Are aesthetic judgements completely subjective?

[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.