Is artistic quality meaningful in any objective sense?

[Peter Graham]

Hi Interference,

I'm afraid I don't agree.

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.

This would be fair enough if New Age practitioners accepted that what they were actually doing was only making people feel better because of the placebo effect, perhaps augmented by the kindly 'there there' attitude which many of them can afford in each case (usually because they do not have the time pressures of a conventional GP and because they are being paid by the hour). But they don't. They are lying to people - and sometimes also to themselves.

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

By the same token, what right has anyone not to have their beliefs questioned?

But it isn't about rights. It's about courtesy. I would never actively seek to challenge people's beliefs about art, crystal fondling or whatever, unless I was part of a debate in which people were being invited to express their views or if I was being directly and adversely affected in some way by the consequences of someone's beliefs.

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.

I wish that were true. However, for the most part, it seems very clear that the real point of New Age therapies is about practitioners making money and/or massaging some deep-seated insecurity or bloated self-regard which requires them to call themselves "healers" or "spiritual advisors" or whatever. I don't doubt that there are exceptions, and that some practitioners genuinely believe in what they do and do it for altruistic reasons, but for the most part, the "patients" are being thoroughly and comprehensively shafted.

This is precisely why I am so suspicious of the sort of relativism which denies or ridicules the validity of objective appraisal or rational thinking. Fried Egg talks about conventions as though they were somehow inherently faulty - a collective and possibly transitory subjectivism, one might say. But if those conventions are reached through a process which as far as possible is based on rational and detached consideration (as evidenced by the number of people who come to the same conclsuion), why should those conventions be regarded as unsafe?

Regards,

Peter

 

[Interference]

Hi, Peter.

First, I've always found your posts to be both illuminating and valuable and nothing I say here or in the previous post is meant to detract, in any way, from that.

You are on perfectly solid ground when criticising the "healers" who have found easy marks for making money. The same goes for "psychics", "mediums" and psychiatrists, in my book . It is deplorable to prey on the weaknesses of the individual, particularly when the practitioner knows they are taking money under false pretences. But I have to wonder: if it helps, then can't it be considered money well conned?

My father is extremely ill right now and finds solace in his faith in the God of his childhood as taught to him since he was old enough to say "amen". My sister has been a dogmatic atheist since she was about 30 and I've re-defined my view of God's role in the Universe over the last three or four years. Neither she nor I would deem it either respectful or helpful to say or do anything that conflicts with my father's faith at this time. Yes, we are lying to him by not sharing our fervently held beliefs and yes, from our perspective, he is lying to himself. But the comfort is what is important now. Not the truth.

I have had contact with faith healers and Reiki healers and Shamans and others and I have learned from them, have been able to reach some conclusions through knowing them and have utmost respect for them. I know them to be honest and to have an abiding faith in the energies they believe themselves to be channeling, because I understand that their faith comes from years of study and exploration as each tried, with utmost diligence and integrity, to learn about the Universe from a subjective perspective with sometimes uncategorical results.

For some, their belief values angels or saints or Buddha or the many and varied faces of some deity or another which mean nothing to me. However, because of one small but important difference, that I have experienced a connection with these energies for myself, I can understand the solidity of their beliefs far better than I can most other religious people's unquestioning attachments.

I suppose my real contention is with the "for the most part" aspect of your indictment. "For the most part" implies that learning the trickery is how most people go into this business, but as I understand it, this simply isn't the way it happens. It begins with the individual finding, accidentally or deliberately, their connection with the Universe. How strong that connection is often determines the direction the paractioner then chooses. But the connection is real for each and every practititoner in the first instance. A very great many people, by far the "for the most part" proportion, don't ask for payment. They consider themselves healers and have only a profound wish to help others, which they do informally and privately. Others request donations, still others make a business from their skills. The proportion of con-artist to true-believer among this last category is most probably what you are estimating, but it is a somewhat flawed calculation.

What you see as "exceptions" are probably the majority. Those you might categorise as "the most part" are probably - almost certainly - the minority.

I would, in short, allow any one or all of them to "treat" my father, even though I would still have my personal doubts about some of the finer details of their treatments. It is enough for me that my father believes and that the practitioner believes. If money were asked, I would pay it. If none were, I would give it gladly if I saw an improvement in my father's health, his demeanour or his sense of wonder. Would I take him from the care of trained professionals? No, I'm not a complete idiot, yet. Medical practice has evolved out of near-shamanistic rites and procedures, anyway, so how could they possibly conflict?

