> [...]I have again come to the conclusion that there is no
> way we can argue over art -- we can explicate, praise, react, hope to
> reveal, and help to experience but rarely if ever convince someone out of
> their own confirmed taste.
>
>
it's fairly disheartening to me when i read this kind of perspective -
particularly among progressives. to me it's akin to saying "ultimately
there's no arguing with folks over the validity of science. if you
choose to believe that astrology is superior to astronomy for explaining
the nature of the universe, so be it. truth is really relative and a
matter of taste."
there are, without question, objective factors in determining not only "what is art" but also "what is good art." the history of forms and techniques, various ways artists wrestle with materials ( aesthetic, social, spiritual) and how works grapple with and resolve (or fail to resolve) internal and external contradictions are among the most important objective and measurable features of art. as far as the reception of artworks goes, taste itself has an objective dimension and history as well.
when an artist dismisses or criticizes a precursor (e.g. Nabokov on Faulkner) it is not a subjective reaction. it is one way that an artist deals with the problems s/he must come to terms with in the context of creation. to go back to the science analogy, Einstein wasn't dismissing the Newtonian universe because he found it subjectively "tasteless." the problems he was facing required a new set of ideas to overcome the impasse and objective contradictions of past ideas. it is the same with works of art and literature.
related to this, folks that are in or will be passing through chicago might want to stop by the mca (contemporary art museum in chi) to see the current exhibit called "massive change." (http://www.mcachicago.org/exhibitions/exh_detail.php?id=53)
briefly, this exhibit focuses on the works of contemporary designers and their responses to a variety of problems from affordable housing to sustainable forms of energy to problems of health care and on and on. what's peculiar about the exhibit is that it presents a very ideological (and extraordinarily right-wing) argument under the guise of culture. it is in fact a pure celebration of the ingenuity of capitalism for "solving" just about any problem possible. what of course in unstated is that most of the problems addressed were created by the very system being praised. solutions under this context become simply a matter of choices to be made in the marketplace (e.g. buy wasteful and environmentally damaging energy or buy energy in a sustainable and conscientious way - but no matter what "buy").
i'm not trying to denigrate efforts at sustainablilty, just trying to create dialogue about 1) how capitalism "sustains" itself by creating or exacerbating problems that permit it to create and extend markets, 2) how change is circumscribed under an exclusively consumerist agenda and 3) how ideology masquerades as art. regarding the last point, if we don't have objective categories for addressing the nature of and qualities of art, then we have no way of combating ideological half- and non-truths. the mca exhibit is not merely an instance of "bad art"; it is a legitimating showcase of "non-art" pretending to be art.
michael