[lbo-talk] art's objectivity (tangent on faulkner thread)

jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net
Tue Oct 3 12:02:09 PDT 2006


On 1 Oct 2006 at 13:46, Miles Jackson wrote:


> The empirical problem with this claim is that people who study art do
> not come close to agreeing about what these "objective factors" are.
>
> Miles

This is quite far from true. "Not com[ing] close to agreeing"? Are you joking? How much agreement is close?

While of a personal nature I have probably met nearly a thousand of artists over the years and have had conversations with a couple of hundred on this very subject. If I had to guess I'd say there's about 90% agreement on this subject. Of course artists only make art, they aren't social scientists so their opinions probably count for very little as far as academics are concerned. I'd love to be wrong about this last sentiment and would love to be proven so but I'm not holding my breath waiting.

Why treat this subject radically different from any other sociological study? Apply the same standards generally used by social scientists and you'll do fine studying art.

John Thornton



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list