Is artistic quality meaningful in any objective sense?

[Spectrum]

Well, I can take a swing at it; sorry for the length, but this is a complex question, and short answers really don't address the important points.

Interesting post. Forgive me for not addressing all parts of your two huge posts. I will reply only to some key parts.

The one is "reading matter", essentially used to kill time or avoid boredom; the latter enriches one's experience and understanding of life and of oneself.

We can go with either definition for my sake. Both are based in subjective experience.

Yes, there are subjective levels to deciding what is "art" and what is not, but most of the "rules" governing what is quality or not are things which have been evolved over a very long period of time, based on a gradual growth of knowledge of what actually works best at communicating these visions to others, and what continues to serve this function over an increasing period.
...
Nonetheless, these criteria are fairly objective, as they are based on what has succeeded best throughout history, and what remains viable (and vital, in the sense of "alive", "vibrant") years, decades, centuries, even millennia, after it was originally proffered to the world.

So, in other words, the objective quality measurement is worthwhile because it is a statistical indicator of enjoyment and/or "enrichment" (whatever the latter is taken to mean)?

Were the reverse true, and it was entirely subjective, then no critic could ever find value -- let alone high value -- in a piece which was not to their own liking; something which is manifestly not the case.

Here you misinterpret what I am trying to say. Of course objective criteria for judging art exist. Anyone can make up a set of criteria. That was never the issue. This question was why anyone wants to have such a set of criteria. Why are they useful?

False or insincere amusement is the sort of activity which does not meet the real psychological demands of the hunan glandular-nervous system, but merely affects to do so. Real amusement is the sort which is based on a knowledge of real needs, and which therefore hits the spot. This latter kind of amusement is what art is -- and there is nothin[g] more important in the universe.
...
Art is the gateway of life -- and in the opinion of many, myself included, the only reason that any highly developed man of sense has for remaining alive

I'm sorry, but this is pure snobbery: "If you like bad art better than good art, then you're deluded and stupid, so nyah!"

There are others, but this is certainly enough to give a good indication of at least approximately objective rules or guidelines which even an antipathetic reader can apply to almost any work, thus resulting in an acknowledgment of what is of better or poorer quality and, ultimately, what is art in the critical sense and what is not.

A few comments:

1. Again, yes, sure, you can set up some rules. But why?
2. What about the oft-repeated wise words of "never break the rules, unless doing so makes for a better story"? There is no such thing as an "objective guideline". If it is not hard-and-fast but open to interpretation, then it is not objective any more.

 

[j d worthington]

We can go with either definition for my sake. Both are based in subjective experience.

No, they aren't; at least, not entirely (see below).

So, in other words, the objective quality measurement is worthwhile because it is a statistical indicator of enjoyment and/or "enrichment" (whatever the latter is taken to mean)?

I would have thought that the definition of enrichment here would have been answered by the list of things in the Lovecraft quote -- hence my inclusion of so much of it. However, to put it in my own words: art is enriching when it expands and deepens one's appreciation and experience of, and participation in, life by increasing the number of levels at which one perceives and processes experience. Any work of art which does this at higher levels is, by definition, a better piece of art than one which attains fewer levels. It enhances one's life by aiding in creating both a broader and deeper perspective, while also increasing the emotional/imaginative response to all the various stimuli, literary/artistic and otherwise.

As for the "Anyone can make up a set of criteria" -- yes, but not objective criteria. Any set of criteria "set up" by any individual will inevitably be largely arbitrary and subjective. The objective criteria, as I noted in my previous post, are those things which have been evolved over a long period of time through observation, experiment, and thought -- a philosophical, almost scientific, investigation into the matter, dating back at least to Aristotle's "Poetics", honed and refined since.

And this goes to the "why": Part of it originally was certainly curiosity, a desire to understand why certain works of art succeeded and continued to be vital age after age, while others did not. Part of it is also the desire to improve on one's own abilities and hone and improve one's talent, to produce the best, most universal, approach to various subjects attainable. Nor does this negate the idea of change or innovation, as there are few (if any) basic changes, only refinements in techniques to broaden the artist's palette, as it were; things which allow broader scope for addressing specific resonances and responses in the human psyche, based on our increasing knowledge of human psychology and emotional/intellectual response, combined with our changing perspectives on the nature of the world and universe around us. As for the aphorism you quote -- that's the problem with such statements: They are a shorthand version of the truth, which means that, like many common metaphors, they can often mislead by too broad an application. Of course one can innovate, but it must be on the requirements of the piece; the necessity of breaking out of the accepted range of techniques because something different is required to actually convey everything the writer is wishing to convey, in a more concise, powerful, and also comprehensive (which would include the ambiguities of any experience being described, even if only hinted at by word choice or rhythm). Otherwise, it becomes mere ostentation and "showing off". (Hence, for example, the structure and technique of T. S. Eliot's "The Waste Land" is necessarily dictated by the rich, ambiguous, even difficult substance of his message, whereas the hectic, hallucinatory prose of Phil Farmer's "The Jungle Rot Kid on the Nod" is in the nature of a joke -- and one which has been done better, as I recall, elsewhere.)

