The Value of Art, or, "Bad" is in the Eye of the Beholder

[Merlion]

Marlowe, thank you for stating this. Merlion, consider me to wholeheartedly endorse this counter-argument as to why there are, in fact, objective standards to art.

Trouble is, its only partially accurate, as I discuss above. Most of science is objective because it deals with things that can be conclusively proven or disproven, based on physical facts. People can deny them, but not reasonbly. As I said before, you can opine that water runs uphill all you want, but you cant prove it.

That cannot be said of art. Wether a work is good or bad cannot be proven or disproven, except in terms of opinions

 

[takyris]

Excellent point, Marlowe. I think what bugged me about some of Merlion's earlier points is that he was saying, "It's all subjective!" with the same finality that, for example, science-doubters say, "But evolution is just a THEORY, not a fact!" Regardless of whether you believe in evolution or not (and I'm not touching that, because it is unfortunately political), that's a silly argument for them to make, because it misunderstands, through malice or ignorance, what "theory" means in the scientific community.

So yes, you can say that all art is subjective, and you're technically right, but you're ignoring, through malice or ignorance, the accumulated data and standards that people have generated on the subject.

"Red" is also subjective, because nobody can say for certain exactly what someone else is seeing, and nobody can describe the color red except in their own terms. Even though you can measure the wavelengths, you cannot say for certain exactly what reaction is happening the brain of an individual when he looks at a red object -- what he sees.

There's also room for different opinions -- I might say that something is brick-red, while Hypersmurf sees it as burgundy and Umbran thinks it's maroon, and we all have slightly different definitions for what those words are and will likely never be able to agree on anything more specific than "Kind of a dark red".

But if my two-year-old son looks at a red rocking horse, and I ask him "What color is the horse?" and he says, "Green!", that is not a subject up for debate. That is not a difference of interpretation. That is my son either getting his colors mixed up or suffering from red-green color blindness.

What I argued, the argument that I suspect led in part to you starting this thread, Merlion, is not that one can objectively prove brick-red versus burgundy versus maroon. What I argued was that we can objectively tell the difference between red and green, if we've studied our colors. If you don't care about studying colors, that's fine -- there's no reason that everybody has to study colors, and if studying colors means that you have to learn about peuce and mauve and other unpleasant colors that didn't bother you before because you didn't see them as any different from green, well, sometimes that's a bummer. (No insult intended to people who really like peuce and mauve.)

However, based on the page you list as your homepage in your user profile, you are trying to get your writing published professionally. If that is the case (I'm basing this on the line in which you say that you aren't posting some stories on Elfwood because "some of them I wish to try and publish", so pardon me if I've misunderstood the context of that line), then I'd think that expanding your knowledge of colors would be a helpful and good thing. You can, in fact, paint without knowing the difference between red and green, and some experimental artists do that sort of thing on purpose, but for the vast majority of painters, knowing your colors is a good thing. By the same token, most writers who want to be published professionally benefit from learning the craft of writing as well as the art of writing.

 

[Merlion]

I do not believe that an opinion being widely held...even being held by the majority, automatically makes it better than any other opinion, and it definitely doesnt change an opinion into a fact, or a subjective matter into an objective one.


There are many reasons why and examples of why this is the case, unfortantely since we're not allowed to even mention anything that could be considered political, its hard to use them.

 

[Merlion]

So yes, you can say that all art is subjective, and you're technically right, but you're ignoring, through malice or ignorance, the accumulated data and standards that people have generated on the subject

I'm not ignoring them, I just dont believe they are the final authority, or that they are objective in the same way that water not running uphil is objective.

I believe that they are simply subjective opinions. The fact that they are commonly held doesnt make them something else. It does make them useful as Enforcer said, in that people may frequently be able to use those standards to help them decide if they want to spend time reading a given book etc. And as you say takyris they are helpful too writers, because they tell us what most people, in general, like and enjoy in a book (same for other artists and mediums), so that we can strive to come closer to that in our work if that is out goal.

But they do not label people who's tastes dont fit those standard's deficient, in any regard, nor do they label works that dont fit them as worthless.


Here I'm going to skip over the colour part, because I basically already covered that....

By the same token, most writers who want to be published professionally benefit from learning the craft of writing as well as the art of writing.

They are the same thing. Even the words themselves have basically the same meaning.

However I understand what you mean in this context, but to me what it is is understanding the standards of commercial publishers.

However, based on the page you list as your homepage in your user profile, you are trying to get your writing published professionally. If that is the case (I'm basing this on the line in which you say that you aren't posting some stories on Elfwood because "some of them I wish to try and publish", so pardon me if I've misunderstood the context of that line

I must say that I really apreciate you taking the time to visit that page. This last post has given me a very different impression of you despite our disagreements or whatever you wish to call them.

Actually I would love, if at some point you have time, to get your thoughts on what you see there, through some medium or other. As long as you remember that to me, their just your thoughts (which are still quite valuable)

 

[Marlowe]

Wheee! This is fun, going around and around in circles!

Okay, I'll try one more time. Merlion, I don't want to offend, but you seem insistent on not allowing any framework but your own. You will need to build some kind of basis for communication if you wish to discuss your theory. I will try to clear up misconceptions with what I stated. I think this will be my final post because I quite frankly only enjoying bashing my head against a wall for a short period of time.

Or because they can be objectively, empirically proven, such as the water doesnt flow uphill example. What you describe is only the case in the situation of phenomena that are impossible to study directly or conclusively, like quantum physics and the like. But thats why those areas of science are not factual, or the facts of them are not known, because they have no yet been proven or disproven.

