>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