I'm aware of the control tests which prove the invalidity of prayer, for example, achieving any results of statistical merit, but I am equally aware of how people need their beliefs and how these beliefs can impact on the welbeing of the individual. So, if a healer strengthens the patient's faith, thereby bolstering their positivity, thus promoting the patient's ability to overcome weakness and despondency, then send them in, I say, and let's see Dad smile again.

I believe I would say very much the same things if my father weren't ill.

I'm not trying to persuade you to my argument, Peter, as I'm sure you are aware, simply asking you to consider the positive value of honestly-held beliefs and faith paradigms. The generalised "a lie told in good faith is still a lie" doesn't hold under these conditions, in my view.

 

[Fried Egg]

This is precisely why I am so suspicious of the sort of relativism which denies or ridicules the validity of objective appraisal or rational thinking. Fried Egg talks about conventions as though they were somehow inherently faulty - a collective and possibly transitory subjectivism, one might say. But if those conventions are reached through a process which as far as possible is based on rational and detached consideration (as evidenced by the number of people who come to the same conclsuion), why should those conventions be regarded as unsafe?

I'm not sure why you keep repeating the assertion that because such conventions are subjective that they are unuseful or unsafe. I thought I'd made it clear that that is not what I'm saying.

Nor am I saying that all facts are relative (and I certainly aren't ridiculing those that are) but you must at least accept (or do you?) that there are at least some facts are are inherently subjective in nature?

Setting aside for now the question of whether artistic merit is one of those kind of facts, let us consider the class of subjective facts and the extent of their usefulness. It seems that some have made the distinction between artistic and entertainment value. That the former is objective and the latter is subjective. I don't believe there is any basis for such a distinction but again, setting that aside, let us consider entertainment value.

If we can agree that what each person finds entertaining can vary and that it is therefore subjective, does that mean that conventions that have evolved over what's entertaining over the years have no use? That it is impossible for one person to not find somethign entertaining yet to be aware that others might well like it? I don't think this is the case. What each person finds entertaining is not entirely random and completely unpredictable from the point of view of another. One can appraise entertainment value and see what characteristics people tend to find entertaining even if they don't share that appreciation. By being well aquainted by the conventions and by having extensive experience of articles of entertainment, one can well make good and judgements about what others are likely to enjoy. Such knowledge is useful despite the fact that entertainment value is subjective.

Thus appraisal of artistic merit can be subjective without invalidating people's knowledge of the relevent conventions. Such knowledge is still useful. Extensive knowledge of subjective facts can be useful and evidence of the usefulness of such knowledge in predicting the reactions of others does not imply that such facts are objective.

 

[Peter Graham]

Nor am I saying that all facts are relative (and I certainly aren't ridiculing those that are) but you must at least accept (or do you?) that there are at least some facts are are inherently subjective in nature?

I might be splitting hairs, but facts are not subjective. Facts are by their very definition true, at least to whatever standard of proof is deemed appropriate (I have in mind here distinctions such as those between scientific and judicial proof).

It seems that some have made the distinction between artistic and entertainment value. That the former is objective and the latter is subjective.

No - that's too simplistic. The two things are different, but both can be measured objectively. But none of this is to say that the objective measure is the only valid one - it isn't and I've never tried to argue that it is. The question posited by Spectrum in the first place was "is artistic quality meaningful in any objective sense?" To answer that in the affirmative does not deny the possibility that it cannot be meaningful in other senses too.

If we can agree that what each person finds entertaining can vary and that it is therefore subjective, does that mean that conventions that have evolved over what's entertaining over the years have no use?

No. Of course not. But that is perhaps because we can measure entetainment objectively too - if we want to do so or feel that it would be useful to do so.

What each person finds entertaining is not entirely random and completely unpredictable from the point of view of another. One can appraise entertainment value and see what characteristics people tend to find entertaining even if they don't share that appreciation. By being well aquainted by the conventions and by having extensive experience of articles of entertainment, one can well make good and judgements about what others are likely to enjoy.

I agree with all of this.

Thus appraisal of artistic merit can be subjective without invalidating people's knowledge of the relevent conventions.

It can be. But equally, one can regard the conventions (whatever those might be - I'm not entirely sure and perhaps we need to define that term too!) as being a useful and objective yardstick.

Regards,

Peter

 

[Fried Egg]

Peter Graham

I might be splitting hairs, but facts are not subjective. Facts are by their very definition true, at least to whatever standard of proof is deemed appropriate (I have in mind here distinctions such as those between scientific and judicial proof).

If I state "This book is enjoyable", am I stating an objective or subjective fact? If it is objective, it must be true for everybody, if it is subjective, it can be true for some and not for others. I would say it is a subjective fact because it is a statement concerning my appraisal of the book and not the book itself.

