The idea that artistic value is only based on modern academics is really quite myopic.
It seems to me that the challenge for the "objective" theory of aesthetics is pretty much the same as the one for moral realism. Yes, the fact that people disagree about artistic value doesn't mean that artistic value is subjective - but I'm yet to be convinced that it's objective in any meaningful sense. In the end, though, you're right about disagreement over political systems (despite some attempts to do away with political relativism, e.g. Badiou) - but only because different people have different, mutually exclusive, visions of what society is and should be, and the methods to get there. The arguments you're talking about in politics only have any meaning once at least one set goal is agreed upon - e.g. human freedom. But I struggle to think of any such goal that the Bach scholar and the Harry Potter fan are going to agree on.
I think there's a reason why even die-hard Adorno "fans" have given up trying to argue why jazz music is so bad.
When someone can think up an argument to convince a Harry Potter fan that they should really judge Bach's music as more beautiful, pleasing, of higher artistic value etc. than Harry Potter, then I'm curious.
My criticism of the “ignorant relativist” is that he is uninformed on the reasoning of his position and of other positions, not that he thinks art is subjective.
Yes, I arrived at my position out of ignorance, but I've had this kind of argument online before, and nobody has been able to offer me an argument for the side which says we can arrive at value judgments about art that are independent of the person, or whatever the opposite opinion to "art is subjective" is supposed to be.
Do you think these two judgements have equal value?
Such matters are not decided by arguments, the same way flat earth society members are not won by arguments (they heard them all anyway).
It's up to each person to make the effort to grow their understanding, which requires study and self-development.
>I think there's a reason why even die-hard Adorno "fans" have given up trying to argue why jazz music is so bad.
Yes, because mediocre commercial art prevailed in the end, and the kind of cultural development of bourgeois society declined.
Ironically for a good while jazz took a different route from the earlier kind of jazz Adorno criticised, much closer to those ideals of art. So it's more like Jazz post-50s went closer to Adorno than the other way around...
That's true, but it's falling into the same problem I was trying to tease out of GP, which is whether an argument can be produced that study and self-development will lead to one appreciating Bach over Harry Potter. We say that spherical earth theories are superior to flat earth ones not because individuals applied study and self-development to their opinions, but because the spherical earth theory is objectively true, it conforms to the generally agreed upon epistemology. The same can't be said about art (as far as I can tell).
Is Bach "better" than Harry Potter because an individual who studies and self-develops will judge it to be so, or do those who study and self-develop judge it to be so because it's objectively better?
Even then, let's take the individuals out of the equation. To a person unacquainted with both Harry Potter and Bach, on what grounds does an aesthetician say that we should assign higher value to Bach?
An historical/statistical argument can surely be made.
You seldom see people who have studied aesthetics, music, literature, etc, preferring Harry Potter over Bach.
You'll see many more who seldom read or only read genre books or only listened to anything than the charts their whole life enjoy Harry Potter over Bach.
>To a person unacquainted with both Harry Potter and Bach, on what grounds does an aesthetician say that we should assign higher value to Bach?
On points related to one being immersed in culture to recognise. E.g. having read enough literature to understand the derivative and trite nature of Harry Potter, and having heard enough music and knowing its history to know about the innovation and coherence of Bach. Asking professional musicans/composers etc to describe the merits of Bach's music wouldn't be bad either.
There's also an element of "if you have to ask, you will never know".
But all this rounds to the same initial question "what is the objective measurement that makes Bach better".
But there is no objective measurement or axiomatic argument.
The scale in aesthetics is one of development and cross-correlation of techniques, ideas and experiences, and one can only understand these is they have the knowledge and have made the connections. Not just for Bach, but for anything in arts.
The same way a 13-year old pop music fan doesn't have the same refinement as a 20-year old music fan, who has studied the genres, their history, interplay, who did what, techniques, cultural impact, etc, and even less than a 30 year old music critic.
Harry Potter fans are more of the 13-year old kind.
Of course this is sacrilege to say in the modern world.
There are two pressures at play here, that get commingled in actuality.
(1) No one (in Western culture) likes to admit to ignorance. Ergo, they will always project rejection of an idea of which they are ignorant onto any alternate, available rationale. (E.g. "I don't like Bach because..." rather than "I don't understand music theory enough to appreciate what Bach's doing.")
(2) Academic or isolated artists fundamentally under-recognize the fact that their audience approaches the piece with varying levels of knowledge. Consequently, there is often a communication problem. (E.g. I compose an excellent poem in Navajo, then bemoan the fact that Europeans don't understand my work)
Of these, I think (1) is a frequent but less interesting distraction. (2) is the more fascinating to me.
Because it doesn't argue for subjectivity... but rather self-reflective objectivity. In that "To the person I am, with my training and knowledge, this is what the piece is."
Which is why I find popular arts so fascinating (e.g. auto styling, music, film). They seem to encourage artist-engineers, in that their practitioners are simultaneously trained in the medium, but also willfully optimizing for the environment as-is, not for themselves. And that's a skill I can respect.
