Can There Be Objective Assessment of Taste?

Hume presents an interesting antimoney in his essay. Art is determined largely by taste, and yet most people can agree that some art is clearly better than other (da Vinci being greater than Norman Rockwell, or Shakespeare being greater than Stephen King). How, then, are we to determine what is right, or if indeed Shakespeare is a better author than Stephen King?

The answer is simple. Some artists and art are just better. Taste may be subjective, but there are still some guiding principles that can be used to differentiate good art from bad art.

Rockwell could never copy the tedious care that artists such as da Vinci had to put into each work, carefully blending dyes and hues to create the colors used in their works. Likewise, an author like Stephen King could never measure up to the mastery of language and human nature in a Shakespearean play. But technical mastery is only one element of good art. It must be judiciously applied.

How do you apply technical mastery to thus create good art? Long, hard work, and vision. Rockwell created work to please the masses. King prefers quantity to quality in his work. But the great artists take their time. They work their art to a degree of perfection that most of us can only dream of. To do this takes time and dedication, and produces a work of such quality that it stands the test of time.

This does not mean that some people won't think that Stephen King is a better writer than Shakespeare. It just means that they're wrong. Hume more or less puts out the idea that, just as some art is clearly better than others, some OPINIONS about art are better. I couldn't agree more.

Why Define "Art?"

Before I begin, I must apologize for being lax about my blog as of late. I've come down with the plague (or the common cold, whichever you prefer to call it), and it has made it quite difficult to breathe and continue to attend classes, let alone try to compose thoughts for my blog.

Excuses aside... why define Art? What is it about Art that compels us to compose a definition to encompass it? While I have no reasonable answer for the second, the first question deserves exploration.

On the most practical level, a definition of "Art" is necessary to legitimize the existence of art schools. If we lack a definition of Art, how can we possibly devote entire institutions of learning to it? Simply put, we cannot.

However, there is a much deeper need for a definition of art. Most people probably have some idea of what "Art" is. They can look at something and know if it is "Art" or not. Why, then, can we not agree on what "Art" truly is?

The answer is simple: there is no universal definition of Art, and on this point, Weitz is correct - we will NEVER compose a definition of Art that EVERYONE can agree with. However, that does not preclude the search for a definition. Rather than defining Art in a universal sense, we must endeavor to define Art in a personal sense. What is Art to ME? Why do I feel that this is Art?

We will never have a universal definition of Art. However, we SHOULD continue to define Art, not for Art's sake, not for humanity's sake, but for our own. Understand why we feel as we do about Art, understand ourselves.

Art: Is it definable?

What is Art? That is the question. We seek to understand, to know. But can a solid definition of Art ever be arrived at?

Weitz would argue not. Just as there can be no solid definition for what is a "game," the concept of Art is open, constantly evolving, and thus a universal definition would be, by necessity, impossible.

Is this really true? Does Art truly escape definition? There is certainly some validity to this claim. Let us explore it.

Reflecting back on every definition of Art we have looked at previously, each adds a dimension to this concept of Art. (As Freud did not contribute anything to the definition, he is irrelevant to the current discussion.) Plato and his copies of copies, Dewey and intentionality and nature, Tolstoy and communication of feelings - all of these certainly add to the discussion of what Art is, but none can really be exactly placed on Art.

Art can be said to fit every definition. And of course, as new types of Art are created, some critic somewhere will doubtless write a new definition of Art to fit in the new style.

Thus, Art is - gasp! - like a living thing, constantly evolving with the intellects of its creators, and constantly eluding a solid definition. Should we thus stop trying to define it? Absolutely not. It is this constant defining and re-defining that gives Art its nature. And while we will never have a truly solid definition for it... we can certainly try.

On "Formalism"

Clive Bell believes in Significant Form. This much is clear from his writing. And of course, in his mystical elitism, he sets it up so we can't argue with him. Which won't stop me.

Let us begin by dissecting his argument. "All sensitive people agree that there is a peculiar emotion provoked by works of art." I'll skip past the fallacy of making such a blanket statement and argue with the concept that all sensitive people would agree. First of all... it's a major attack against anyone who might not feel this "peculiar emotion." Does that mean that you're not sensitive, you Philistine? Clive Bell would probably say so. After all, he is among the "elite few," those "sensitive people." Arrogant p...erson.

"The best opinion is on my side." Because, of course, if YOU say your opinion is best, that must make it a fact. Rather than show WHY your opinion is best, you just say that it is. Great way to win an argument, Mr. Bell. Now please stop throwing up these straw men as the foundation of your entire line of philosophical thought.

"This emotion is not disputed by anyone capable of feeling it." Because of course, it's so easy to match a feeling exactly, and it's so DISTINCT from the emotions of life. If this is some secret sort of emotion, summoned up by "mystical, unknown" qualities... how can you be certain that it truly IS separate from the emotions of life?

"A painter too feeble to create forms that provoke more than a little aesthetic emotion will try to eke that little out by suggesting the emotions of life." And what harm, pray tell, is there in suggesting the emotions of life? I always thought of art as something that should help us to EXPLORE those emotions, not ESCAPE them, as Bell suggests "Significant Form" does.

The idea of a completely separate set of emotions, this "aesthetic emotion," is frankly absurd. Why would it only be summoned forth by this "Significant Form," under these whacky "mystical, unknown" forces? Artists are not unique among the species in that they have this sort of hidden talent to tap into this unknown force. Rather, they capture the emotions of life. The idea that FORM comes before EMOTION is as ridiculous as Bell's argument. What, now, arrogant dead guy? What NOW?

Nature and Art

I am quite sure that many of you, my dear readers, have on at least one occasion ventured outside and had your auditory senses greeted by an orchestra of bird song. Perhaps some of you even thought it to be pretty. But did you ever consider that this may be Art?

Dewey would, and the father of evolution, Charles Darwin, may well believe it, too, given his extensive work tracing emotions and mental faculties within the animal kingdom. Art. It's in nature, and it's in OUR nature.

If we work from the assumption that Art is in our nature... why, then, would Dewey boldly declare it to be "the greatest intellectual achievement in the history of humanity?" Under that assumption, wouldn't art merely be an expression of our nature, our link to the animal kingdom, far removed from the intellectual capacity that sets us apart from apes or pigs or dogs?

Art may be in our nature. We may see it in the songs of birds, the dams of beavers, the dens of foxes. But in nature, art appears only in forms that are already inherent to the creature in question. With humans, Art manifests itself in new and unexpected ways. Humans use their mental capacities to create new Art, new worlds, new experiences. They form Art in a way a bird never could. Coupled with the conscious self-reflection that is inherent only to humans (at least to our limited yet ever-expanding knowledge), the limits that Art can achieve... do not exist.

And therein lies the hidden nature of Art. It is unconfined, free, ever-expanding. Thus, Art truly is "the greatest intellectual achievement in the history of humanity."