As for your response to the Lovecraft quote -- no, it isn't. It is making the point that discrimination is necessary to make valid judgments about which works fall into what category, and that that which offers the most is considerably more important because it genuinely fulfills those emotional needs rather than simply "killing time (or boredom)". It may well be a form of elitism, but that is not the same thing as snobbery. "Snobbery" is an attitude of superiority and disdain toward an out-group (whether people or artifacts) regardless of the latter's merit. While this is one form of elitism, there is also the quite legitimate form of recognizing and encouraging excellence rather than mediocrity or even poorly done. Snobbery is deliberately exclusive; elitism (at least of this type) is open to all, based on genuine merit or level of achievement.

As for the "gateway" part of the statement -- it is simply a restatement in near-poetic terms of what had gone before: the faculty of art to act as an entrée to a wider experience of existence.

 

[Spectrum]

No, they aren't; at least, not entirely (see below).

I would have thought that the definition of enrichment here would have been answered by the list of things in the Lovecraft quote -- hence my inclusion of so much of it. However, to put it in my own words: art is enriching when it expands and deepens one's appreciation and experience of, and participation in, life by increasing the number of levels at which one perceives and processes experience. Any work of art which does this at higher levels is, by definition, a better piece of art than one which attains fewer levels. It enhances one's life by aiding in creating both a broader and deeper perspective, while also increasing the emotional/imaginative response to all the various stimuli, literary/artistic and otherwise.

1. How is this not subjective? You acknowledged in a previous post that individual readers will respond differently to the same works of art. How, then, do you determine which reaction is the objectively correct one?

2. I still do not understand what this "enrichment" is supposed to correspond to in reality. I have read some literature that is usually considered high art, but I do not remember ever having experienced this enrichment. Can you give some examples from your own life of times when you have experienced it?

As for the "Anyone can make up a set of criteria" -- yes, but not objective criteria. Any set of criteria "set up" by any individual will inevitably be largely arbitrary and subjective.

You misunderstood what I meant. By "make up a set of objective criteria" I mean "make up a definition of 'quality' such that quality can be measured objectively". For example, I might define that the quality of a work of literature equals, say, the total amount of Bible quotes in the book. That is an objective criterion. Of course, making up a set of objective criteria is perhaps no so useful if no one else agrees with them.

The definition you propose, on the other hand, may be one agreed upon by many. But is it objectively measurable? I will still claim that as long as your rules are only guidelines, they are still subjective.

The objective criteria, as I noted in my previous post, are those things which have been evolved over a long period of time through observation, experiment, and thought -- a philosophical, almost scientific, investigation into the matter, dating back at least to Aristotle's "Poetics", honed and refined since.

And this goes to the "why": Part of it originally was certainly curiosity, a desire to understand why certain works of art succeeded and continued to be vital age after age, while others did not.

So, as a statistical indicator of which works will probably stay popular?

As for your response to the Lovecraft quote -- no, it isn't. It is making the point that discrimination is necessary to make valid judgments about which works fall into what category, and that that which offers the most is considerably more important because it genuinely fulfills those emotional needs rather than simply "killing time (or boredom)".

This ties in with my question above about what "enrichment" is supposed to be like.

It may well be a form of elitism, but that is not the same thing as snobbery. "Snobbery" is an attitude of superiority and disdain toward an out-group (whether people or artifacts) regardless of the latter's merit. While this is one form of elitism, there is also the quite legitimate form of recognizing and encouraging excellence rather than mediocrity or even poorly done. Snobbery is deliberately exclusive; elitism (at least of this type) is open to all, based on genuine merit or level of achievement.

All right, but this argument only holds if we assume your conclusion is correct and that this "merit" is indeed something real and worthwhile.

 

[j d worthington]

1. How is this not subjective? You acknowledged in a previous post that individual readers will respond differently to the same works of art. How, then, do you determine which reaction is the objectively correct one?

Yes, individual readers will respond somewhat (at times, radically) differently -- yet there will be a sizeable proportion of readers who will have fairly similar reactions in their salient points; it will be the nuances which differ, not the basics. A good example of this is Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, which elicits very similar responses from a huge number of people, but they also each have sections which appeal to them more than to others, etc. Lovecraft is another who engenders such a response, and so on, across the genre boundaries.

2. I still do not understand what this "enrichment" is supposed to correspond to in reality. I have read some literature that is usually considered high art, but I do not remember ever having experienced this enrichment. Can you give some examples from your own life of times when you have experienced it?