I imagine Taylor Swift frequently has an idea and rejects / simplifies it, in light of what would resonate with her fans.
It's very possible for me to understand and appreciate what Bach is doing and still not think that this is sufficient qualification for ascribing more artistic value than Harry Potter. As an amateur programmer, I can appreciate all the work that goes into an operating system, but I don't assign more artistic value or appreciation to it than Bach, even if, by whatever measure, the techniques required to make an OS are more intricate. Similarly, I could never get into Iannis xenakis' works - but I do appreciate the work put into it, and I understand how and why he's done it.
Which doesn't seem that bold of a claim.
It's somewhat like saying "Environmentalists don't like nuclear power because most are not trained nuclear engineers." It is a fact that there are few nuclear engineers (or even adjacent physicists). Yet how often do you hear "Nuclear power scares me because I don't understand it"?
In short: the Harry Potter fan and the Bach scholar don't have a shared idea about the best way to judge art. The environmentalist and the nuclear engineer do have a shared idea of maximizing human/environmental safety. The environmentalist has no reason to listen to the nuclear engineer if the engineer's reason for nuclear power is something like "I like to see the number of reactions go up on the computer screen", because looking at numbers on a screen isn't a shared goal between the two parties.
This is what I was getting at; the statistical argument isn't convincing at all, because it's very common for people (including academics) to value fashions and trends. I'm not saying that Bach is valued because of the orthodoxy of music theorists, I am saying that it being a possibility discounts the inherent authority we give to a music theorist's opinion.
>The scale in aesthetics is one of development and cross-correlation of techniques, ideas and experiences, and one can only understand these is they have the knowledge and have made the connections.
There's still no "objective" reason to value a piece of art with particular technique, ideas expressed, or experiences relayed (or within the artist) over another. The 13 year old doesn't have the refinement, but it's unclear why refinement has anything to do with assigning artistic value - and even then, we can point to a great many techniques and ideas expressed in Harry Potter. That Bach's technique has more development and history behind it has no clear bearing on how I ought to judge the artwork.
The "scale in aesthetics" seems to be just as arbitrary as the claim that we ought to judge artwork by how many wizards are depicted in it. Why should techniques and ideas matter more than the number of wizards, if the wizards bring pleasure but knowledge of the techniques does not?
Harry Potter fans are more the 13-year old kind because 13 year olds don't have the idea that the enjoyment of artwork should depend on techniques, ideas and experiences, or rather, the partcular techniques, ideas and experiences one finds in Bach, despite different ones in Harry Potter. The fact that 13 year olds aren't part of that orthodoxy yet is good - they are expressing their freedom to value things apart from what high society tells them to.
So all arguments devolve into making a case before a non-existent court of higher appeals. Which I enjoy and only point out here because I love any chance to offer the book up as suggestion. 320 pages of dense mind hackery. Enjoy!
P.S. - You may critique me, but the effort may be largely wasted. I really have no idea what I'm talking about.
So the Bach v Potter argument is really arguing about whether a typical Harry Potter fan is more motivated by fashion or intrinsic interest. We know Bach isn't fashionable because the music has survived something like 300 years of musical fashions ebbing and flowing.
On a purely technical ground, the great works are usually interesting examples of a particular ... something ... and often capture the culture in a unique way. Eg, Don Quixote still gets read because it introduced a tonne of literary techniques with style and really hits a note at the peak of the Spanish empire. Shakespeare defined a big portion of the English lexicon. Jane Austin is an exemplary example of concise, relevant and interesting storytelling (she packs a lot into a sentence). Tolkien tied together cultures through their languages while setting the standard for what high fantasy worlds should look like with an unreasonable amount of worldbuilding. The Harry Potter series is certainly well written and a really good example of a certain genre, but it isn't obvious if that is enough to compete with all the other well written books out there. It certainly isn't the first of its kind and it isn't clear it showcases any literary tricks. It is a hard argument to say it captures anything about the culture of the day. It looks like one of a very large number of good books that will struggle to be remembered with the passing of time.
The notion that visual design for a consumer product isn't fundamentally validated by a sufficient demand by a sufficiently large set of consumers, to me, is stupid.
So much of humanities seems to be somewhat arbitrary and fashionable categorization in a (somewhat vain) attempt to be able to academically analyze (or at least publish the equivalent).
So this article seems hilarious to me.
There is a value judgement as to how I weigh those, or which ones I care about, but I can evaluate it in some way. People might argue about the merits of a meritocracy versus a democracy, but broadly speaking, everyone will agree that a progress democracy is better than an exploitative, violent, oppressive dictatorship.
The quality of art, in contrast, is fully in the eye of the beholder.
If you'd like to see how this manifests in practice, it's worth looking at Soviet Russia, the French Revolution, or many democracies which failed in practice, despite what were, on the surface, plausible ideas.
This contrasts with literature, where there is no objective metric, and much of the time, someone says "that's great, now let's go even further" to an idea as good as North Korean style communism.
As a result, those evaluation metrics become as arbitrary as the art itself.