<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 10/1/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Michael Catolico</b> <<a href="mailto:mcatolico@mindspring.com">mcatolico@mindspring.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
in the thread on Faulkner Jerry Monaco wrote:<br><br>> [...]I have again come to the conclusion that there is no<br>> way we can argue over art -- we can explicate, praise, react, hope to<br>> reveal, and help to experience but rarely if ever convince someone out of
<br>> their own confirmed taste.<br>><br>><br><br><br>there are, without question, objective factors in determining not only<br>"what is art" but also "what is good art." the history of forms and
<br>techniques, various ways artists wrestle with materials ( aesthetic,<br>social, spiritual) and how works grapple with and resolve (or fail to<br>resolve) internal and external contradictions are among the most<br>important objective and measurable features of art. as far as the
<br>reception of artworks goes, taste itself has an objective dimension and<br>history as well.<br></blockquote></div><br>Michael,<br><br>Finally, let me admit where I was wrong, or at least infelicitous. I said you can't "argue over art." What I should have said is that one cannot present an argument that produces certainty. I was using the word "argue" in the above quote in the sense of
"concluding an argument" with a fair amount of "agreed upon certainty." I thought this was obvious enough when I was writing quickly because explication, praise, reactions, revelations, and descriptions of experience can all be part of arguments over works of art. Rational argument is, and must be a part of our judgment over art. An argument over art is continuous and inconclusive by nature. That is why tolerance of differences in taste in these areas is a necessary condition for rational argument. In short there can be argument but no certainty.
<br><br>Which brings me, Michael, to another ambiguity in all of your arguments so far. I think you confuse "objectivity" with "certainty" and "objective reality" with "certitude".
<br><br>Objective reality is just everything including the special case of the subjective. Even my qualitative. personal, and intrinsic taste of dandelions in vinegar (I love it) or "Star Wars" (I hate it) is part of objective reality. I am fairly certain that my experiential taste is "real." But I am not certain that my judgment can be said to be correct.
<br><br>Art is part of objective reality. But certainty about our judgments are mostly self-delusions. We can be certain that 8 + 16 = 24 (base 10). We can be fairly certain that the earth turns on its axis and follows an elliptical orbit around the sun as long as all of our definitions are correct. The certainties in these areas are special, either from definitional principals or from agreed upon theoretical observations. There is simply very little that is like these kinds of certainties when we come to studying human experiences.
<br><br>This does not mean that our conclusions are not objective, or event that most of us can't come to agreement about certain things in art.... It is just means that our conclusions are not certain and are open to a range of disagreement.
<br><br>Jerry<br><br><br>