Are aesthetic judgements completely subjective?

[Homburg]

If so, how can dialogue about the merits of different works of art be meaningful?

[trurl]

For that matter, how can dialogs about dialogs about the merits of different works be meaningful? We're not even having this conversation! My brain hurts.

[Scott Bails]

Yes.

[PeterG]

Are aesthetic judgements completely subjective?

Yes, if you think the philosophical discipline of aesthetics is worthless.
No, if you think the philosophy of aesthetics is as worthwhile as the other major philosophical branches of logic, epistemolgy, metaphysics and ethics.

Either one accepts philosophies or one doesn't.

[Progmatic]

If so, how can dialogue about the merits of different works of art be meaningful?

They are subjective to you as an individual but I would argue they are not subjective to a group of people (societies) with similar background (time, space and upbringing) and perceived values...

[Scott Bails]

They are subjective to you as an individual but I would argue they are not subjective to a group of people (societies) with similar background (time, space and upbringing) and perceived values...

That's actually a great way to phrase it. :up

[Trane]

They are subjective to you as an individual but I would argue they are not subjective to a group of people (societies) with similar background (time, space and upbringing) and perceived values...

yup, obviously aesthetics can only called as a discipline if there are some rules or boundaries defined or collectively agreed upon by a certain pack of individuals (generally sufficiently scholar to be some kind of authority on the matter)

(Hope I made sense) :oops

[Jymbot]

The question is: are judgements -on music, I take it- completely aesthetic?

No.

Does this thread merit continuance?

No.

[PeterG]

yup, obviously aesthetics can only called as a discipline if there are some rules or boundaries defined or collectively agreed upon


There are, aesthetics is a branch of philosophy.

[PeterG]

Does this thread merit continuance?

No.

Bye bye then!

[Progmatic]

The question is: are judgements -on music, I take it- completely aesthetic?

No.

Does this thread merit continuance?

No.

You made your point without supporting it and then ask to kill the thread...pretentious? :lol

[Jymbot]

Who would know better than yourself, Jimmeh.

Looked at your avatar recently?

[Progmatic]

Who would know better than yourself, Jimmeh.

Looked at your avatar recently?

I am proud of my Avatar...finally I found something I can relate to...

[Jymbot]

Im not really proud of mine.
Like I said : its a good cat but I had to sedate it all the same to get that bonnet on.

[notallwhowander]

Are aesthetic judgements completely subjective?
Completely subjective? Well, yes, but influenced and shaped by one's upbringing and community. So it's subjective, but by no means unique.


If so, how can dialogue about the merits of different works of art be meaningful?
A dialogue is just as much and aesthetic act as a painting or a song. So in as much as an aesthetic experience has meaning for you, so too can a conversation, whatever the topic. However, you assign meaning to it. You know you've done so when a conversation seems particularly meaningful or significant to you. You discover, in that instance, what has meaning for you, and maybe even learn something about how you go about assigning meaning.

Am I making sense?

Meaning itself is subjective, but influenced and shaped by one's upbringing and community. There's no objective meaning, unless one brings God into the picture, only custom, collective conventions and criteria. Even then, we are left on our own to sort through even the God question using our individual, subjective brains and customary language.

[progeezer]

Sorry, but, ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME!!:roll:lol

Scott had it right in the 3rd post of this thread.

[Baribrotzer]

Yes......

BUT: If there is a wide consensus in some particular direction, either among the public or among the knowledgeable, then on a practical level aesthetic judgments might as well not be subjective. For example, imagine a prog fan trying to get a job as a music journalist twenty or thirty years ago - during the height of critical veneration for "authentic" punk, rap, and "roots" music, and critical contempt for prog. This person's views would not be objectively wrong. But they would be steamrollered by the pseudo-Marxist party line of the time - which, because it was based in actual, demonstrable class distinctions, was considered to be objectively true.

[notallwhowander]

Sorry, but, ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME!!:roll:lol

Scott had it right in the 3rd post of this thread.Words bad.

[Burble]

It depends on who you ask.

[Homburg]

With regard to the community with shared values argument, I am iclined to think that it begs more questions than it resolves. I am generally suspicious of communities' potential for oppressing the individual. The fear in this context is that either the majority or, worse, a supposed authority such as a critic, can state 'You are in our community, you share our values, so we are / I am entitled to tell you that you are wrong.'

