>
> 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?
>
Yes. In fields like art or philosophy or theology, there are no
consensually agreed upon standards for determining what is "true" in
that field. Many competing claims, yes, but no agreed upon way for
adjudicating the claims. In science, we can say, "okay, let's conduct a
series of studies to test that claim". There is no analogous procedure
in nonscientific fields.
> 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.
>
This position illustrates the problem: you say "the greatest works of
art undermine authority", and there are many great artists, art critics,
and art historians who disagree with your claim. How do you adjudicate
that disagreement? If you say "without question", we should just ignore
the other points of view? --It boils down to a political question: who
has the power to determine what the characteristics of "good art" are in
a given society at a given time?
Miles