3 ms·

I'm curious as to what the argument actually is against the idea that it is perfectly reasonable to value Bach and JK Rowling's Harry Potter with the latter hav

I'm curious as to what the argument actually is against the idea that it is perfectly reasonable to value Bach and JK Rowling's Harry Potter with the latter having more "value" than the former. What argument do aestheticians put forth to say that my judgement is incorrect, or worse, than that of the Bach scholar? It seems to me that the challenge for the "objective" theory of aesthetics is pretty much the same as the one for moral realism. Yes, the fact that people disagree about artistic value doesn't mean that artistic value is subjective - but I'm yet to be convinced that it's objective in any meaningful sense. In the end, though, you're right about disagreement over political systems (despite some attempts to do away with political relativism, e.g. Badiou) - but only because different people have different, mutually exclusive, visions of what society is and should be, and the methods to get there. The arguments you're talking about in politics only have any meaning once at least one set goal is agreed upon - e.g. human freedom. But I struggle to think of any such goal that the Bach scholar and the Harry Potter fan are going to agree on. I think there's a reason why even die-hard Adorno "fans" have given up trying to argue why jazz music is so bad. When someone can think up an argument to convince a Harry Potter fan that they should really judge Bach's music as more beautiful, pleasing, of higher artistic value etc. than Harry Potter, then I'm curious.

keiferski 7y ago
Aestheticians don’t frame the question as “objective vs. subjective” so I wouldn’t use that as a goal or a starting point. There are various approaches and none is more “objective”, just as the X political philosophy is not more objective than Y political philosophy. They are constructed of arguments, evidence, worldviews, and other things that have nothing to do with arriving at some standard of “objectively better.” My criticism of the “ignorant relativist” is that he is uninformed on the reasoning of his position and of other positions, not that he thinks art is subjective.
- claudiawerner 7y ago
  How is the question framed, then? Either everyone's aesthetic judgement is equally valid, or there are some judgments that are better than others. I'm interested in the defense of the latter position. By what reasoning can an aesthetician convince me that Bach is better (in some, in any way) than Harry Potter? Or if that's not the right question either: by what reasoning can an aesthetician argue that a particular interpretation or assignment of value is better than another? Yes, I arrived at my position out of ignorance, but I've had this kind of argument online before, and nobody has been able to offer me an argument for the side which says we can arrive at value judgments about art that are independent of the person, or whatever the opposite opinion to "art is subjective" is supposed to be.
  - admax88q 7y ago
    Let's say there's two books in front of us. A and B. I have read both you have only read A. I argue that B is better because the plot was more intricate. You argue that A is better because you think the cover of book B is bad. Do you think these two judgements have equal value?
coldtea 7y ago
>When someone can think up an argument to convince a Harry Potter fan that they should really judge Bach's music as more beautiful, pleasing, of higher artistic value etc. than Harry Potter, then I'm curious. Such matters are not decided by arguments, the same way flat earth society members are not won by arguments (they heard them all anyway). It's up to each person to make the effort to grow their understanding, which requires study and self-development. >I think there's a reason why even die-hard Adorno "fans" have given up trying to argue why jazz music is so bad. Yes, because mediocre commercial art prevailed in the end, and the kind of cultural development of bourgeois society declined. Ironically for a good while jazz took a different route from the earlier kind of jazz Adorno criticised, much closer to those ideals of art. So it's more like Jazz post-50s went closer to Adorno than the other way around...
- claudiawerner 7y ago
  >It's up to each person to make the effort to grow their understanding, which requires study and self-development. That's true, but it's falling into the same problem I was trying to tease out of GP, which is whether an argument can be produced that study and self-development will lead to one appreciating Bach over Harry Potter. We say that spherical earth theories are superior to flat earth ones not because individuals applied study and self-development to their opinions, but because the spherical earth theory is objectively true, it conforms to the generally agreed upon epistemology. The same can't be said about art (as far as I can tell). Is Bach "better" than Harry Potter because an individual who studies and self-develops will judge it to be so, or do those who study and self-develop judge it to be so because it's objectively better? Even then, let's take the individuals out of the equation. To a person unacquainted with both Harry Potter and Bach, on what grounds does an aesthetician say that we should assign higher value to Bach?
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >That's true, but it's falling into the same problem I was trying to tease out of GP, which is whether an argument can be produced that study and self-development will lead to one appreciating Bach over Harry Potter. An historical/statistical argument can surely be made. You seldom see people who have studied aesthetics, music, literature, etc, preferring Harry Potter over Bach. You'll see many more who seldom read or only read genre books or only listened to anything than the charts their whole life enjoy Harry Potter over Bach. >To a person unacquainted with both Harry Potter and Bach, on what grounds does an aesthetician say that we should assign higher value to Bach? On points related to one being immersed in culture to recognise. E.g. having read enough literature to understand the derivative and trite nature of Harry Potter, and having heard enough music and knowing its history to know about the innovation and coherence of Bach. Asking professional musicans/composers etc to describe the merits of Bach's music wouldn't be bad either. There's also an element of "if you have to ask, you will never know". But all this rounds to the same initial question "what is the objective measurement that makes Bach better". But there is no objective measurement or axiomatic argument. The scale in aesthetics is one of development and cross-correlation of techniques, ideas and experiences, and one can only understand these is they have the knowledge and have made the connections. Not just for Bach, but for anything in arts. The same way a 13-year old pop music fan doesn't have the same refinement as a 20-year old music fan, who has studied the genres, their history, interplay, who did what, techniques, cultural impact, etc, and even less than a 30 year old music critic. Harry Potter fans are more of the 13-year old kind. Of course this is sacrilege to say in the modern world.

