[Aiwendil]

Any conception of aesthetics (as a way of describing why something is 'good') is ultimately, of course, a cultural construct.

I'm actually tempted to question this. It is true, of course, that the concept of aesthetics (and 'art', for anyone who draws a distinction between the two) is a human invention. It therefore does seem reasonable to say that different cultures will have invented it differently. But there are human-invented concepts that have a single, culturally-invariant form. Mathematics is mathematics, for example. I think it's possible that aesthetic theory is the same.

Note that the fact that different cultures in practice have different ideas of aesthetics does not prove that aesthetics depends entirely on culture. Different cultures have different scientific and religious beliefs, but clearly no two contradictory scientific or religious beliefs can be true.

One could easily argue the general aesthetic merits of, say, Indian raga, jazz, Japanese haiku and so on - all of which are NOT any longer "folk" (or organic) forms, against the claims for Beethoven or Mozart.

But isn't it possible that this disagreement exists not because there are two completely different concepts of aesthetic beauty, but because neither culture fully understands the art forms of the other culture? I think that Mozart is better than, say Indian raga. But perhaps this is because I don't have the necessary knowledge to appreciate the aesthetic beauty of raga. If I did, then I would be able to compare them. On the other hand, I do understand both Mozart and Beethoven, so I am capable of comparing them.

And by 'understanding' I don't mean the formal music theory of the culture in question. I think it is entirely possible to understand a form of art without knowing anything about the way in which the art is produced.

A platonic conception of "the essence of art" as something quantifiable, something in itself that actually exists outside or beyond our perception, yet is present in all (or only some) works, is in effect inapplicable. It has no use.

Not entirely so. It may be of little use in the actual evaluation of a given work; but if we acknowledge that it exists, then we are led to certain other conclusions - like that the purpose of art cannot be something like the expansion of human understanding, or social commentary.

Further, I think we have to be clear about what 'quantifiable' means. It's true that in practice we can't assign numerical values to art; we can't say 'this painting has X form and Y content'. But if you are willing to say that any work is better than any other work, then you must also admit that the quality of art is quantifiable. If X can have more of quality A than Y has, then quality A must be quantitative.

Ultimately the creation of art MUST always be intentional. By this I mean that the creator is conscious of the nature of his/her work.

I disagree. First of all, it is this kind of thinking (not my 'art is beauty') that leads to such postmodernisms as 'this soda can is art because I say it is art'.

Secondly, if we measure art by intention, we are left with several illogical results. For one thing, we can never truly know how good a work of art is because we can never truly know exactly what the artist was thinking when he or she created it. An objective quality (how good the art is) depends on a subjective, and ultimately inaccessible quality (what the artist was thinking). Further, form becomes almost irrelevant. If two artists mean the same thing, we cannot be concerned with how they say it. Finally, in our evaluations of art, we must dismiss from our consideration those qualities which, to our best knowledge, the artist did not intend. In C.S. Lewis's commentary on sections of Tolkien's Lay of Leithian, he notes in one passage the double meaning of the word 'within'. He mentions that it was probably not intentional, but that nonetheless we can appreciate it. But if intention matters, then we cannot appreciate it.

To take another example: The Phantom Menace ends with celebration music that sounds like a major, pentatonic version of the Emperor's theme. Upon noticing this, I instantly deemed it a stroke of genius - the celebration celebrates, among other things, the rise of senator Palpatine to power, who, unbeknownst to the main characters, is the evil Sith lord who eventually becomes the Emperor. This is one of the things that, in my opinion, makes the soundtrack great. Rumours have suggested, however, that the connection is unintentional. If these rumours are true, must I alter my evaluation of the soundtrack? Must I refrain from making any evaluation until the issue is cleared up (it may never be)?

My fundamental problem with this idea is that it reduces art to mere communication between the artist and the audience. Why not merely say what you mean, rather than write an allegory, if the meaning is all that matters?

"I like Mozart ; therefore to me Mozart is good ; other people don't like Mozart ; to them Mozart is not good ; why is Mozart good? ; if Mozart is good, why do some people not like Mozart? ; can you think Mozart is good if you don't like it?"

Insofar as this is a parody of my 'art is beauty and beauty is that which pleases' argument, I offer the following as an alternative:

"I like Mozart; therefore I suspect that Mozart is good; other people don't like Mozart; therefore either I am wrong or they are wrong; because I don't believe that I am wrong, I must conclude that they fail to appreciate Mozart for non-artistic reasons."

littlemanpoet:

I think it would be more consistent to say that a chair or car has at least an artistic component; what is known in both industries as 'design'.

Good point. Of course, the intention of 'design' is not to be artistic; it is to sell the product. So I think that if you say that art is aesthetic beauty, you have to acknowledge that these things have an artistic element; if you say it is intention, you don't have to say that.

Again Kalessin:

My argument was simply that there are contradictions and 'shifting ground' within which we collectively and individually apply these criteria.

And it is a good point, even if I disagree with some of your conclusions.

Well, I did say that these objects had some artistry in them. However, all artefact is designed to some degree, so if having design qualifies something as art - well, I leave you to consider the possibilities

So by your definition, to be art, a thing must be intended to be art? If so, I think, you must dismiss such things as chairs and cars. Actually, taken to its logical conclusion, this would disqualify commercial music and novels as well; many of those artists do not care about the artistic merit of their creations, as long as they sell.