Well... going back to Lovecraft (as he remains an author with whom I am very familiar, and have studied quite a bit); it was through my reading of Lovecraft (and, to a lesser degree, Poe, largely because Poe did not make an express mention of such things where Lovecraft did) that I gained an appreciation of eighteenth century literature to the degree I have; I also began to see the natural world around me through more imaginative eyes, as it were. And, despite Lovecraft (like myself) being an atheist, it was through my early reading of Lovecraft that I began to revive and refine an almost aborted appreciation for the numinous in life and literature. Until that point, it had remained largely inchoate and, for lack of the proper resources to feed it, was slowly dying of inanition. Lovecraft not only gave that back to me, but increased it a thousandfold. And, for the first time, I gained an awareness of the genuine immensity of the cosmos -- most sf I had read up to that period tended toward faster-paced action tales, and relied much less on that sense of awe and wonder about the cosmic which is so much a hallmark of Lovecraft's work and thought.

Tolkien aided me in appreciating even earlier forms of literature and art, in reconnecting with the fairy-tale and the complex simplicity of childhood memories and longings, and also introduced me to a different kind of imaginative appreciation and connection with the natural world around me, through his stressing of that element in his work. He also taught me how to hope even in despair, which has seen me through some incredibly rough times in my life that I doubt I'd have survived otherwise -- or perhaps that I would have survived intact psychologically. As it is, though aged by the experience, the scars are less as a result.

Ellison has also had a role in building my compassion for people I might not otherwise have been able to connect with empathically, and helped formulate my conviction that the majority of human beings are capable of so much more than they achieve -- not in the financial or career sense, but as human beings, in their development as people -- and that, with the proper encouragement and strength, may achieve things others simply would not dream they could come close to achieving in that sphere.

And so on. There are any number of examples, but these are both some of the primary ones, and ones which come directly from the sff field....

You misunderstood what I meant. By "make up a set of objective criteria" I mean "make up a definition of 'quality' such that quality can be measured objectively". For example, I might define that the quality of a work of literature equals, say, the total amount of Bible quotes in the book. That is an objective criterion. Of course, making up a set of objective criteria is perhaps no so useful if no one else agrees with them.

No, that is not an objective criterion. That is an entirely subjective criterion. It is an arbitrary setting up of a rather trivial aspect on which to judge something's worth. The criteria which were formulated, as noted, were formulated over time, by studying which works survived, which works not only were "popular" in the usual sense of the term, but which actually spoke to people, made an impression which remained with them; whether they liked it or not is another matter -- what was important is that it struck them in such a way as it stayed with them and made them rethink something, or have a different perspective on a matter (or life in general); something which had the ability to actually impact on people on an emotional/intellectual level and which continued to do so over time.

And yes, it is objectively measurable. It has been studied by many over the years, in various ways, from different fields (philosophy, psychology, aesthetics, publishing, to some degree linguistics, and so on).

The definition you propose, on the other hand, may be one agreed upon by many. But is it objectively measurable? I will still claim that as long as your rules are only guidelines, they are still subjective.

I think you are confusing what objective and subjective mean here. Objective means that it is "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudices", whereas subjective is "characteristic of an individual; personal", "placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc." Now, as these criteria were evolved over a considerable period, by a number of individuals from various fields, using different perspectives, and yet still managing to come to many of the same or similar conclusions, that rather eliminates the idea of such being subjective.

So, as a statistical indicator of which works will probably stay popular?

No; at least, not in the usual sense of that word. As said above, as an indicator of that which will continue to have relevance and impact; which will continue to speak to people over time, whether necessarily popular (liked) or not. Not many people like Silas Marner, for instance; yet it does still continue to speak to people and to elucidate very cogently (and, in a very real sense, beautifully) an aspect of the human condition, in dramatic terms which touch people's emotions.

This ties in with my question above about what "enrichment" is supposed to be like.

All right, but this argument only holds if we assume your conclusion is correct and that this "merit" is indeed something real and worthwhile.

Once again, this goes to the definitions of "objective" and "subjective". We aren't talking physical facts here in the same way we would be were we discussing the sun, or rocks, or an elephant; but we are discussing objectively observed phenomena nonetheless; and conclusions drawn about what made these things retain the power they do, when those conclusions are evolved by a large number of people independently, coming from differing perspectives and disciplines, is as objective as one is likely to get on anything. After all, even the existence of the physical world is, as far as our acceptance of it is concerned, entirely a matter of consensus, and you have people who reject that as well, on these same grounds. The merit of such an idea is its survival when repeatedly tested, questioned, and challenged over a prolonged period. This is one which has, with some refinements, managed to do so.

Then again, this is the same criteria as that for the "merit" of physics, astronomy, evolution, chemistry, biology, or any other science you care to name as well....

It isn't an exact science, but it most certainly is objective, not subjective, in any meaningful sense of the term....

 

[Sparrow]

JD ~It isn't an exact science, but it most certainly is objective, not subjective, in any meaningful sense of the term....

Indeed.