I remember someone posting here someone's justification for Yes not being inducted into the Rock And Rooll Hall Of Fame. It was not 'in the judges' opinion...' but more like 'the rock community has judged prog to be bad rock...etc.'

If such authority is rejected, then the community loosens into collapse. The Yes fan thinks 'if these are the rock communities' values, it is not my community'. So they turn to a prog community. But here they also read attacks on Yes, with which they strongly disagree. Rejecting this community's values, they turn to a Yes fans' community. But here they hear 'Fragile' is better than 'The Yes Album', and then 'Yours Is No Disgrace' is better than 'Starship Trooper' etc. Every disagreement destroys the implied acceptance of shared values, because each judgement implies a particular set of values not quite like those which inform any other judgement.

[Homburg]

A dialogue is just as much and aesthetic act as a painting or a song. So in as much as an aesthetic experience has meaning for you, so too can a conversation, whatever the topic. However, you assign meaning to it. You know you've done so when a conversation seems particularly meaningful or significant to you. You discover, in that instance, what has meaning for you, and maybe even learn something about how you go about assigning meaning.



An interesting comment. I largely agree, although I don't think 'aesthetic' is quite the right word to describe the appeal of an argument.

I think it is hard not to want to regard one's aesthetic preferences as having some objective validity to be argued for, of having more significance to others than whether one prefers peas or carrots. Who is really completely indifferent about whether their favourite music is well-regarded or not (even if the creators of the music are long-dead and hence indifferent to their own reputation)?

[markowitz]

Interesting thread. Just reading Zen and the Art of Motorcylce Maintenance right now and there is tremendous discussion about quality, which is close to aesthetic judgement, I believe.

“And what is good, Phaedrus,
And what is not good—
Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?”
― Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry Into Values


Any philosophic explanation of Quality is going to be both false and true precisely because it is a philosophic explanation. The process of philosophic explanation is an analytic process, a process of breaking something down into subjects and predicates. What I mean (and everybody else means) by the word ‘quality’ cannot be broken down into subjects and predicates. This is not because Quality is so mysterious but because Quality is so simple, immediate and direct.

ROBERT M. PIRSIG, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

[Scott Bails]

You're all making this too complicated.

It's as simple as this:

You love Magma.

I hate Magma.

You think they're awesome.

I think they suck.

Who's correct?

Obviously, neither of us.

/thread

[notallwhowander]

Who is really completely indifferent about whether their favourite music is well-regarded or not (even if the creators of the music are long-dead and hence indifferent to their own reputation)? I think it would be a very rare person (though I'm told the older one gets the less one is so concerned). The more I learn, the more I think that social awareness and need for acceptance predates our species' capacity for language. It's basic, instinctual, expressed in greater or lesser degrees in any given individual, but rooted in our genetic programming.

So what if values are not wholly shared, but shared in part? What is held in common isn't a strict orthodoxy, but centers around a similar set of experiences and tastes. Part of the challenge is developing a common language in which to express those experiences and tastes. Some of that is while I may enjoy King Crimson more than Genesis, and you enjoy Genesis more than King Crimson, we both enjoy Genesis and King Crimson more than 80%-90% of the other music we've heard. Conversations on that level are a series of intersecting Venn Diagrams.

[strawberrybrick]

If you think of beauty, a beautiful woman for instance, there's something that's universal in it. What's good about a certain music can be objectively true; there is good music and bad music, and taste doesn't have to factor in. we'll just be goddammed to get everyone to agree on it!

[Scott Bails]

If you think of beauty, a beautiful woman for instance, there's something that's universal in it. What's good about a certain music can be objectively true; there is good music and bad music, and taste doesn't have to factor in. we'll just be goddammed to get everyone to agree on it!

Respectfully disagree.

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

[sonic]

Respectfully disagree.

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."
Yep. Just take a look at a Rembrandt or a fifty thousand year old 'goddess' statue — those chicks were fat! Now days anorexic looking girls, who would have been regarded as unhealthy just 100 years ago, are what is considered beautiful.

As far as music is concerned — 100% subjective. I know a guy who likes his music to sound amateur and clumsy — he just can't identify with tight proficient playing.

[Baribrotzer]

It's as simple as this:

You love Magma.

I hate Magma.

You think they're awesome.

I think they suck.

Who's correct?

