>But there is no objective measurement or axiomatic argument. This is what I was getting at; the statistical argument isn't convincing at all, because it's ver

>But there is no objective measurement or axiomatic argument. This is what I was getting at; the statistical argument isn't convincing at all, because it's very common for people (including academics) to value fashions and trends. I'm not saying that Bach is valued because of the orthodoxy of music theorists, I am saying that it being a possibility discounts the inherent authority we give to a music theorist's opinion. >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. There's still no "objective" reason to value a piece of art with particular technique, ideas expressed, or experiences relayed (or within the artist) over another. The 13 year old doesn't have the refinement, but it's unclear why refinement has anything to do with assigning artistic value - and even then, we can point to a great many techniques and ideas expressed in Harry Potter. That Bach's technique has more development and history behind it has no clear bearing on how I ought to judge the artwork. The "scale in aesthetics" seems to be just as arbitrary as the claim that we ought to judge artwork by how many wizards are depicted in it. Why should techniques and ideas matter more than the number of wizards, if the wizards bring pleasure but knowledge of the techniques does not? Harry Potter fans are more the 13-year old kind because 13 year olds don't have the idea that the enjoyment of artwork should depend on techniques, ideas and experiences, or rather, the partcular techniques, ideas and experiences one finds in Bach, despite different ones in Harry Potter. The fact that 13 year olds aren't part of that orthodoxy yet is good - they are expressing their freedom to value things apart from what high society tells them to.