Every "i" need not be dotted, or "t" crossed, so that most people can retain a relatively high level of objectivity when judging the intrinsic quality of something... not it's artistic value so much, but certainly if it has great value or is of great quality. Which I believe was the original question.

Is To Kill a Mockingbird a masterwork of fiction?
It really isn't all that well crafted, too lyrical, an impossible narrative as told through the eyes of a child, but it has stood the test of time.
Scout; her voice may be uneven, but it is almost always fetching, often vivid, full of small-town manners and quartered honesty. With all the writer's technical flaws her characters still come to life today, as they did back then.

 

[j d worthington]

There are, as I noted earlier, several other things which can be added to a list of criteria, but one which stands out beyond the more technical aspects may be added here as well: storytelling as myth and symbol, rather than "entertainment" (of course, good myth also entertains, but it also does much, much more). D. H. Lawrence described myth as:

descriptive narrative using images. But myth is never an argument, it never has a didactic or moral purpose, you can draw no conclusion from it. Myth is an attempt to narrate a whole human experience, of which the purpose is too deep, going too deep in the blood and soul, for mental explanation or description.[... T]he images of myth are symbols. They don't "mean something." They stand for units of human feeling, human experience. A complex of emotional experience is a symbol. And the power of a symbol is to arouse the deep emotional self, and the dynamic self, beyond comprehension. Many ages of accumulated experience still throb within a symbol. And we throb in response.

-- "The Dragon of the Apocalypse", in Literary Symbolism, ed. Maurice Beebe, pp. 31-32
​

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Is it snobbery to look down on things even though you actually enjoy them? I would tend to say yes.

On the contrary, Spectrum, your whole argument that if you like something it must be good strikes me as extremely snobbish. It implies impeccable taste on your part and bad taste on the part of everyone who thinks differently. Or it's reverse snobbery that makes an absence of any objective criteria into some kind of virtue, and ascribes all sorts of negative qualities to those who think otherwise. Either way, isn't there a certain amount of arrogance in your stance?

As for cheerfully admitting that we sometimes have "low" tastes, I would say that is the very opposite of snobbery. It acknowledges that one is by no means obligated to like only what is good, that one is allowed to enjoy what is (objectively) done poorly if it happens to appeal on a personal, subjective level.

There is nothing to be ashamed of (intellectually, morally, ethically) in preferring what is badly done over what is well done, if you find it more satisfying or it fulfills some need -- for instance, if you are in the habit of reading for relaxation after a overly stimulating day and you don't want something too challenging, or the reverse, if you have an utterly boring job and you want to read something long on adventure and short on everything else in order to make up for it. Or just, well, if you like a poorly constructed piece of writing better and don't know why. But, intellectually speaking, I think one ought to know the difference, and practically speaking, I think that once you do you open yourself to appreciating both kinds of experiences -- the one that you engage with passively, and the one that involves a more active mental participation. Basically, twice the fun.

 

[Spectrum]

(Many things.)

All right. You have made some good points. You have convinced me that your conception of quality is indeed consistent, that it is objectively determinable to some degree of accuracy, and that it is interesting and worth consideration to you and perhaps many others. All in all, you have given a good explanation. Thanks.

I still have some more comments, though:

No, that is not an objective criterion. That is an entirely subjective criterion. It is an arbitrary setting up of a rather trivial aspect on which to judge something's worth. The criteria which were formulated, as noted, were formulated over time, by studying which works survived, which works not only were "popular" in the usual sense of the term, but which actually spoke to people, made an impression which remained with them; whether they liked it or not is another matter -- what was important is that it struck them in such a way as it stayed with them and made them rethink something, or have a different perspective on a matter (or life in general); something which had the ability to actually impact on people on an emotional/intellectual level and which continued to do so over time.

I failed to explain what I meant here. Let me try again. (Note that I am no longer trying to prove that your quality criteria are bad; I am just explaining why my claim above makes sense.)

When I say that my example definition is "objective" I mean that it is something that is objectively determinable. Bible quotes can be objectively identified (to some degree of accuracy) and counted. I am not necessarily saying that this definition is the "correct" one, but it is objective in the sense that the results are the same regardless of who uses it.

After all, it is a mistake to thing that each word has a meaning. A word has meanings. Consider, for example, the term "a bad password". This can mean various things, including:

1. If a user tries to log into a system and mistypes his password, the machine might say "bad password" in the sense of "incorrect password".
2. If a user uses the password "1234", the administrator might say the password is bad because it is easily guessable.
3. If a user uses the password "AdolfHitlerWasCool", someone might say it is a bad password because the phrase is offensive to some.

The first one is clearly objective, the second one slightly less so, and the third is very subjective. All three meanings of the phrase are correct in a certain context.

Similarly, the phrase "a good book" means different things in different contexts. You might use it to mean "a book which meets a set of artistic criteria". I might use it to mean "a book I have enjoyed" or "a book which you might (or should) enjoy". I would claim that I am far from the only person in the world who uses the term in this sense.

