My (as of yet very briefly outlined) Philisophical Beliefs
Aesthetics
• I am a believer that art has context (hence why I value originality) within the world and time, and is therefore not timeless, and should be viewed as such.
+However, originality is not part of why I consider certain aesthetics better than others. I appreciate Stockhausen's innovations in music, though I don't actually like a lot of it.
[NB. a film by Orson Welles, called F For Fake, discusses aesthetic questions such as these in a simple yet involving way, I sincerely recommend it.]
• I believe that intention is irrelevant to aesthetic form (example #1. nature can be beautiful, yet it has not intended be so. #2. Art and the creation of art deemed by some as 'morally unnacceptable' (for instance, Wagner's, as he was an anti-semite) is in my view irrelevant to the piece of art itself.
• I believe art is subjective (art is not independently beautiful, humans must individually judge it so), as there is no rational way I can prove otherwise. I believe objectivism is arrogant, as all objectivists use their own subjective opinions (or others' who they see as better at judging art (as if it a skill)) to claim what is objectively right.
• Art cannot definitively be defined. We all have a clear idea of what art is: we can give examples, make comparisons between different pieces of art, arbitrate on borderline cases, and so on. But troubles arise when we attempt to dig deeper and look for some essential meaning or definition that encompasses every instance. For there is no such common denominator: there are lots of things they have in common but no single feature they all share. There is no depth or essential meaning: our understanding of the word is no more or less than our capacity to use it appropriately in a wide range of contexts. [Wittgenstein explains this much better than I do in his work, Philisophical Investigations.]
Epistemology
(Not done yet)
Ethics
(Not done yet)
Metaphysics
(Not done yet)
Politics & Justice
(Not done yet)
Actually, I think you did a better than job than Wittgenstein explaining the failure of aesthetic objectivism. Wittgenstein is unreadable.
Hey thanks, I agree with you about Wittgenstein being a unreadable. It's a shame that people such as him and Kant write such long-winded passages that that take five goes to fully understand, as Russell proved that you can present complex ideas in a simple fashion without them losing any of their complexity.
I think your first point is correct, but I also think nearly everybody who has ever made that point grossly exaggerates the point's significance.
Can some context be universal or nearly so? For example, can body experiences such as pulse render nearly all humans open to appreciate rhythm?
Are there certain works that seem to appeal to auditors across incredible expanses of time, geography, and culture? If so, is it likely that despite the fact that art is subjective, the actual reality (speaking as a scientist rather than a philosopher) is that there is too some degree a certain objectivity in practice if not in theory?
And if so, are people who explore and debate this truly arrogant and naive?
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Although I value originality, it is not part of my criteria for greatness, and I don't like it when it is considered a mark of aesthetic genius, as it isn't, it's just being innovative and creative.
Are there certain works that seem to appeal to auditors across incredible expanses of time, geography, and culture? If so, is it likely that despite the fact that art is subjective, the actual reality (speaking as a scientist rather than a philosopher) is that there is too some degree a certain objectivity in practice if not in theory?
I believe that there are two reasons for this:
1. People like to agree with critics (or the majority - '[Insert large number here] people can't be wrong') as they feel they are better at judging the best (which is of course utter nonsense), and consciously or subconsciously this affects their idea of the 'greatest' of an artform. This applies in particular to artforms which are more elitist and have certain acknowledged 'greats', eg. Da Vinci's Mona Lisa, Michelangelo's David or Shakespeare's Macbeth.
2. The masses simply aren't exposed to most of an artform, and so only hear what is the most popular or critically acclaimed, which limits their choices and aligns them with others' opinions. [For instance, I only stumbled upon this website by accident and from there begun a musical journey that mostly was anti-mainstream and if I hadn't I would've never found artists like Faust or Aglaia for instance (both of whom are quite rare).]
And if so, are people who explore and debate this truly arrogant and naive?
No, I enjoy exploring other opinions and debating with other people. It is those who are so sure that art is objective that I find arrogant, as they base those claims on their own experience and they're no more qualified than anyone else to judge.
