will change over time).

The merits are still subjectively assessed. It's just that a significant section of society (whether in terms of numbers, influence, authority or whatever) reaches broadly the same conclusion. I accept that that this equates to what Aiwendil describes as a "kind of objectivity". But, ultimately, it boils down to the subjective assessment of the individual. The proof being in the fact that there will always be works of art that some consider to be "good" and others consider to be "not good".

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

On the other hand, if you really want to say that art is subjective you cannot even claim that a Mozart symphony is superior to the noise I banged out of a piano when I was three. Now that's a coherent position, but I suspect that few people really agree with it deep down.

I entirely accept that certain "producers" are more able to satisfy a greater number of individual tastes than others. Does that make them "good" artists? Well, yes in terms of those (the majority, the culturally influential etc) who assess it positively and therefore yes in terms of that society's assessment, but not to those who do not find such art to their tastes.

Originally Posted by mark12_30

To that I would echo Elrond: it is dangerous to study too closely the arts of the darkness.

Well, I wasn't necessarily thinking of art that the believer might consider to be evil. Or does the believer consider all "bad" art to be contrary to his or her Truth? But, with regard to the point that you make, Sun Tzu would disagree with you, counselling rather that it is better to know your enemy.

Originally Posted by mark12_30

In fact, the 'believer'(Truth-seeker) should expect that in enjoying 'Good/True art', something is happening deep within the the 'non-believer' (Indifferent) that has, or might have, or hopefully will have, the effect of drawing him towards Good and/ or Truth (same thing, in the end)-- and in that the Truth-seeker would rejoice. In fact, the Truth-seeker may actually place a higher value on the Indifferent one's enjoyment, since the Truth seeker has hopes that the enjoyment may, in the end, have an eternal effect.

So the non-believer's enjoyment of the art would be valueless to the believer if it did not in fact lead the non-believer to his or her Truth.