In a more constructed situation, a book might be considered good if it has many Bible quotes in it. I might be a scholar trying to research the nature of Bible quotes in books and thus looking for some useful books to use as study material. This is a criterion that is only useful in certain situations, but it is still objective. I could ask a librarian for help in finding such books without fear of having the librarian's personal tastes get in the way.

Am I making sense?

 

[Peter Graham]

Similarly, the phrase "a good book" means different things in different contexts. You might use it to mean "a book which meets a set of artistic criteria". I might use it to mean "a book I have enjoyed" or "a book which you might (or should) enjoy".

In which case, the problem is not one of determining whether art can be measured or evaluated in any objective or critical sense, but rather one of defining our terms.

A good book, as you say, can mean anything, from a book which is rich in imagery to one which is just the right height to stop the dining table from wobbling. But in the context of a discussion about artistic quality, we are clearly using "good" in the context of artistic merit. If this thread was entitled "are books good for blocking up holes in walls?" we'd be using a different definition.

In a more constructed situation, a book might be considered good if it has many Bible quotes in it. I might be a scholar trying to research the nature of Bible quotes in books and thus looking for some useful books to use as study material. This is a criterion that is only useful in certain situations, but it is still objective. I could ask a librarian for help in finding such books without fear of having the librarian's personal tastes get in the way.

This is a non-sequitur. In your example, you are looking for something specific. You wouldn't say to the librarian "can you direct me to a good book" and hope that by some process of telepathy the librarian understood what you were really looking for. What you'd say is "I'm doing a thesis on biblical quotes in modern fiction (or whatever) - do you know of any books which are strong on those themes?"

Regards,

Peter

 

[Spectrum]

On the contrary, Spectrum, your whole argument that if you like something it must be good strikes me as extremely snobbish. It implies impeccable taste on your part and bad taste on the part of everyone who thinks differently.

No, it doesn't. If I say "bananas taste good", I am not implying that people who dislike bananas have bad taste. If I say "Tiffany-Amber Thiessen is hot", I am not implying that people who are not attacted to her have bad taste. Similarly, I can use words like "good" and "bad" to describe my subjective enjoyment of art without judging anyone. (That is not to say that I never judge people for having different tastes than mine. But that is not a consequence of my point, that's just because I am not immune to being snobbish and judgemental myself.)

I think almost every dictionary will agree with me that it is valid to use the word "good" to mean "useful" or "enjoyable". See, for example, Wiktionary, Free Online Dictionary and Google Dictionary.

Or it's reverse snobbery that makes an absence of any objective criteria into some kind of virtue, and ascribes all sorts of negative qualities to those who think otherwise.

You have a point here. But it is my impression that some people use artistic quality as some sort of moral rule. It is often implied that creating "bad art" is a dishonest and immoral thing to do (especially if said "bad art" is commercially successful), and that people who do are overrated cheats that should be hated.

But, intellectually speaking, I think one ought to know the difference, and practically speaking, I think that once you do you open yourself to appreciating both kinds of experiences -- the one that you engage with passively, and the one that involves a more active mental participation. Basically, twice the fun.

This is a good point. But does it have anything to do with the objectivity/subjectivity issue?

In which case, the problem is not one of determining whether art can be measured or evaluated in any objective or critical sense, but rather one of defining our terms.

True. In the beginning of the thread, the problem was one of "determining whether art can be measured or evaluated in any objective or critical sense". I have finally acknowledged that it can, if one chooses to do so. In some situations this can be useful. In others, less so.

This is a non-sequitur. In your example, you are looking for something specific. You wouldn't say to the librarian "can you direct me to a good book" and hope that by some process of telepathy the librarian understood what you were really looking for. What you'd say is "I'm doing a thesis on biblical quotes in modern fiction (or whatever) - do you know of any books which are strong on those themes?"

You're right. My example is not very good. It was just meant as a throwaway example of an objective definition that is not useful. But maybe it is not a good example of that either.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

No, it doesn't. If I say "bananas taste good", I am not implying that people who dislike bananas have bad taste. If I say "Tiffany-Amber Thiessen is hot", I am not implying that people who are not attacted to her have bad taste. Similarly, I can use words like "good" and "bad" to describe my subjective enjoyment of art without judging anyone.

It is not similar at all. Words mean different things in different contexts. "A good time," "a good deed," "good credit," "my good name" -- in each of these "good" has a slightly different meaning. Likewise, a simple comment that "bananas taste good" merely means that you enjoy bananas. There is no question of the superiority of the banana eating experience over that of eating mangos or pineapples. But in any discussion (and certainly in this one, which has the words "artistic quality" in the title) where the conversation is clearly about the relative merits of one thing over another, then "good" and "bad" take on a different set of meanings.

Which, as a matter of fact, I am convinced that you know very well.