Actually, I would say that you have used an incorrect example Were we to map what I was saying to this subject directly, the water flowing downhill is the work of art/literature and gravity is the critical theory. The water flowing downhill is the product of gravity, just as good art or literature is the product of art/literary theory. Like science, that art/literary theory is a generally held, peer-evaluated opinion that, due to general acceptance, has become--for lack of a better term--objective fact. This is how we have come to accept the theory of gravity.

Quantum physics can be proved and has been proved. Evolution has been studied directly and--for scientists--conclusively (ask Ross Geller). I would say literary/art theory fits this mold.

But you cannot empirically prove or disprove the quality of a work of art. If someone says I think this book is good, you can't factually disprove it, because all you can offer to counter it is your own opinion. You can say "its bad because there isnt enough characterization" but then the person can say that they think there is plenty. Who is right?

Just like with an experiment, the conclusion of the level of characterization would need to be evaluated based on its data.

For your side of the arguement, I would agree that one can say the book is "enjoyable," in that it can be enjoyed, and I would accept that is subjective.

As I discussed with Umbran, the "objective" criteria you speak of are actually pseudo-objective. Just because a lot of people hold an opinion, doesnt make it an objective fact, just a commonly held (and often useful) opinion.

Just as I would prefer an engineer's "opinion" about the worthiness of a bridge design, I would prefer a literary critic's "opinon" about the worthiness of a piece of fiction. I'm sorry, but not all opinions are created equal, though many wish it could be so.

Those are all scientific theories, because their reality, nature and veracity have yet to be empirically proven.

Careful. All of those mentioned have been "empirically proven." While Quantum Physics continues to grow and change, so does our understanding of long held and accepting theories, such as Gravity. Evolution is also a scientifically accepted theory used in peer-reviewed work, as opposed to op-eds. Global Warming might be contentious, but so was Gravity and the Sun-centric Solar System when it was proposed.

Again, these things are known to be facts because there is empirical evidence, not because of anyones opinion.

Really? Who wrote the plays of William Shakespeare? Do you mean the Rome that was founded by Aeneas, survivor of the Trojan War? Those writing at the time of the Empire were those same historians who wrote about Hyboria as fact. Of course, there's archeaology . . . just like for Evolution.

its apples and oranges. One deals entirely with empirical, physical objective reality. the other deals with thoughts, ideas and emotions that cannot really be put up to empirical analysis.

I'm sorry, but history doe not deal with empirical, physical objective reality, it deals with interpretation of the available evidence. Science is based on generally accepted theories that have been empirically proven. Just like art/literary theory.

And that is really all I have to say, unless someone is willing to provide a framework for a viable discussion.

 

[Merlion]

I'm sorry, but not all opinions are created equal, though many wish it could be so.

If thats the case then theres not much point in discussing anything because we already know the "experts" are right and everyone else is wrong.

And, it would also mean, if you want to take it to its final conclusion, that not all people are created equal either. Because a person mostly consists of their thoughts and opinions.

I would prefer a literary critic's "opinon" about the worthiness of a piece of fiction

It seems like your own opinion would be the most relevent.

Merlion, I don't want to offend, but you seem insistent on not allowing any framework but your own.

I dont have a framework, beyond that fact that anything about something that is accessible and can be studied that cannot be proven to be a fact is an opinion, and that any creative work into which someone puts thought feeling and effort has value, aside from any opinion of its quality.

 

[Merlion]

Also I just want to make it very clear to everyone several things.


I apreciate, enjoy, and respect all the opinions presented here, even if I feel that some of them are incorrect.


I also apreciate everyone keeping things so civil, and (for the most part) refraining from stating their opinions, especially about specific works, as facts.


This thread is proving to be most educational and stimulating and I really apreciate the input

 

[Storm Raven]

This is a pretty good analogy, but it does have a flaw. The nutrional value of food is a totally objective, physical fact that can be empirically proven and studied. Art is not like that.

Unture. There are some elements of art that actually are objective, especially the art of writing. Your mistake is that you continually assume that there is only a subjective value to artistic endeavors, which is not the case.

 

[Enforcer]

If thats the case then theres not much point in discussing anything because we already know the "experts" are right and everyone else is wrong.

And, it would also mean, if you want to take it to its final conclusion, that not all people are created equal either. Because a person mostly consists of their thoughts and opinions.

All people aren't created equal... They should have equal rights, but they're not created equal. People have different intellectual strengths, physical abilities, etc. Not equal.

I dont have a framework, beyond that fact that anything about something that is accessible and can be studied that cannot be proven to be a fact is an opinion, and that any creative work into which someone puts thought feeling and effort has value, aside from any opinion of its quality.

Except even things proven as facts are regarded as mere opinion by others, regardless of empirical evidence. That doesn't mean that it's not objective fact, it means that some people are wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrongity-wrong.

Anyways, find me someone that believes the writing problems listed in the NY Times review are actually good writing (you've ignored this challenge twice already). I defy you to. This is more than widely held opinion, it's universal. Universal to the level of "1+1=2" so yeah, there may be some crackpot that thinks bad writing is actually good, but no one pays them any mind because they're so obviously wrong. Is the standard for good writing ultimately based on opinion? Of course, but so is everything regarded as "fact," including whether the earth revolves around the sun and whether the Roman Empire existed. But is it objective anyways? YES! Because everyone and their mother agrees with it and "empirical evidence" isn't always necessary to make it right.

Ok. This time I'm seriously done. I can't keep doing this, it's too frustrating. Unsubscibing from the thread and done forever.

 

[Merlion]

Unture. There are some elements of art that actually are objective, especially the art of writing.

Yea, spelling and grammar are objective, but we're acting under the assumption that anyone writing anything knows at least the basics of those