 

[Interference]

Then "it is my opinion that this book is enjoyable" is how it ought to be worded in order to be factual, since the fact (which is correct for everyone and is thus objective) is that it's your opinion while the opinion itself is subjective and relates only to you. A statement referring to an appraisal is also a fact pertaining to a subjective opinion, that being the appraisal which may be yours alone.

I can't think of a single instance of a subjective (pertaining to one) fact (pertaining to all).

 

[HareBrain]

If I state "This book is enjoyable", am I stating an objective or subjective fact? If it is objective, it must be true for everybody, if it is subjective, it can be true for some and not for others. I would say it is a subjective fact because it is a statement concerning my appraisal of the book and not the book itself.

"This book is enjoyable" is an objective fact, and is true for everybody, even if they don't personally enjoy it. It is enjoyable as long as it is capable of being enjoyed, it doesn't matter by whom.

"This book is superb" is subjective.

 

[Interference]

Good point, HB, I missed that and it's absolutely true. Hence, "enjoyable" means nothing in particular in a review, even when partnered with its best friend "romp".

Of course, "this book is utterly unenjoyable" is, by the same token, equally true.

 

[Peter Graham]

Hi Interference

You are on perfectly solid ground when criticising the "healers" who have found easy marks for making money. The same goes for "psychics", "mediums" and psychiatrists, in my book . It is deplorable to prey on the weaknesses of the individual, particularly when the practitioner knows they are taking money under false pretences. But I have to wonder: if it helps, then can't it be considered money well conned?

I suppose it can be. It would be rude to the point of cruel for anyone to swan up to a dying man and take apart his faith brick by brick, just as an exercise in intellectual onanism. To my mind, such a course of action would be totally unacceptable and quite reprehensible.

But this does not mean that we should never challenge beliefs or seek to better our understanding of the world - it just means that in some circumsatnces such actions are inappropriate. We should all be open minded enough to be prepared to change our views if the evidence demands it.

My father is extremely ill right now and finds solace in his faith in the God of his childhood as taught to him since he was old enough to say "amen". My sister has been a dogmatic atheist since she was about 30 and I've re-defined my view of God's role in the Universe over the last three or four years. Neither she nor I would deem it either respectful or helpful to say or do anything that conflicts with my father's faith at this time. Yes, we are lying to him by not sharing our fervently held beliefs and yes, from our perspective, he is lying to himself. But the comfort is what is important now. Not the truth.

But you and your sister are not holding yourselves out to be something you are not. Holding counsel is not the same as lying.

I

know them to be honest and to have an abiding faith in the energies they believe themselves to be channeling, because I understand that their faith comes from years of study and exploration as each tried, with utmost diligence and integrity, to learn about the Universe from a subjective perspective with sometimes uncategorical results.

You have had happier experiences than me. Perhaps my experiences have tarnished my views, but I have only very rarely met such people and not left the encounter with a rather nasty taste in my mouth.

I suppose my real contention is with the "for the most part" aspect of your indictment. "For the most part" implies that learning the trickery is how most people go into this business, but as I understand it, this simply isn't the way it happens. It begins with the individual finding, accidentally or deliberately, their connection with the Universe.

Thsi is where we part company, I suspect. I do think that most people who get into this (not all, I hasten to add) are deliberately lying to people, or at least are unconcerned as to whether or not what they are saying has any substance behind it. But perhaps I'm too cynical.

A very great many people, by far the "for the most part" proportion, don't ask for payment. They consider themselves healers and have only a profound wish to help others, which they do informally and privately.

I don't doubt what you say, but this amazes me. In my experience (and I really have met a lot of these people), it has always been about money or self aggrandisement, although of course no-one ever admits that. I seem to recall you live in Eire - if I remember correctly, do you suppose that the stronger religious traditions of Ireland perhaps mean that New Age practitioners have a less cynical and grubbing attitude than their English counterparts?

Medical practice has evolved out of near-shamanistic rites and procedures, anyway, so how could they possibly conflict?

Absolutely - as any casual visit to the trepanning or blood sacrifice wards of your local druidic hospital grove will tell you!

But this is all about placebo - which, as I'm sure you know, has serious clinical limitations. Could not the same effect be more honestly achieved by trained medical practitioners with more time to spend with each patient?

The generalised "a lie told in good faith is still a lie" doesn't hold under these conditions, in my view.

I think that it does hold, but perhaps it doesn't matter. I agree that no-one should deny comfort to the dying.

Regards and my very best wishes to your Dad,

Peter

 

[Ursa major]

I don't look at this thread for a few days and suddenly homeopathy appears. (Well, at least we're not in the Science forum.)