But it is my impression that some people use artistic quality as some sort of moral rule. It is often implied that creating "bad art" is a dishonest and immoral thing to do (especially if said "bad art" is commercially successful), and that people who do are overrated cheats that should be hated.

I would love to know who some of these people are.

There are people who think that immoral or dishonest thinking makes for bad art, and perhaps this is what confuses you, but it is not at all the same thing.

 

[j d worthington]

When I say that my example definition is "objective" I mean that it is something that is objectively determinable. Bible quotes can be objectively identified (to some degree of accuracy) and counted. I am not necessarily saying that this definition is the "correct" one, but it is objective in the sense that the results are the same regardless of who uses it.

After all, it is a mistake to thing that each word has a meaning. A word has meanings. Consider, for example, the term "a bad password". This can mean various things, including:

1. If a user tries to log into a system and mistypes his password, the machine might say "bad password" in the sense of "incorrect password".
2. If a user uses the password "1234", the administrator might say the password is bad because it is easily guessable.
3. If a user uses the password "AdolfHitlerWasCool", someone might say it is a bad password because the phrase is offensive to some.

The first one is clearly objective, the second one slightly less so, and the third is very subjective. All three meanings of the phrase are correct in a certain context.

Similarly, the phrase "a good book" means different things in different contexts. You might use it to mean "a book which meets a set of artistic criteria". I might use it to mean "a book I have enjoyed" or "a book which you might (or should) enjoy". I would claim that I am far from the only person in the world who uses the term in this sense.

In a more constructed situation, a book might be considered good if it has many Bible quotes in it. I might be a scholar trying to research the nature of Bible quotes in books and thus looking for some useful books to use as study material. This is a criterion that is only useful in certain situations, but it is still objective. I could ask a librarian for help in finding such books without fear of having the librarian's personal tastes get in the way.

Am I making sense?

As others have pointed out, here we have a confusion of terms, and something which strays very far from the concept of artistic quality into simple usefulness or amusement value (depending on the type of book). And, as I noted in my first post in the thread, there is value in each of these; it is just that they are not the same thing. Thus (as Peter pointed out) your argument here does not apply.

As for this:

t is my impression that some people use artistic quality as some sort of moral rule. It is often implied that creating "bad art" is a dishonest and immoral thing to do (especially if said "bad art" is commercially successful), and that people who do are overrated cheats that should be hated.

I think that is just it: it is your impression from what seems to me a rather loose reading; either that, or you've run across some very peculiar forms of criticism. It is a given that opinion in a critical article refers to the level of quality in the art itself, thus "good art" is that which meets certain criteria more successfully than "bad art". It may be artistically reprehensible, but I don't think any reputable critic would ever claim it was morally reprehensible, save if the author claimed high artistic value or intent for their work, and even then such a response from a critic would be dubious. They'd be more likely to question the author's judgment rather than their morals. (Such was not always the case, of course; there was a strong emphasis on the didactic purpose of art itself, but that quickly ran into trouble -- as far back as Apuleius' Golden Ass or Petronius' Satyricon, for instance.)

In the beginning of the thread, the problem was one of "determining whether art can be measured or evaluated in any objective or critical sense". I have finally acknowledged that it can, if one chooses to do so. In some situations this can be useful. In others, less so.

How so? Good quality, whether in art or otherwise, is always to be preferred to bad, as it provides more. It may be irrelevant to a reader's primary purpose at the moment, but it is always useful information, as it acts as a guideline to the value of a work, how dependable it is, and so on.

Also, one of the primary points in this thread originally seemed to center around your complaints about the business end of things, in which case knowing what is or is not good quality is inevitably going to be useful, as this is going to be more in demand than poor quality. As John W. Campbell once put it, sometimes to fill a magazine (or a publication schedule, or what-have-you) you print things you'd much prefer to see in the pages of the competition, but that is a matter of other considerations putting pressure to accept subpar material for cost-effective and contractual purposes, not a desire for such.

And, as a writer, it always behooves a person to aim to achieve the best they can, and to improve where they fall short. This may not guarantee success, but it is far more likely to garner it than the alternative.

 

[Fried Egg]

I haven't read all the posts in this thread but when reading the "Ernest Hemingway" thread, I spooted an argument between ghostofcorwin and knivesout begun in this post when ghostofcorwin took exception to knivesout's analysis of Hemmingway's writing.

It seems to me that such a heated exchange is a result of a belief (at least on ghostofcorwin's part) that there is some such thing as an objective method of determining artistic merit. If one believes that there is such a thing, and one believes that one has applied such an analysis to a particular case, then anyone who comes to a different conclusion must therefore be wrong. Their failure to reach the same conclusions as you must result from their poor education or failure to apply the proper methods of analysis.

On the other hand, an awareness from the outset that one is only ever applying their own subjective interpretation, one can easilly reconcile two otherwise contradictory views. Both can be correct from their own point of view.

