Philosophy Discussion Forums

[quote="Robert66" As for Hog Rider's comment on Duchamp being a 'non-artist': do you have any justification for this absurd statement?[/quote]

Yes of course. He might think he can lower the status of art to moving one thing to another place, but that is not what I call art.

There is more artistry in my dog taking a poo. At least she has to expend some thought and effort.

If I take a rock off the beach and put it on a shelf in a gallery, that is not art. That is film-flam.

What is definable as art becomes subjective the moment a single person somewhere in the world mistakes a "piece of art" for another mundane object. It does not matter who that person is, only that he is an observer.

I observe a piss-pot and not a work of art. QED art is subjective.

-- Updated June 16th, 2014, 5:04 am to add the following --

Londoner wrote:

Hog Rider wrote:
I agree with everything until you use the word "values". I can agree that there are certain facts about the art, and we might even ask the intentions of the artist, and the reactions of the viewer. But I disagree entirely that there can be such a thing as a "universal value" in the sense of an objective one. There are values that are widely held or widely recognised, but it is really arrogant to insist that they are universal. On close examination such things are mirages that do not cross time and culture very easily, and "universal" does tend to cover everything.

If you take that line then nothing is 'objective', since we have no external authority which will tell us that any of our ideas are valid.

I did not say we had universal values; I said aesthetics was an attempt to uncover universal values. The same would be true if we were having a discussion about ethics or anything else. A serious work of art is a contribution to that discussion; it won't be 'the answer' but it can open our minds to new ways of thinking.

"Nothing is Objective?" Objectivity is about a relationship not about the thing itself. Maybe nothing is truly objective, but it is the appreciation of art we are talking about not physics. But it's what I have been saying all along. The object/subject distinction is not really relevant to art in any useful sense.


Yes, you said that you think aesthetics was an attempt to uncover universal values. And I an saying there are no universal values, so taking that attempt as an objective is not possible. If a 'serious' work of art is really attempting to uncover universals then it is not taking us in new directions but time-worn old ones. But I really do not think that is what most artists are doing. Many are just making a plea for attention; trying to prove themselves clever; trying to get famous by any means possible; trying to shock; elicit an emotional response (this is probably the minimum requirement); whilst others are just trying to capture nature in a static object. The time when art was trying to demonstrate universal values when out with Classical art I think.

And as we see, thought we can still appreciate them, they no longer express values we share - hence not universal.

-- Updated June 16th, 2014, 5:07 am to add the following --

Londoner wrote:

There can be no possibility of an objective artwork, as in an artwork whose reality is external to the artist or viewer.

Surely, once an artwork is created it is an external object, just like any other object.

Having been created, how much our interpretation or appreciation of the work is individual and how much it will be common to all viewers is hard to say, just as it is hard to know how much we are responding to the object itself as opposed to some general cultural message we read into it. Such questions are what aesthetics addresses.

But the necessity that art is perceived by a subject applies to everything; it isn't an argument that art is subjective. It would be an argument that everything is subjective.

My response to that is to agree that we can have no knowledge of 'reality' in a metaphysical sense, but 'objective' does not usually make that claim . 'Objective' distinguishes reactions which are purely personal (dreams etc.) to those that are shared and consistant ('reality').

I think that a successful work of art is one that does convey something objective; because many people have looked at it and gone away with the feeling that they have discovered something that is 'true'. Sometimes this may be immediate, sometimes we need to be helped to look beyond our own cultural preconceptions.

Consider the alternative; if art was really 'subjective' i.e. it expressed something that only concerned the internal life of an individual artist, why would anyone else be interested in it?

The only objective value that an art work can have is the amount of energy in joules liberated by burning it. That is not up for question. As for values; conceptual values, monetary values, they are variable, and capricious.

Hog Rider

Yes, you said that you think aesthetics was an attempt to uncover universal values. And I an saying there are no universal values, so taking that attempt as an objective is not possible.

And yet here you are trying to convince me and other readers that your view is better than mine. How can you possibly do that if we have nothing in common?

I think we argue by first finding out what we all agree - once we have done so, then we move on by saying; 'But if you think 'A', then surely 'B' must follow?'

Because we might all ultimately end up with our individual views, it doesn't follow we have nothing in common at all. If that was true then we would all be wandering around in a fog of mutual incomprehension, unable to communicate anything.

The only objective value that an art work can have is the amount of energy in joules liberated by burning it. That is not up for question. As for values; conceptual values, monetary values, they are variable, and capricious.

