[Aiwendil]

Mark12_30 wrote:

I think rather than using the terms "believer" and "Non-believer" (really, ARE you trying to get me excommunicated from the Downs??)... Personally for the sake of this argument I would prefer something more along the lines of Truth-seeker and Indifferent.

Wait a minute - there's a big difference between a "non-believer" and one who is "indifferent". I don't believe in your transcendent Truth (though perhaps only because I still don't really understand what it's supposed to mean). But I'm most certainly not indifferent toward the matter. The question of whether there is such a thing interests me greatly, even if my answer is "no". I seek truth but I don't think I'm a "Truth-seeker" in your sense.

Aiwendil, I would point to "most aesthetically pleasing" and say that beauty, goodness, truth, and Aesthetically pleasing all derive from (capital 'T') Truth, which is (capital-G) Goodness, and (capital-B) Beauty.

Then perhaps (surprisingly enough) we agree on the criterion for good art, but disagree on the reason the causes of aesthetic beauty.

I must say, though, that I can't see how certain areas of aesthetics could be derived from "Truth", unless my understanding of the term is even less than I thought. In tonal harmony, for example, voices are not supposed to move in parallel fourths. Of course, sometimes this rule is broken, often succesfully, but in general it really does hold value - there is something displeasing about about parallel fourths, and they are often detrimental to the aesthetic value of a composition. Now if aesthetic pleasure really does derive entirely from Truth, there must be something "unTrue" about such a composition. So I ask: how do parallel fourths violate Truth? How can an abstract object like that violate Truth?

The Saucepan Man wrote:

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".

Then perhaps our difference is one of definition rather than of substance. However, I should emphasize that it is not in my view popularity, with any segment of the population, that makes art good. A work could be aesthetically beautiful and yet, for one reason or another, not liked by anyone.