The belief that there is an absolute true way of seeing things is just plain dangerous because if one believes their way is the true way, everyone else must therefore be wrong.

 

[Peter Graham]

The belief that there is an absolute true way of seeing things is just plain dangerous because if one believes their way is the true way, everyone else must therefore be wrong.

I think the exact opposite is true. Some things are just plain wrong.

Take homeopathy or any number of other new-age, crystal-fondling therapies. They are virtually all absolute nonsense. The 21st century equivalent of snake oil and pixie dust. Any efficacy is down solely to the placebo effect. What can possibly be dangerous about pointing that fact out?

If one believes that there is such a thing, and one believes that one has applied such an analysis to a particular case, then anyone who comes to a different conclusion must therefore be wrong. Their failure to reach the same conclusions as you must result from their poor education or failure to apply the proper methods of analysis.

Pretty much. This is the basis of all rational and scientific thinking, although some things are so complex that more than one conclusion is possible on the available evidence.

On the other hand, an awareness from the outset that one is only ever applying their own subjective interpretation, one can easilly reconcile two otherwise contradictory views. Both can be correct from their own point of view.

Yes - but being correct from your own point of view is not the same as being objectively correct. You may feel very strongly that crystal healing works. From your own point of view, you are satisfied with that and good luck to you. But, objectively speaking, you are wrong.

Arguments about whether X is a good writer will usually be based more on personal likes than on objective criticism. That is perfectly valid, but again doesn't take away from the fact that artistic endeavour - like any other manifestation of human ingenuity and creativity - can be critically assessed if one chooses to do so.

Regards,

Peter

 

[Fried Egg]

Peter Graham

I think the exact opposite is true. Some things are just plain wrong.

Take homeopathy or any number of other new-age, crystal-fondling therapies. They are virtually all absolute nonsense. The 21st century equivalent of snake oil and pixie dust. Any efficacy is down solely to the placebo effect. What can possibly be dangerous about pointing that fact out?

I guess the problem is that some things are inherently subjective and cannot be "just plain wrong" in any objectively meaningful way.

Arguments about whether X is a good writer will usually be based more on personal likes than on objective criticism. That is perfectly valid, but again doesn't take away from the fact that artistic endeavour - like any other manifestation of human ingenuity and creativity - can be critically assessed if one chooses to do so.

When you say "critically assessed", you only mean judged according to the commonly agreed standards by those who have read and judged a lot of other works in the field. One may be familiar with the agreed upon conventions and judge accordingly but what is objective about that? Such conventions are neither set in stone nor permanent. In order to be objective, a judgement needs to be true independent of one's subjective perspective, even if that perspective is shared by many.

There is nothing wrong with a belief in the objective truth of a particular matter if the nature of the matter in question is not inherently subjective. But by saying that artistic analysis is inherently subjective does not mean that critical analysis of artistic merit is impossible. It is simply acknowledging that such analysis is subjective.

 

[Interference]

Any efficacy is down solely to the placebo effect. What can possibly be dangerous about pointing that fact out?

If the placebo effect heals, then never tell the patient that's all it is. If ill-health results, you'll never be able to forgive yourself.

Precisely the same as religion: if it comforts someone, what right has anyone to convince them their god doesn't exist?

New Age therapies may be hogwash, but that was never the point. The point has only ever been to help people in need or in pain. If the healing comes from within themselves rather than the crystal per se, then don't take that treatment away. It allowed the patient to find the strength to fight. And negative action on your (or anyone else's) part would be highly morally suspect.

(who were you quoting, btw, Pete, I'm too lazy to read through all the looooooong posts in this thread?)

 

[Spectrum]

The belief that there is an absolute true way of seeing things is just plain dangerous because if one believes their way is the true way, everyone else must therefore be wrong.

I think any discussion of goodness is dangerous if the participants see goodness as Serious Business. Some people use objective quality guidelines to pound people on the head for having bad taste. Others use their own tastes to pount people on the head for having different (and thus bad) tastes. After thinking about it, I think both approaches are equally problematic.

 

[Spectrum]

When you say "critically assessed", you only mean judged according to the commonly agreed standards by those who have read and judged a lot of other works in the field. One may be familiar with the agreed upon conventions and judge accordingly but what is objective about that? Such conventions are neither set in stone nor permanent. In order to be objective, a judgement needs to be true independent of one's subjective perspective, even if that perspective is shared by many.

There is nothing wrong with a belief in the objective truth of a particular matter if the nature of the matter in question is not inherently subjective. But by saying that artistic analysis is inherently subjective does not mean that critical analysis of artistic merit is impossible. It is simply acknowledging that such analysis is subjective.

Hey, Fried Egg. You mentioned that you had not read all the posts in the thread. You might want to do so. There are some quite good and well-argued ones among them. The arguments you bring up here are similar to the ones I have brought up, and there have been some interesting counterarguments posted.

