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

Miles Jackson cqmv at pdx.edu
Tue Oct 3 14:09:10 PDT 2006


jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net wrote:


>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?
>
>
>
Well, on this list, well-read people can't agree on whether Dostoyevsky is great or mediocre. That sort of lack of consensus occurs whenever you get a group of art enthusiasts together: some like X, others think X is crap. I like that about art, myself.


>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.
>
>
>
You're conflating two distinct questions: (a) what are the objective criteria of great art? and (b) what do artists and art enthusiasts in a given time and place celebrate and recognize as "great art"? In my view, (a) is a pointless philosophical question; (b) is an interesting sociological topic. However, all you can ever determine by conducting the kind of discussions you've had with artists is an answer to question (b), not (a).

Miles



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list