It is a characteristic of humans that we can imagine things as being other than what they are literally. We can look at a painting and see more than pigment on canvas.

That is no different to the way we encounter the world generally. Objects don't have a fixed meaning, rather they have layers of meaning that shift, having different priorities in different circumstances. The meaning of the objects 'London' or 'wife' as variable and capricious are as the meaning of a work of art.

So the value is not contained in the work, in the way its calorific value is contained. If you like, the work is not about itself - it is about the nature of human consciousness - and our human consciousness is as much an objective fact as any other.

And just as we might employ a calorimeter to explore the heating value of a painting, we use a painting to explore the values of humans.

Robert66 wrote:Sorry, 3uGh7D4MLj,

you are right. I should say what I mean, not just try to make silly jokes.

As you have rightly pointed out, there are kinds of artworks, movements even, which claim to be objective, or seek to objectify art, or can even be referred to as Objective. They are all nevertheless subjective. 100%

Yah, I wasn't challenging, just trying to see what you were getting at.

-- Updated June 16th, 2014, 7:10 am to add the following --

Londoner wrote:Because we might all ultimately end up with our individual views, it doesn't follow we have nothing in common at all. If that was true then we would all be wandering around in a fog of mutual incomprehension, unable to communicate anything.

You are polarizing the conversation by going all the way to "we have nothing in common." You can abandon absolute (objective) Truth, Beauty, and Goodness and still have lots in common.

3uGH7D4MLj wrote: You are polarizing the conversation by going all the way to "we have nothing in common." You can abandon absolute (objective) Truth, Beauty, and Goodness and still have lots in common.

Isn't it equally polarizing to claim that if we can't have values in common unless they are 100% identical?

Nor do I accept this notion of absolute/objective. We can never claim absolute/objective information about anything. As I suggested earlier, if this is your understanding of the word 'objective' then nothing is objective, not just art. If we insisted on that meaning, we would just have to invent a new word to distinguish those areas of experience which seem to be common to most or all fellow humans.

Suppose we all attend a performance of 'Hamlet'. Afterwards, we might ask each other about our experience. For one of us it might have a special resonance - perhaps their father had recently died. But it is likely that everyone would share certain common reactions. In discussing and reflecting on the play, we can further examine those reactions; we may realise that the things that shaped our response were not what we originally assumed, thus we learn something about ourselves. Watching 'Hamlet' is an experiment which reveals information every bit as real as an experiment done in a laboratory.

I would suggest that to name (and capitalise) 'Truth, Beauty, and Goodness' is to suggest that these ideas are meant to be treated as objects, such that the object known as 'that sculpture' is identical with another metaphysical object known as 'Beauty'. But that plainly isn't the reality of how art is either created or experienced! So to point out that the two can never be shown to be identical isn't saying anything about art.

Londoner wrote:

3uGH7D4MLj wrote: You are polarizing the conversation by going all the way to "we have nothing in common." You can abandon absolute (objective) Truth, Beauty, and Goodness and still have lots in common.

Isn't it equally polarizing to claim that if we can't have values in common unless they are 100% identical?

I don't think anyone is arguing that.

I'm no expert, I just looked up "objective" -- I get: "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts." To me that means something objective is something that's "out there" corresponding to reality. Not "in here."

Reactions to seeing Hamlet would fall into the "subjective" category. There would be probably shared responses, but that doesn't make them objective as I understand the word.

Londoner wrote:I would suggest that to name (and capitalise) 'Truth, Beauty, and Goodness' is to suggest that these ideas are meant to be treated as objects, such that the object known as 'that sculpture' is identical with another metaphysical object known as 'Beauty'. But that plainly isn't the reality of how art is either created or experienced! So to point out that the two can never be shown to be identical isn't saying anything about art.

Truth, Beauty, Goodness, Justice. These ideals were once thought to exist, and every expression of humankind could be compared to them. Now we know that these ideals are cultural constructs, and so are not objective or absolute, immutable. Cultural constructs are shared though, and give us a lot to talk about, objective or not. This is just how I see it.

3uGH7D4MLj wrote:
I'm no expert, I just looked up "objective" -- I get: "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts." To me that means something objective is something that's "out there" corresponding to reality. Not "in here."

Reactions to seeing Hamlet would fall into the "subjective" category. There would be probably shared responses, but that doesn't make them objective as I understand the word.

Isn't a performance of 'Hamlet' a fact? Something 'out there'? Something 'real'?

Our reaction to anything is necessarily personal. How can we experience anything except personally?