Obviously, neither of us.No, each of us is correct, but only with regard to our own perceptions.

[Jubal]

Subjectivism is relative. Two folks who share the same subjectivity may find common ground over which to discuss specific music projects. There are various factors that can affect the relative distance between the understanding between two individuals. Some are social, some economic, some socio-geographic.
Reviewing music in strictly objective terminology rarely conveys the aesthetics of music. Aesthetics convey emotion. Subjective statements convey emotion. The key is whether the statements accurately convey the emotion of the music, and the extent to which the reader can relate to and understand the emotions conveyed in literal form.

[Homburg]

Subjectivism is relative. Two folks who share the same subjectivity may find common ground over which to discuss specific music projects. There are various factors that can affect the relative distance between the understanding between two individuals. Some are social, some economic, some socio-geographic.


I don't think anyon'e subjectivity quite matches anyone else's. Some factors in this are not cultural but personal, e.g. the differences between two brothers.

[Progmatic]

if beauty is only subjective...how you explain that some art qualifies to be presented in the art institutions, being distributed by media or qualify to be educated in the schools while the other art does not...is there only subjectivity in that decision?...I personally would challenge it...if I run art business, I actually do not care what a single individual thinks, I should not even consider my own emotions, I would judge the aesthetics and cultural standards of targeted audience as objective set of values to ensure that my investment pays off....

[Scott Bails]

No, each of us is correct, but only with regard to our own perceptions.

Fair enough. :up

[Scott Bails]

if beauty is only subjective...how you explain that some art qualifies to be presented in the art institutions, being distributed by media or qualify to be educated in the schools while the other art does not...is there only subjectivity in that decision?...I personally would challenge it...if I run art business, I actually do not care what a single individual thinks, I should not even consider my own emotions, I would judge the aesthetics and cultural standards of targeted audience as objective set of values to ensure that my investment pays off....


You're making the exact point.

You're valuing one judgment over another. You're deeming one judgment to be more accurate than another.

Why?

On what basis are you making that decision?

You're putting the opinions of your targeted audience over the opinion of a single individual - only in an effort to make money.

That doesn't make the single individual wrong.

[notallwhowander]

if beauty is only subjective...how you explain that some art qualifies to be presented in the art institutions, being distributed by media or qualify to be educated in the schools while the other art does not...is there only subjectivity in that decision?...I personally would challenge it...if I run art business, I actually do not care what a single individual thinks, I should not even consider my own emotions, I would judge the aesthetics and cultural standards of targeted audience as objective set of values to ensure that my investment pays off....
You're privileging one community's aesthetic criteria. Such criteria do exist outside an individual's subjectivity, but they are no means "objective." They're just criteria agreed upon by a certain group of people. When investing in art you do well to adopt the most widely held academic criteria, because academics reproduce themselves in their academies, and deeply influence others, generation after generation. Consequently, you're sure to have a market. In this circumstance, you're privileging an aesthetic criteria because it's the most lucrative, rather than engaging in an aesthetic experience yourself.

[Facelift]

No. Some things have more aesthetic value than others.

The best part about having this argument with subjectivists is that they must allow for the opposite opinion to be just as "true" as their own to remain consistent, whereas those who believe otherwise need not do the same. :)

[Progmatic]

No. Some things have more aesthetic value than others.

The best part about having this argument with subjectivists is that they must allow for the opposite opinion to be just as "true" as their own to remain consistent, whereas those who believe otherwise need not do the same. :)

smart cookie...

[Scott Bails]

The best part about having this argument with subjectivists is that they must allow for the opposite opinion to be just as "true" as their own to remain consistent, whereas those who believe otherwise need not do the same. :)

Not at all. I have no problem saying you're wrong - this isn't an aesthetic issue. ;)

[notallwhowander]

No. Some things have more aesthetic value than others.

The best part about having this argument with subjectivists is that they must allow for the opposite opinion to be just as "true" as their own to remain consistent, whereas those who believe otherwise need not do the same. :) It doesn't get you out of having to make some kind of cogent argument to back up your statement. Which you didn't, consequently relieving any "subjectivist" from having to take your statement seriously.


smart cookie...

Not that smart. Not that cookie.

[Facelift]

Not at all. I have no problem saying you're wrong - this isn't an aesthetic issue. ;)

It's not?

