>[...]Judgments about the validity of science are predicated on the principle of empiricism (we test our theories to see if they are clearly supported by evidence). I'm at a loss for how to apply anything like this principle of empirical testing
>to the quality of art.
>
are you suggesting that art lacks an empirical dimension? more importantly, are you suggesting that only empirical reasoning is objective? or that the only truth content that humans can agree on is of an empirical nature?
part of the problem with art is its sensuous (and sensual) dimension. because we respond individually and subjectively to the sensuous aspects of art because we each embody distinctive and quirky psychological make-ups (though i would argue dialectically that even the personal, sensuous response has an objective and historical aspect), doesn't reduce art to these discreet moments.
the powers that be certainly benefit from approaches to art that limit its value to subjective, and therefore dismissable or discreditable, matters of taste. the importance of art is precisely its ability to remain incomplete if "consumed" in a culinary or simply subjective fashion. it is ideology that attempts to restrict art's truth to mere taste and those in power benefit when discussion about art is mired in ineffectual debates about individual preferences.
again to use another of my perhaps weak or befuddling analogies, i may get a great deal of sensual or personal pleasure out of solving derivative equations. but that has little relevance with regard to whether those equations/solutions are true or not. from another perspective, artworks have a certain "worth" in the marketplace just as patentable forms of knowledge (intellectual "property") also have a monetary value. again this dimension has little relevance to the truth value of either art or the science behind a patent. capitalism embraces empirical science (when it chooses to do so) not because it is true but because it is useful to furthering its ends. if capitalists found the truth content of art to benefit their agenda and traditional science to be a threat to their goals, we would be arguing here not about how some artworks are clearly better or worse than one another since everyone would agree that rankings would be obvious. instead we might be discussing how the physical sciences are really an unresolvable matter of personal choice.
> The empirical problem with this claim is that people who study art do
> not come close to agreeing about what these "objective factors"
> are.--And if you specify some factor that other "art experts" challenge,
>
>it's not really an objective factor, is it? Again, this relies on the
>false analogy between the assessment of scientific theories and the
>assessment of the quality of art. These are just two incommensurable
>domains, with different types of reasoning and praxis.
>
my response to this is that the field of art criticism is a battleground among progressive and reactionary forces. without question, the greatest works of art undermine the authority and legitimacy of those in power. this has historically been the case and continues into the present. for this reason alone, the ruling class has a direct interest in obfuscating any consensus on a particular artwork's merits. i'll agree with you that understanding art and science, to some extent, involve different involve types of reasoning and praxis. but these are not mutually exclusive categories. and most importantly, for any progressive thinker, to dismiss the objective character of art is to embrace the perspective of the ruling class.