I would suggest that the point in the dictionary idea of 'objective' is that we try to distinguish what is a purely personal experience (a particular dream, for example) from what is reported as a common experience (that 'fire is hot'), also from experiences that seem to be out of our control, being in some way forced upon us (we cannot decide not to feel the heat of fire).

It seems to me that our reaction to 'Hamlet' can be to some extent shared with other members of the audience. Although our response is individual, we did not create it - it was created by an external event i.e. the play. So I do not see that our reaction is different in kind to those caused by our encounters with any other object - the only difference with 'Hamlet' (and other works of art) is that they have been deliberately designed by fellow humans.

Truth, Beauty, Goodness, Justice. These ideals were once thought to exist, and every expression of humankind could be compared to them. Now we know that these ideals are cultural constructs, and so are not objective or absolute. Cultural constructs are shared though, and give us a lot to talk about, objective or not. This is just how I see it.

I do not think I agree that they were ever thought to exist, except in the way we see them now - as abstractions of qualities that no actual object represents. No different from 'mass' or 'absorbency' or 'sadness'.

On the contrary, I would argue that classically art was seen in a practical way. If you went to see 'Hamlet' or its equivalent it was because it was good for you psychologically - the dramatic and tragic events you witnessed would provoke an emotional response that would get such tensions 'out of your system'. (Catharsis etc.)

Surely, the area in which abstract ideas like Truth etc. were argued to 'exist' was not in art but in religion i.e. as attributes of a supreme being. But even religious art attempts only to inspire spiritual feelings in us - it does not presume to share in the perfection of God.

Londoner wrote:Hog Rider

Yes, you said that you think aesthetics was an attempt to uncover universal values. And I an saying there are no universal values, so taking that attempt as an objective is not possible.

And yet here you are trying to convince me and other readers that your view is better than mine. How can you possibly do that if we have nothing in common?
This is a perfect example of a straw man argument. Two people can still agree in the complete absence of universal values. Think about it. Does it mean that if you disagree with me, then there are in fact no universal values, or is it true that if we agree then there are universal values.

Obviously neither.



I think we argue by first finding out what we all agree - once we have done so, then we move on by saying; 'But if you think 'A', then surely 'B' must follow?'

Because we might all ultimately end up with our individual views, it doesn't follow we have nothing in common at all. If that was true then we would all be wandering around in a fog of mutual incomprehension, unable to communicate anything.
Having something in common does not contribute to objective and universal values.

The only objective value that an art work can have is the amount of energy in joules liberated by burning it. That is not up for question. As for values; conceptual values, monetary values, they are variable, and capricious.

It is a characteristic of humans that we can imagine things as being other than what they are literally. We can look at a painting and see more than pigment on canvas.

That is no different to the way we encounter the world generally. Objects don't have a fixed meaning, rather they have layers of meaning that shift, having different priorities in different circumstances. The meaning of the objects 'London' or 'wife' as variable and capricious are as the meaning of a work of art.

So the value is not contained in the work, in the way its calorific value is contained. If you like, the work is not about itself - it is about the nature of human consciousness - and our human consciousness is as much an objective fact as any other.

And just as we might employ a calorimeter to explore the heating value of a painting, we use a painting to explore the values of humans.

A calorimeter is a perfect device for measuring universally agreed facts about art. Please pass the lighter!

All the values that are important to art, are the result of personal judgements, even the price.

Hog Rider

This is a perfect example of a straw man argument. Two people can still agree in the complete absence of universal values. Think about it. Does it mean that if you disagree with me, then there are in fact no universal values, or is it true that if we agree then there are universal values.

Obviously neither.

The way it works is that we can agree up to a point. For example, we might both share an opinion about what constitutes sufficient evident to show something is true in the realm of science.

For example, I would suggest that there is pretty much universal agreement that if you repeat an experiment and keep getting the same result we can safely conclude that we will always get the same result. But if there were no such agreement, if we did not accept that such inductive reasoning was valid, then we could not get anywhere.

Of course we can still disagree of the theory that best explains the result of the experience, but that doesn't mean we disagree over the validity of the scientific method.

Having something in common does not contribute to objective and universal values.

Surely it does! If we both agree to something - we have a value in common. If everyone agrees then it would be a universal value. I think that humans have lots of things in common; emotions and a sense of empathy for example.

I have written already asking about what you consider to be 'objective'. Surely we determine what is 'objective' by finding whether other people seem to share the same experiences as us. If everyone at the concert finds the music 'exciting' then why can't we say that 'the music is exciting'?

