[Kalessin]

Hi Aiwendil - we meet again in that torchlit arena - "What is Art II" [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

You make some excellent points, and this is issue does relate in a roundabout way to the continuing evaluation of Tolkien and the writers who have followed in his footsteps. I think (or perhaps hope) that some of our differences are more a question of degree or language - but (inevitably) ...

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

Well, I'm not sure that mathematics has in all cultures invariably followed the Western model; my understanding is that traditional Arabic was different, and Chinese also (I may be corrected). And aesthetic theory, such as it was, outside of the ancient Greeks was for many years inextricably linked to religious content and applicability. The 'Golden Mean', and other such visual conceptions, are relatively recent (by comparison to the history of art).

What your point seems to be about is the idea that there is something explicitly measurable about art that allows us to say without hesitation that it is good. I'll return to that in a moment ...

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 ... I think it is entirely possible to understand a form of art without knowing anything about the way in which the art is produced

This seems a little contradictory. If aesthetic values are universal, AND the knowledge of different artistic cultures or methods is not a key factor in appreciating (or understanding) a form of art, then somone who can appreciate the aesthetic qualities of Mozart should certainly be able to also appreciate the aesthetic qualities of other art forms.

if we acknowledge that it (a platonic "art-in-itself") 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

As I pointed out, philosophically we are not bound to acknowledge that anything-in-itself exists independent of our perceptions. The refutation of empericism as an absolute reflection of reality (by Hume and others) has never in itself been overturned.

The "other conclusions" you infer to are also not necessarily the case. Just because a separate and absolute essence of something exists, it does not follow from there that its purpose or nature is one thing or another - to entertain, or not to fulfil any other function. There is no evidence of that, since we can never perceive that absolute essence in itself in order to analyse and infer its meaning.

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

I agree. I just think the basis of the value judgements must be seen in the context of cultural and historical consensus, and subject to a whole range of factors - both individual and collective.

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' ... if we measure art by intention, we are left with several illogical results

Well, I sympathise, but again this line seems a little contradictory. If art is art regardless of the creators' intention, then it's quite possible - and likely - that it will appear accidentally, a 'by-product' of some design or artefact. We are back to the 10,000 monkeys writing Shakespeare here. If this is the case, you could just as well argue that no one should bother with art - it will occur 'naturally', and indeed the hills and mountains and seas themselves all meet to an unsurpassable degree such purposeless aesthetic ideals.

An objective quality (how good the art is) depends on a subjective, and ultimately inaccessible quality (what the artist was thinking)

This may seem wrong to you, but it seems right to me. Except I would remove "thinking". Who and what an artist is or does is what determines the qualities of their art. But one does not need to analyse the artist to appreciate their art (although it can help). One DOES have to acknowledge that the art was an act of human creativity.

... mentions that it was probably not intentional, but that nonetheless we can appreciate it. But if intention matters, then we cannot appreciate it

You can appreciate unintentional resonances by all means. But can you seriously say that it is not subjective to do so? The implication is that there is never any disagreement in aesthetic evaluations - 'those who know' immediately perceive what is good based on these abstract quantifiable criteria. This doesn't happen, and without the presence and creativity of the artist the work would not exist or appeal at all. By-products or unintentional resonances lead us to a highly problematic possibility - that an artist can compose a tragic requiem in memory of a dear friend which is then lauded as a wonderful celebratory and romantic dance, because of its accidental or unintentional merits. This is comic, and has probably happened [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]. There is a sinister side to this too - what about the appropriation of art by totalitarianism, relating aesthetic criteria to a validation of its oppressive worldview?

Intention matters, but we do not need to "know" it academically. To read or hear the work is to experience the intention of the author, both consciously and 'unintentionally'.

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 don't see communication as a reduction, but I suspect we are using the word differently. It is communication that can be transcendent, that can in turn generate communicative effect (like ripplies in a pond), that can change lives, entertain, amuse, soften hearts or strengthen will, and so on. I have never said that meaning is all that matters. Allegory is one of the tools of this particular kind of communication - the relationship between creator and audience.

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

"Intention" as I used it means the knowledge that this act of creation is art, not that it has to be good. This point is really a re-working of the earlier issue, your problem with "if I say it is art, then it is art" ... and, I guess, the 'installations' and 'happenings' that are now a feature of modern art.

This is a tough issue. I agree with you in terms of the dangers and problems arising, but the argument is hard to refute. If someone says their soda bottle is art, how can you really say it is not without talking about that person's intentions? By your argument, there is nothing wrong with someone saying their soda bottle is art if (unintentionally) it happens to meet certain abstract aesthetic criteria. So in the end the platonic worldview gives this even more legitimacy - an "absolute" legitimacy, rather than being about the person and politics etc. This is what I have a problem with!

So, finally ...

"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."

Where I challenge you is this. What you are in fact saying is that if people don't happen to like what you like, and when you really do like it a lot (ie. are not 'wrong') you immediately conclude that they are "failing for non-artistic reasons". This is extremely judgemental, and is riddled with assumptions. And ultimately, unprovable. It could easily be used by religious fundamentalists (of any denomination) as a justification for action. I will raise your Mozart with my John Coltrane ... to therefore assume my preference is because of non-artistic reasons is very presumptious, and rather insulting (don't worry, I can cope [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] ).

Suppose we all like different things (as we do)? Only one of us can therefore be right, which means everyobody else is 'failing for non-artistic reasons'. Are we really prepared to be 'wrong', or 'failing' like the rest of those feeble mortals? [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]

To reassure you, can I say that whoever the One True Arbiter of taste is, I know it isn't me [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

As you can see from my reply to Littleman - I do NOT dismiss aesthetics ; I do NOT dismiss evaluation ... I am simply accepting the subtleties with a certain humility ... or trying to [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Compliments on your keen mind and ability to reason, qualities I very much aspire to [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Peace

[ May 05, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]