In case homeopathy reappears in here while I'm reading elsewhere, I'd like to state categorically that homeopathy cannot produce art, which should always be undiluted....

 

[Interference]

M'dear friend,

I don't doubt what you say, but this amazes me. In my experience (and I really have met a lot of these people), it has always been about money or self aggrandisement, although of course no-one ever admits that. I seem to recall you live in Eire - if I remember correctly, do you suppose that the stronger religious traditions of Ireland perhaps mean that New Age practitioners have a less cynical and grubbing attitude than their English counterparts?

I can't know the answer to this, but I truly hope not. I haven't found English people any less loving or caring than any other race or ethnic group I've ever met - well, possibly ... no, even some of them, now I think of it.

Clearly you and I have met completely opposite sample cases. I really don't want to derail this thread, so I'll just say that by far the greater number of those I have met have been sincere because, I think, my inquisitiveness about it has come from a sincere interest in knowing the truth, whatever that truth might be. I don't say your approach has been anything other than this, all I can say with any certainty is that I have been brought into contact with people I trust and whose experiences, if not necessarily their interpretations thereof, I believe.

But this is all about placebo - which, as I'm sure you know, has serious clinical limitations. Could not the same effect be more honestly achieved by trained medical practitioners with more time to spend with each patient?

Yes, of course it could. But medical professionals have extremely limited time for such stuff, and quite understandably, so it must be left to family, friends, priests, healers and others whose interests are selfless to fill in the gap.

Regards and my very best wishes to your Dad,

Peter

Thank you. Your wishes will make a positive difference, however slight, and that means the world to me.

 

[HareBrain]

Of course, "this book is utterly unenjoyable" is, by the same token, equally true.

I hesitate to venture deeper into pedants' corner for fear of what might lurk there, but, no. If you accept that "enjoyable" means "capable of being enjoyed by at least one person" then "this is unenjoyable" could only be objectively true if the work in question were not capable of being enjoyed by at least one person. Since this includes those yet to be born, whose tastes might vary radically from those of anyone currently alive, I don't think you could ever claim that.

Edit: You could, however, say "this is detestable". But I don't think "unenjoyable" works the same way because you cannot say that you have "unenjoyed" something.

 

[Interference]

You have subjectively interpreted my statement to fit your thesis, but it won't work, I tells ya

It is possible that there is one person who will find this book completely unenjoyable is, surely, unarguable, though it may take a lifetime (or several) to find that person. To my personal horror, I've even found that Shakespeare is unenjoyable - but I won't embarrass the person I'm thinking of by naming them. Therefore this piece of writing, this product, this book is unenjoyable (capable of being not enjoyed by at least one person).

 

[HareBrain]

unenjoyable (capable of being not enjoyed by at least one person).

Hmm, you define "unenjoyable" as meaning "capable of not being enjoyed", whereas I defined it as "not capable of being enjoyed". Therein lies the disagreement. But which definition is right?

 

[Interference]

In my context, mine. In yours, yours. I think the Shakespeare thing is what swings the argument for me.

 

[Fried Egg]

Let me put this another way.

Imagine that an alien being came down to earth and examined a book (or any other supposed work of art). Is there measurement it could take that could inform it of it's artistic merit or entertainment value? Even if it could ascertain that it was created by another intelligent being, it would have no way of determining it's value other than according to it's own frame of reference.

This contrasts starkly with objective facts such as the temperature of the surface or the compisition of the atmosphere. It could measure these quite happily because these are qualities that exist in the objective, external world and not only in the minds of a being or collection of beings.

 

[Peter Graham]

Imagine that an alien being came down to earth and examined a book (or any other supposed work of art). Is there measurement it could take that could inform it of it's artistic merit or entertainment value?

Yes. Of course. But depending on the alien, it might need assistance with being told what that measurement is and how to take it. Just like I would need similar assistance in order to be able to demonstrate or establish the volume of the oceans. I don't have the maths in my head, but I know that others do.

It could measure these quite happily because these are qualities that exist in the objective, external world and not only in the minds of a being or collection of beings.

This suggest that humans are incapable of objective thinking. Why do you think this? OK - everyone has certain preconceptions, but all sorts of people on our society - scientists, doctors and lawyers being three obvious examples - are trained how to think objectively. I can accept that it may not be possible ever to rule out some element of subjectivity in any one person, but if enough people are adopting the same approach, then the result of that - what you might call a convention - can be a useful and objective tool.

Regards,

Peter

 

[Fried Egg]

Peter Graham

Imagine that an alien being came down to earth and examined a book (or any other supposed work of art). Is there measurement it could take that could inform it of it's artistic merit or entertainment value?