You seem to be implying that such judgements can only be properly made by some non-human judge. But there is only us humans! If we find it is exciting - then it is exciting!

All the values that are important to art, are the result of personal judgements, even the price.

Every reaction, to every object, is 'personal'. I am a person; I can't step outside myself in order to experience things impersonally! Not art, not anything.

As I have written before, if this fact means that all experience is 'personal' or 'subjective' then since there isn't anything that isn't 'personal/subjective' then those words have no meaning.

But anyway, I don't understand what you mean by 'the values that are important to art'. What are 'the values that are important to 'Hamlet'? Or 'the values that are important to 'Wheatfield with Crows'? They are an experience. You look at these things - you either have a response or you don't. Most people do.

Londoner wrote:Hog Rider

This is a perfect example of a straw man argument. Two people can still agree in the complete absence of universal values. Think about it. Does it mean that if you disagree with me, then there are in fact no universal values, or is it true that if we agree then there are universal values.

Obviously neither.

The way it works is that we can agree up to a point. For example, we might both share an opinion about what constitutes sufficient evident to show something is true in the realm of science.

For example, I would suggest that there is pretty much universal agreement that if you repeat an experiment and keep getting the same result we can safely conclude that we will always get the same result. But if there were no such agreement, if we did not accept that such inductive reasoning was valid, then we could not get anywhere.

Of course we can still disagree of the theory that best explains the result of the experience, but that doesn't mean we disagree over the validity of the scientific method.

Having something in common does not contribute to objective and universal values.

Surely it does! If we both agree to something - we have a value in common. If everyone agrees then it would be a universal value. I think that humans have lots of things in common; emotions and a sense of empathy for example.

I have written already asking about what you consider to be 'objective'. Surely we determine what is 'objective' by finding whether other people seem to share the same experiences as us. If everyone at the concert finds the music 'exciting' then why can't we say that 'the music is exciting'?

You seem to be implying that such judgements can only be properly made by some non-human judge. But there is only us humans! If we find it is exciting - then it is exciting!

All the values that are important to art, are the result of personal judgements, even the price.

Every reaction, to every object, is 'personal'. I am a person; I can't step outside myself in order to experience things impersonally! Not art, not anything. .

Great, so what do you think "objective" means and why do you think it has anything to do with art?

Londoner wrote: I do not think I agree that they were ever thought to exist, except in the way we see them now - as abstractions of qualities that no actual object represents. No different from 'mass' or 'absorbency' or 'sadness'.

Like I said, I'm no expert so I looked this up: "Plato argued powerfully in favor of the objectivity of values such as truth, good, and beauty. Objective values are those that lie outside of the individual and are not dependent upon her/his perception or belief." (great philosophers, oregon state univ)

Londoner wrote:It seems to me that our reaction to 'Hamlet' can be to some extent shared with other members of the audience. Although our response is individual, we did not create it - it was created by an external event i.e. the play. So I do not see that our reaction is different in kind to those caused by our encounters with any other object - the only difference with 'Hamlet' (and other works of art) is that they have been deliberately designed by fellow humans.

You are arguing that reactions to Hamlet are objective because they were caused by an actual play?

It has been said several times in this forum that subjective/objective doesn't apply very well to artwork. Yes there was a play performed -- objective fact, corresponds to reality. No there wasn't a Danish prince named Hamlet, not that it would make a difference. And one of the performer's wigs was not fastened very well.

Londoner wrote:Surely, the area in which abstract ideas like Truth etc. were argued to 'exist' was not in art but in religion i.e. as attributes of a supreme being. But even religious art attempts only to inspire spiritual feelings in us - it does not presume to share in the perfection of God.

I agree that believing in objective values is very much like belief in God. But the question of objective values appears at the very beginnings of Philosophy. (surely?)

Londoner wrote:
But the necessity that art is perceived by a subject applies to everything; it isn't an argument that art is subjective. It would be an argument that everything is subjective. [So everything is subjective, but art is not?]

...

I think that a successful work of art is one that does convey something objective [Oh, that's what you think. Haven't you just subjected art to your opinion?]

...

Consider the alternative; if art was really 'subjective' i.e. it expressed something that only concerned the internal life of an individual artist, why would anyone else be interested in it? [Why would anyone be interested in anyone else?]

How does an artist create an objective art work?

-- Updated June 16th, 2014, 5:11 pm to add the following --

Hog Rider wrote:
In my opinion Marcel Duchamps efforts are 0% ART. That makes him a non-artist. And that makes the appreciation of art 100% subjective.