I'm not sure this accounts for works such as Gilgamesh, lost for centuries, rediscovered, and still fun to read. I'm also not sure how this accounts for my love of Li Po or The Mahabharata, unless I am a clueless critical parrot, which is always a possibility. If so, I am really good at self-persuasion, as I do greatly enjoy reading these works.
I confess I don't find your point about the masses convincing simply because they don't belong here. They aren't taste-makers. They aren't the ones experiencing the art, and if they repeat received opinions, I honestly don't think it is their top-ten lists that keep certain works of art alive over the centuries.
The masses haven't ensured, for example, Euripides is still read and loved by some folks. They aren't for the most part putting Persona or Andrei Rublev on their list of favorite films, and yet, these are still well-regarded films with fervent fans today.
It is those who are so sure that art is objective that I find arrogant, as they base those claims on their own experience and they're no more qualified than anyone else to judge.
I understand this; I just don't have the same reaction. An apt anology might be Newtonian physics. We may now know it ain't the whole story, but it is the folks who approached it as gospel who made some of the best advances in science and technology for humanity. I can live easily with their arrogant assumptions that enabled them to do those feats.
It is not a perfect comparison, as art is subjective and science so far seems not to be, but hopefully it serves to illustrate my tolerance.
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
I see your point, but I still don't totally agree. I think you do make a good case, but I still cannot in anyway see art as objective, it is just many people may have similar subjective opinions, it does not mean that those who do not share those opinions are wrong.
Fair enough, and I certainly agree with your last phrase, even if I'll still debate folks when they don't see I'm right! ;)
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
But it is certainly not 100% subjective. Give 10000 people a copy of Revolver and a copy of K-Fed's album then surely they would almost all pick Revolver, and of course we can predict that, and it can't be attributable to "many people happen to like the same thing". Take 10000 different people and you get the same result. There are certain albums that most everyone really likes, and certain that almost everyone dislikes. Go to a site like RYM, that averages ratings from tens of thousands of members, and see if you can't predict the ratings that certain albums will get. If music (or art) was totally subjective this would be impossible.
Improbable, not impossible.
Isn't art subject to ones definition? Thus, anything that falls outside of certain parameters is not art, simply because of the absence of relation to that aforementioned understanding of what exactley art is. I'll give a comparative example. What is the semantic meaning of war? It is used in such broad cases such as “the war on terror,“ “the war on drugs” and “world war two.” While the meaning might be lost and war might mean many things to many people, shouldn't a core definition be established? In the field of international relations, there is a general consensus on the meaning of “war.” Thus, the “war” on terror is not a proper application of the word. I posit then that if someone deems “cooking” as an artform, then it is a corruption of the original meaning. Basically, just because one might perceive something as art, doesn't mean it necessarily is. Thoughts?
Yes, art can be whatever someone defines it as, but they will not have used logic to do so unless they come to the conclusion that either anything is art, or nothing is. That is the only way you can use logic to define something as complex and intricate as art. There is not one feature that art has that non-art doesn't. If you find it, I applaud you!
I know I haven't properly answered to your point, and the main reason for that is that I'm not 100% sure of the point you're making and answering the wrong question, I'll try and make my view a bit clearer and hope you will elaborate.
By the way, have you read up on Wittgenstein? I think you'd quite like him.
I am a believer that art has context (hence why I value originality) within the world and time, and is therefore not timeless, and should be viewed as such.
What of Shakespeare's plays? Or Mozart and Beethoven? I think while art may have a superficial coat of cultural context, the greatest art explores universal themes. Really, to appreciate a dated masterpiece, one only needs to understand the dialect or the historical allusions, and then one would be good to go. With music and painting, these things are totally divorced from cultural change, and while we may not see “Nighthawks” in the same visual context 200 years down the track, the sombre themes are really not that hard to dissect.
I appreciate originality, but its not part of why I find something great. Sorry, I should have clarified that better.