[Scott Bails]

The issue as to whether aesthetic judgments are completely subjective is not aesthetic, no.

It either is or it isn't.



And it is. ;)

[strawberrybrick]

That doesn't make the single individual wrong.

People, societies do arrive at consensus all the time, in this case when it comes to "what is beautiful" and "what is not beautiful". It is not just opinion, it is the consensus of opinion that defines a particular aesthetic. Of course it changes over time, because it is a living thing, a living idea. And more importantly to your point, it is neither "right" or "wrong" - for a time, it just is.

In the early 70s, especially in Britain, a lot of young men thought rock music should take on certain aspirations; what we call prog rock. Later in the decade, another group of young men thought rock music should be the opposite; punk was new aesthetic...

Taste is neither, we appreciate each by its own aesthetic.

[Scott Bails]

In other words, it's completely subjective. ;)

[Homburg]

People, societies do arrive at consensus all the time, in this case when it comes to "what is beautiful" and "what is not beautiful". It is not just opinion, it is the consensus of opinion that defines a particular aesthetic. Of course it changes over time, because it is a living thing, a living idea. And more importantly to your point, it is neither "right" or "wrong" - for a time, it just is.

In the early 70s, especially in Britain, a lot of young men thought rock music should take on certain aspirations; what we call prog rock. Later in the decade, another group of young men thought rock music should be the opposite; punk was new aesthetic...

Taste is neither, we appreciate each by its own aesthetic.

Don't you find this respect for orthodoxies very oppressive?

In Germany in the 1930s, the consensus was that Nazism was the correct politics.

Are you saying that early 70s punks were wrong, late 70s proggers were wrong, any non-conformists of any era were wrong?

Also, these consensuses are not actually the opinion of the majority - punk was never the most popular form of music, it was just the one most favoured by critics.

[progeezer]

"Will It Go Round In Circles"

Apparently it will:).

[Reginod]

Art can be judged with attempted objectivity, with an acknowledgement of aesthetic worth. It's been happening for centuries, and that's why we have The Louvre and so many other museums.

It's also the prerogative of any individual to call bullshit on any work of art that they don't like. Jesse Helms beholding "Piss Christ" comes to mind.

Both ways are human and justifiable.

[strawberrybrick]

Don't you find this respect for orthodoxies very oppressive?

Are you saying that early 70s punks were wrong, late 70s proggers were wrong, any non-conformists of any era were wrong?

Also, these consensuses are not actually the opinion of the majority - punk was never the most popular form of music, it was just the one most favoured by critics.

Huh?

I'm saying that punks are punks. Judge them by punk aesthetics, not some other, like prog aesthetics. It's not about right/wrong, nor is it about majority, nor oppression!

[Homburg]

I'm saying that punks are punks. Judge them by punk aesthetics, not some other, like prog aesthetics. It's not about right/wrong, nor is it about majority, nor oppression!

Why should punk be judged by punk aesthetics? Should Nazis be judged by Nazi political values?

I'm not saying punks are like Nazis. I'm saying that just because a judgement comes from a safely central position within a particular community doesn't mean that it shouldn't be critiqued, or that it has any more validity that an eccentric, individual judgment.

[Hal...]

Have any of you spent a lot of time around academics?

I used to be married to one and I can tell you, the answer to the original question is, "no."


Art can be judged with attempted objectivity, with an acknowledgement of aesthetic worth. It's been happening for centuries, and that's why we have The Louvre and so many other museums.

Thank you. Having been an art history minor, I can attest to the veracity of Reginod's comment.


It's also the prerogative of any individual to call bullshit on any work of art that they don't like. Jesse Helms beholding "Piss Christ" comes to mind.

His reaction, however, was purely emotional. Take the emotion out of analysis and you can argue the so called "subjective" merits of a work of art objectively.

[sonic]

I studied fine art at college, and from that experience I came to realize one thing — it's all a bunch of subjective bull! Including the way they dished out grades, which is why I became thoroughly disillusioned with fine art and changed to a language major. Fine Arts bodies impose their aesthetics on society and the arts marketplace. The same happens in music with the big labels dictating what the majority listen to. It's all politics and money, not aesthetics.

[Plasmatopia]

This thread has renewed my will to live...but I can't prove it.

[Homburg]

Have any of you spent a lot of time around academics?

Yes I have.


I used to be married to one and I can tell you, the answer to the original question is, "no."

