Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="PaulKemp" data-source="post: 3130279" data-attributes="member: 2809">Hyp.,I take your point but I think it may presume the answer to the question under discussion (namely, how does one evaluate art as good or bad and is the standard objective or subjective?).&nbsp; An example: Is Van Gogh's Sunflowers &quot;good&quot; art relative to my son's fingerpainting because it uses superior brushwork, shading, color pallette, and a multitude of other things?&nbsp; Yes, if you think that those factors are relevant to whether a piece is &quot;good.&quot;&nbsp; No, otherwise.&nbsp;&nbsp; In my view, this comes back to the idea of collective subjective wisdom doing the work of an objective standard.&nbsp; I certainly would argue that Van Gogh's Sunflowers is superior to my son's fingerpainting as a work of art (and everyone else on planet earth would too, I suspect), but that's because we all agree that the factors listed above are relevant to evaluating art in this medium.&nbsp; A hypothetical critic (a Hyp?&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> ) could state that my son's work is superior to Van Gogh's, and state further that Van Gogh's mastery of technique is irrelevant to the quality &quot;good.&quot;&nbsp; Instead, our critic believes that an infantile fervor and a less focused approach to the medium is the most important factor that contributes to the quality &quot;good.&quot;&nbsp; Most people would think such a critic to be an idiot and call him on his idiocy.&nbsp; But we would not be able to point to any truly objective criteria to dispute his claims.&nbsp; We could simply argue that our standard of evaluating art is superior to his standard of evaluating art.&nbsp; I would find our argument persuasive. as would most people.&nbsp; But I would not find our argument objectively true.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="PaulKemp, post: 3130279, member: 2809"] Hyp., I take your point but I think it may presume the answer to the question under discussion (namely, how does one evaluate art as good or bad and is the standard objective or subjective?). An example: Is Van Gogh's [I]Sunflowers[/I] "good" art relative to my son's fingerpainting because it uses superior brushwork, shading, color pallette, and a multitude of other things? [I]Yes[/I], if you think that those factors are relevant to whether a piece is "good." [I]No[/I], otherwise. In my view, this comes back to the idea of collective subjective wisdom doing the work of an objective standard. [I]I[/I] certainly would argue that Van Gogh's Sunflowers is superior to my son's fingerpainting as a work of art (and everyone else on planet earth would too, I suspect), but that's because we all agree that the factors listed above are relevant to evaluating art in this medium. A hypothetical critic (a Hyp? :) ) could state that my son's work is superior to Van Gogh's, and state further that Van Gogh's mastery of technique is irrelevant to the quality "good." Instead, our critic believes that an infantile fervor and a less focused approach to the medium is the most important factor that contributes to the quality "good." Most people would think such a critic to be an idiot and call him on his idiocy. But we would not be able to point to any truly objective criteria to dispute his claims. We could simply argue that our standard of evaluating art is superior to his standard of evaluating art. I would find our argument persuasive. as would most people. But I would not find our argument objectively true. [/QUOTE]

Verification