You got the last bit right.

But tell me: if I don't like eating cabbage, does that mean it is not food?

Robert66 wrote:

Londoner wrote:
But the necessity that art is perceived by a subject applies to everything; it isn't an argument that art is subjective. It would be an argument that everything is subjective. [So everything is subjective, but art is not?]

...

I think that a successful work of art is one that does convey something objective [Oh, that's what you think. Haven't you just subjected art to your opinion?]

...

Consider the alternative; if art was really 'subjective' i.e. it expressed something that only concerned the internal life of an individual artist, why would anyone else be interested in it? [Why would anyone be interested in anyone else?]

How does an artist create an objective art work?

-- Updated June 16th, 2014, 5:11 pm to add the following --

Hog Rider wrote:
In my opinion Marcel Duchamps efforts are 0% ART. That makes him a non-artist. And that makes the appreciation of art 100% subjective.

You got the last bit right.

But tell me: if I don't like eating cabbage, does that mean it is not food?

Tell me this. If you put wood and grass on a dinner plate, is that 'food'?

You might think the trans-location of a piss pot is artistic, I do not. It is (pun intended) taking the piss.

Robert66 asked:

"But tell me: if I don't like eating cabbage, does that mean it is not food?" The real question is what is food? Is it something we eat and digest that keeps us alive?

To get back on track, does anyone think there are suitable definitions for subjective and objective that would meet anybody's criteria in connection with art?

PhilX

3uGH7D4MLj wrote:

Londoner wrote: I do not think I agree that they were ever thought to exist, except in the way we see them now - as abstractions of qualities that no actual object represents. No different from 'mass' or 'absorbency' or 'sadness'.

Like I said, I'm no expert so I looked this up: "Plato argued powerfully in favor of the objectivity of values such as truth, good, and beauty. Objective values are those that lie outside of the individual and are not dependent upon her/his perception or belief." (great philosophers, oregon state univ)

Londoner wrote:It seems to me that our reaction to 'Hamlet' can be to some extent shared with other members of the audience. Although our response is individual, we did not create it - it was created by an external event i.e. the play. So I do not see that our reaction is different in kind to those caused by our encounters with any other object - the only difference with 'Hamlet' (and other works of art) is that they have been deliberately designed by fellow humans.

You are arguing that reactions to Hamlet are objective because they were caused by an actual play?

It has been said several times in this forum that subjective/objective doesn't apply very well to artwork. Yes there was a play performed -- objective fact, corresponds to reality. No there wasn't a Danish prince named Hamlet, not that it would make a difference. And one of the performer's wigs was not fastened very well.

Londoner wrote:Surely, the area in which abstract ideas like Truth etc. were argued to 'exist' was not in art but in religion i.e. as attributes of a supreme being. But even religious art attempts only to inspire spiritual feelings in us - it does not presume to share in the perfection of God.

I agree that believing in objective values is very much like belief in God. But the question of objective values appears at the very beginnings of Philosophy. (surely?)

You are right. Platonism is a foundation stone for many religions, and the censorship of artistic expression too.

For the Platonic Greek, art was all about the representation of personified ideals through the representation if nature in human form. I love all that, I think skill in representation is a much maligned and underrated part of art. But I don't buy the "ideals", as such

I think the whole question of "ideal Forms", absolute values, and eternal truths, is well behind us in philosophy. I think the last death throws gurgled their last in in the 'enlightenment'. It may still survive on the 'religion' forums but art cannot sustain nor should it accept such edicts from our moral guides.

Were we truly to accept 'objective' values for art the fig leaves will soon be covering up the best sculptures.

I'm just watching Sunni Muslims applying their "objective" moral instructions from God and summarily executing Shia soldiers. Nice, let's keep art free.

-- Updated June 16th, 2014, 5:15 pm to add the following --

Philosophy Explorer wrote: To get back on track, does anyone think there are suitable definitions for subjective and objective that would meet anybody's criteria in connection with art?

PhilX

That would all depend on what you want to ask, exactly. I think that would be the next step to more clearly define what is the question. Clearly "Is art 100% subjective" is not at all helpful. The subject/ object question is not about defining a thing, but is all about a relationship between one thing/s and an/other.

-- Updated June 16th, 2014, 5:20 pm to add the following --

Perfection?

Hi HR.

I can be very specific in my threads. However that would risk limiting discussion to my viewpoints. Furthermore the longer the OP, then that also limits in getting a response to my threads.

If my threads are drifting, I'll insert a post to put it back on track.

PhilX