I disagree.


Take the emotion out of analysis and you can argue the so called "subjective" merits of a work of art objectively.

I disagree. I think that ultimately aesthetics are necessarily an engagement with emotions, and so emotions have to be implicitly invoked at every stage of aesthetic debate. Without emotional engagement there would be no point to art.

[Progmatic]

I studied fine art at college, and from that experience I came to realize one thing — it's all a bunch of subjective bull! Including the way they dished out grades, which is why I became thoroughly disillusioned with fine art and changed to a language major. Fine Arts bodies impose their aesthetics on society and the arts marketplace. The same happens in music with the big labels dictating what the majority listen to. It's all politics and money, not aesthetics.

From Bing Definitions
Aesthethic is idea of beauty: an idea of what is beautiful or artistic
Beauty is pleasing and impressive qualities of something: the combination of qualities that make something pleasing and impressive to look at, listen to, touch, smell, or taste

My point is that you cannot impose aesthethics on someone (and that is subjective answer to it). Yet the societies with similar background and experience developed set of aesthethic values that do define clearly what is beatiful and what is not (that is an objective answer to it). Fine Arts typically represents/follow the objectives side of aesththics.

For instance rock music when it came way back then in 50s, it was an eyesore for generation that was brought up on jazz and swing. "Fine arts" ambassodors of that generations as well as whole genration would never recognize it as a form of "serious" art. It took the whole generation to appreciate the aesththics of rock.

[Scott Bails]

For instance rock music when it came way back then in 50s, it was an eyesore for generation that was brought up on jazz and swing. "Fine arts" ambassodors of that generations as well as whole genration would never recognize it as a form of "serious" art. It took the whole generation to appreciate the aesththics of rock.


But that doesn't make the "jazz and swing generation's" evaluation any less valid.

[Progmatic]

But that doesn't make the "jazz and swing generation's" evaluation any less valid.

right on...it is just another group with different aesthethic values...

[strawberrybrick]

Why should punk be judged by punk aesthetics?

I'm saying that just because a judgement comes from a safely central position within a particular community doesn't mean that it shouldn't be critiqued, or that it has any more validity that an eccentric, individual judgment.

Back to my original post, when considering what is universally "good" vs what isn't, I would offer that it is how it relates to it's particular aesthetic. Thus, I would judge prog against a prog aesthetic, and not a punk aesthetic. There is some measure of objectivity in this.

None of this is to say that subjective criticism isn't valid, btw.

[Trane]

Why should punk be judged by punk aesthetics?

I'm not saying punks are like Nazis. I'm saying that just because a judgement comes from a safely central position within a particular community doesn't mean that it shouldn't be critiqued, or that it has any more validity that an eccentric, individual judgment.

Well punk was unlike many other rock genres before it was rather exclusive... Unlike all-including and all-loving hippie circles, they (punks press, groups and fans) tended to oust bands that had too much credentials (Stranglers, Police) that were too old (Stranglers, Police) and not the right attitude

[sonic]

Back to my original post, when considering what is universally "good" vs what isn't, I would offer that it is how it relates to it's particular aesthetic. Thus, I would judge prog against a prog aesthetic, and not a punk aesthetic. There is some measure of objectivity in this.

None of this is to say that subjective criticism isn't valid, btw.
Aesthetics within the framework of groups and sub groups. That works to a certain extent. Take prog for example, where CTTE and ITCOTCK are generally considered to be masterworks of the genre. However, if you read this site enough you'll see that theory unravel as in the end it is all subjective and there are as many opinions are there are posters. It's much easier to agree on the competency of execution and the originality of a composition/performance than it is to agree on the aesthetics of a piece of music. I feel that probably contributes to consensus more than aethetics.

[Homburg]

I agree with Sonic ^ (see an earlier post of mine which says something similar).


Well punk was unlike many other rock genres before it was rather exclusive... Unlike all-including and all-loving hippie circles, they (punks press, groups and fans) tended to oust bands that had too much credentials (Stranglers, Police) that were too old (Stranglers, Police) and not the right attitude

I do actually object ethically/politically to punk values more than to the values implicit in other forms of music I don't enjoy. Especially the aggressive intolerance, which makes the 'each to their own community's aesthetics' argument re punk a bit ironic.



But not all punks had that aggressive intolerance I know, and in any case this is a different and old debate.