Yes. Of course. But depending on the alien, it might need assistance with being told what that measurement is and how to take it. Just like I would need similar assistance in order to be able to demonstrate or establish the volume of the oceans. I don't have the maths in my head, but I know that others do.

Come on! Such maths could be developed by any sentient being in any environment. An alien being would not need to become aquainted with human beings and the way they perceive things in order to answer the question. Not true with assessing the entertainment value of an object. An alien could obviously assess the objects entertainment value by it's own standards and conventions which very well might lead it to different conclusions than our own. They might conclude that the Mona Lisa doesn't qualify as having any artistic merit. They would not be wrong, only expressing a fact that is subjectively true for them.

It might be possible to make an alien aware of and understand our own standards and conventions for assessing artistic merit and in this way become aware of a fact that is subjectively true for us. But this is not making them aware of an objective fact.

This is implicit in the meaning of value because it implies a subject that makes an evaluation. Outside of subjective evaluation the concept of value has no meaning.

It could measure these quite happily because these are qualities that exist in the objective, external world and not only in the minds of a being or collection of beings.

This suggest that humans are incapable of objective thinking.

No, it suggests that some facts are depenendent on the point of view of a subject, that they have no objective meaning.

 

[Peter Graham]

Why don't we test this out?

Your avatar appears to be the Sutton Hoo helmet. Why did you pick that?

Regards,

Peter

 

[ghostofcorwin]

Let me put this another way.

Imagine that an alien being came down to earth and examined a book (or any other supposed work of art). Is there measurement it could take that could inform it of it's artistic merit or entertainment value? Even if it could ascertain that it was created by another intelligent being, it would have no way of determining it's value other than according to it's own frame of reference.

This contrasts starkly with objective facts such as the temperature of the surface or the compisition of the atmosphere. It could measure these quite happily because these are qualities that exist in the objective, external world and not only in the minds of a being or collection of beings.

I would hope the alien would be clever enough to ask some intelligent questions (let's take Guernica by Picasso as an example):

1. This fellow Picasso expended a great deal of energy making this object; I wonder what prompted him to do that?
2. We've looked at a variety of other painters on earth and can see certain peculiarites about this Picasso-person's work. What was that about?
3. Can we discern any particular level of "skill" or "technical craft" in the use of the medium in question?
4. This Picasso fellow seems to want to "say" or "express" something about a particular war, about war in general, about the human condition. Does this particular way of "expressing" have a certain power or depth because it was done in this way?
5. Would one have to be human to actually "feel" the effect of this work? (Perhaps the aliens are not wired the same as us emotionally). Or for that matter, would one's experience regarding war affect one's ability to even understand or relate to the work? (Children or young bucks who play video games all day and never got near a war, much less the Spanish Civil War, would probably just shrug at the whole thing.)
6. Why do these humans bother to express complex thoughts and emotions via these peculiar methods? Why don't they just "state matter-of-factly" what they want us to know?

Once you get to Question 6, you have started to get at why there is such a thing as art at all. Is it measurable as a whole? Highly doubtful. Can we measure the skill or technique involved? Probably. Can we, over a long period of time, assess the relative value of a work by how much human thought and energy it triggers in weighing its depths? (Hamlet comes to mind.) Maybe. Should we evaluate a work by how a given spectator responds to it? Absolutely treacherous, since that spectator's experience, capacity for appreciation, emotional style, etc, all affect his/her engagement of the work. The biggest problem with art, given that it is an attempt to express complex emotions/perceptions/thoughts in a specific medium is that we often have to glean the intention of the creator from the finished product. Artists are notorious for NOT telling us what they wanted to do -- the "I like to keep the mystery" approach. Thus, we are in a guessing game, particularly with creators who plumb significant depths in their work. The creators who do the obvious, superficial stuff are pretty easy. They're creating empty calories for transitory enjoyment and we can judge their efforts by a simple yardstick. It's the ambitious ones we have to watch out for. If we bother to engage them seriously, we have to live in their world for a time and be willing to learn. Many of us are not willing.

Still say the question is faulty. I think what the OP was intending was:

Is artistic quality "measurable" in any objective sense? Technically, yes. As an expression of human experience, completely relative and very much subject to the whim/gifts/experience/limitations of the spectator.

Sorry to run on so long, but a quick example. When I was fifteen, I saw the movie Casablanca for the first time. I thought it was okay, but I didn't get why anybody would suggest this was a great movie, even the greatest Hollywood movie of all time. Many years later, having suffered love and loss, of having to confront choices between duty and passion, Casablanca suddenly became a very meaningful and appreciated movie. My experiences had caught up with it. Thus the problem of the spectator...