keiferski 7y ago

Aestheticians don’t frame the question as “objective vs. subjective” so I wouldn’t use that as a goal or a starting point. There are various approaches and none is more “objective”, just as the X political philosophy is not more objective than Y political philosophy. They are constructed of arguments, evidence, worldviews, and other things that have nothing to do with arriving at some standard of “objectively better.” My criticism of the “ignorant relativist” is that he is uninformed on the reasoning of his position and of other positions, not that he thinks art is subjective.

claudiawerner 7y ago
How is the question framed, then? Either everyone's aesthetic judgement is equally valid, or there are some judgments that are better than others. I'm interested in the defense of the latter position. By what reasoning can an aesthetician convince me that Bach is better (in some, in any way) than Harry Potter? Or if that's not the right question either: by what reasoning can an aesthetician argue that a particular interpretation or assignment of value is better than another? Yes, I arrived at my position out of ignorance, but I've had this kind of argument online before, and nobody has been able to offer me an argument for the side which says we can arrive at value judgments about art that are independent of the person, or whatever the opposite opinion to "art is subjective" is supposed to be.
- admax88q 7y ago
  Let's say there's two books in front of us. A and B. I have read both you have only read A. I argue that B is better because the plot was more intricate. You argue that A is better because you think the cover of book B is bad. Do you think these two judgements have equal value?

coldtea 7y ago

>When someone can think up an argument to convince a Harry Potter fan that they should really judge Bach's music as more beautiful, pleasing, of higher artistic value etc. than Harry Potter, then I'm curious. Such matters are not decided by arguments, the same way flat earth society members are not won by arguments (they heard them all anyway). It's up to each person to make the effort to grow their understanding, which requires study and self-development. >I think there's a reason why even die-hard Adorno "fans" have given up trying to argue why jazz music is so bad. Yes, because mediocre commercial art prevailed in the end, and the kind of cultural development of bourgeois society declined. Ironically for a good while jazz took a different route from the earlier kind of jazz Adorno criticised, much closer to those ideals of art. So it's more like Jazz post-50s went closer to Adorno than the other way around...

claudiawerner 7y ago
>It's up to each person to make the effort to grow their understanding, which requires study and self-development. That's true, but it's falling into the same problem I was trying to tease out of GP, which is whether an argument can be produced that study and self-development will lead to one appreciating Bach over Harry Potter. We say that spherical earth theories are superior to flat earth ones not because individuals applied study and self-development to their opinions, but because the spherical earth theory is objectively true, it conforms to the generally agreed upon epistemology. The same can't be said about art (as far as I can tell). Is Bach "better" than Harry Potter because an individual who studies and self-develops will judge it to be so, or do those who study and self-develop judge it to be so because it's objectively better? Even then, let's take the individuals out of the equation. To a person unacquainted with both Harry Potter and Bach, on what grounds does an aesthetician say that we should assign higher value to Bach?
- coldtea 7y ago
  >That's true, but it's falling into the same problem I was trying to tease out of GP, which is whether an argument can be produced that study and self-development will lead to one appreciating Bach over Harry Potter. An historical/statistical argument can surely be made. You seldom see people who have studied aesthetics, music, literature, etc, preferring Harry Potter over Bach. You'll see many more who seldom read or only read genre books or only listened to anything than the charts their whole life enjoy Harry Potter over Bach. >To a person unacquainted with both Harry Potter and Bach, on what grounds does an aesthetician say that we should assign higher value to Bach? On points related to one being immersed in culture to recognise. E.g. having read enough literature to understand the derivative and trite nature of Harry Potter, and having heard enough music and knowing its history to know about the innovation and coherence of Bach. Asking professional musicans/composers etc to describe the merits of Bach's music wouldn't be bad either. There's also an element of "if you have to ask, you will never know". But all this rounds to the same initial question "what is the objective measurement that makes Bach better". But there is no objective measurement or axiomatic argument. The scale in aesthetics is one of development and cross-correlation of techniques, ideas and experiences, and one can only understand these is they have the knowledge and have made the connections. Not just for Bach, but for anything in arts. The same way a 13-year old pop music fan doesn't have the same refinement as a 20-year old music fan, who has studied the genres, their history, interplay, who did what, techniques, cultural impact, etc, and even less than a 30 year old music critic. Harry Potter fans are more of the 13-year old kind. Of course this is sacrilege to say in the modern world.