 

[Fried Egg]

Spectrum

Reading through the posts I had missed, I didn't really see anything that has addressed my argument that convention doesn't constitute objective, except perhaps this by J.D.:

Yes, there are subjective levels to deciding what is "art" and what is not, but most of the "rules" governing what is quality or not are things which have been evolved over a very long period of time, based on a gradual growth of knowledge of what actually works best at communicating these visions to others, and what continues to serve this function over an increasing period. No work of art is high quality throughout; there will be rough patches and fumbles by even the greatest (Homer, Shakespeare, Marlowe, Poe, Wharton, etc.); also, no single work of art will "hit the spot" with everyone, as individual readers -- no matter how broad their interests or perspective -- also have their blind spots, prejudices, pet peeves, and "soft spots" or sentimentalities. Nonetheless, these criteria are fairly objective, as they are based on what has succeeded best throughout history, and what remains viable (and vital, in the sense of "alive", "vibrant") years, decades, centuries, even millennia, after it was originally proffered to the world. Were the reverse true, and it was entirely subjective, then no critic could ever find value -- let alone high value -- in a piece which was not to their own liking; something which is manifestly not the case.

The agreed upon conventions that have evolved throughout history are not "fairly objective". They are only a multitude of subjective opinions in agreement with each other. That such conventions generally work to inform us whether a particular piece of art is good or bad makes such conventions useful but not objective.

If such conventions are not objective does that mean, as J.D. suggests, that no critic would see value in anyone elses critical analyis that did not agree with their own? I don't see why since a critic can always appreciate a contrasting point of view if he feels that it is well thought out and they can see where they're comming from (i.e. understand the difference in their subjective perspectives that lead to a different analysis).

 

[ghostofcorwin]

I haven't read all the posts in this thread but when reading the "Ernest Hemingway" thread, I spooted an argument between ghostofcorwin and knivesout begun in this post when ghostofcorwin took exception to knivesout's analysis of Hemmingway's writing.

It seems to me that such a heated exchange is a result of a belief (at least on ghostofcorwin's part) that there is some such thing as an objective method of determining artistic merit. If one believes that there is such a thing, and one believes that one has applied such an analysis to a particular case, then anyone who comes to a different conclusion must therefore be wrong. Their failure to reach the same conclusions as you must result from their poor education or failure to apply the proper methods of analysis.

On the other hand, an awareness from the outset that one is only ever applying their own subjective interpretation, one can easilly reconcile two otherwise contradictory views. Both can be correct from their own point of view.

The belief that there is an absolute true way of seeing things is just plain dangerous because if one believes their way is the true way, everyone else must therefore be wrong.

Actually, that is completely inaccurate. I was objecting to Knivesout's failure to provide ANY analysis at all. He maintained that Hemingway was an empty poser who had nothing to say. I merely pointed out with a minimum of effort that there was a good deal of substance to be found, if one bothered to look. Knivesout then indicated that he "morally" objected to Hemingway because he killed animals and glorified hunting and bullfighting. He doesn't like what Hemingway represents.... fair enough. Doesn't find Hemingway to his taste... fair enough. I don't care for Finnegan's Wake, but I wouldn't be so bold as to maintain that it is a worthless, empty piece of nonsense because I couldn't penetrate it, or it didn't "speak" to me. By the way, my quick analysis of Old Man And the Sea isn't necessarily "correct." It's merely one way of reading the text. Hemingway would probably have objected to the link I made to Campbell, whom I very much doubt he knew or read. I was trying to indicate that there can be powerful structures underpinning a work that are often times instinctive but speak to the human condition. The Christ motif has also been offered re OMATS. That's what makes such works interesting... that they touch multiple layers and themes and keep us reading and re-reading.

Re this thread, I feel the question posed is a faulty one. It does what Wittgenstein criticized much of conventional philosophy for doing: creating dilemmas by asking the wrong thing. The question forces an unpacking of terms: what is "objective?" What is "art?" What is "meaning?" We might as well be discussion the metaphysical proof of God's existence. I would suggest two different questions (specific to literature):

1. Why do writers create? (Beyond the obvious Samuel Johnson quip that they should do it for money...)
2. Why do readers read?

From a writer's point of view, art is really about intention. How well have I achieved the goals I set for my work. Of course, the level of ambition of the writer has to be taken into account. Tolstoy's goals in War and Peace are somewhat more ambitious than Hammett's goals in Maltese Falcon. Each may nevertheless be a jewel of its kind, and we value each based on the second question: why we read. Most artists will fight to the death to maintain that there is an objective heirarchy of quality. Most artists also recognize that it is very difficult to compare beyond a certain point due to the issue of intention. Few would dispute, for example, the genius of Shakespeare or Homer or Joyce. Readers might easily dismiss any of these giants as failing to resonate, too abstruse, or simply boring. Thus the perpetual tension between artist and spectator/reader. Anyway, just another angle to think about....