Yes.


Now what?

If you have an idea or opinion you would like to share, please do so.

I think we can identify several objective criteria for the evaluation of art. Since you mentioned books I’ll focus on novels.

A good novel often has the following:

• Diversity of interpretations
• Distinctiveness and mastery of style and structure
• Powerful, unique, and effective narrative voice
• Technical skill (prose, description, pace, plot)
• Depth of characterization
• Moral complexity
• Emotional depth, power, or maturity
• Staying power
• Formal innovation
• Where there is symbolism, it is thematically important

These are neither necessary nor sufficient for a great novel, but I think they’re good contenders to answer your question. There are many others and I’ve probably missed some important ones.

People will disagree over whether a novel satisfies any one of these criteria, but that's actually an indication that they are objective.

The closest thing I have come up with for a mode or standard is emotions, but there are works that I consider cheap that still inspire emotions. — Red Sky

I think it’s a pretty good criterion, and I think we can recognize in ourselves the difference between a cheap emotional or sentimental response and a complex and profound one.

I think one part I get stuck over is that for something to be good it should be liked on some level, because people should be able to recognize good. However I already stated that just having the majority or a group of people like something isn't quality.
Would I still be able to call something good if nobody liked it?
Or is it just the difference between good work, and popularity?
Or is it the desire for what others to also like what I think is good?

I have always wondered whether there is an objective quality. Specifically for different forms of art and such. — Red Sky

Not a single one on which there is full consensus. There are criteria on which the majority of academics, or critics, or authors or editors or readers agree, though two or more of those groups might not agree with one another. Craft is high on the list: the author should have a strong command of language, its structure, deployment and nuances; should be able to plot a compelling story and invent relatable characters, then give them appropriate dialogue; should understand the setting and historical background of the story, and weave all these elements into a well-paced and balanced narrative. Content is also important: the author must have some message worth conveying. For me, emotion is not enough; there must also be something worth my time thinking about.

Would I still be able to call something good if nobody liked it? — Red Sky

If you want to call it good, then at least one person liked it.
But then, there are different kinds of liking. I can admire something I don't enjoy or enjoy something I don't admire. Timothy Findley's Headhunter was a critical success but not very popular. It is one of the most terrible stories I've ever read, and one of the most absorbing novels. I read it two decades ago, and I keep harking back to some aspects of it to explain what I see happening in the world. The reason this is uppermost in my mind: Earlier today I was bemoaning the absence of birds in the clear blue June sky and also reflecting on toxic teenage social media, and I saw a copy in a used bookstore. I picked it up, put it back, picked it up again, put it back and hurried away. Chickened out. Now I regret it. Book that leaves that kind of impression has to be doing something right.
Some madly popular literature, oth, even if competently written, as well as some highly extolled examples, leave me cold.

A good novel often has the following:

Diversity of interpretations
Distinctiveness and mastery of style and structure
Powerful, unique, and effective narrative voice
Technical skill (prose, description, pace, plot)
Depth of characterization
Moral complexity
Emotional depth, power, or maturity
Staying power
Formal innovation
Where there is symbolism, it is thematically important — Jamal

This does no good when not one of these itself can be objectively measured.

I have always wondered whether there is an objective quality. Specifically for different forms of art and such. — Red Sky

Short answer, no!
See David Hume's is/ought distinction.
Objective facts do not add up to subjective values.
Aesthetic judgements are subjective.
You cannot have an objective standard for a subjective quality.

I think the best you can do is consensus of experts. Or, consensus of the general population. This is not quite objective, but not subjective either, they are social realities which share properties of both.

If moles generally prefer to mate with big eared moles, this is an objective fact of mole behavior. Big ears are objectively attractive: to moles. Yet, there is nothing intrinsically attractive about big ears.

How about, the ability to engage the beholder’s mind (teaching them, making them reconsider something, saying something better than ever experienced before), and/or heart (making them feel emotion, experience physical connection). The more engagement the better the art.

I think it depends on what you mean by "objective." Within certain cultures or even human culture at large, I think there are some "objective" art standards that tend to appeal to how our brains are wired. However, I think what we see as objective truths are just subjective truths that are broadly applicable to our lived experiences, and are not based on true external universalities. If nothing else, there have been so many conflicting theories of art and what makes it good that it seems impossible for there to be a single "standard" for what makes objectively good art.

This does no good when not one of these itself can be objectively measured. — hypericin

I don't know what “does no good” means. Maybe you mean that because they are not quantifiable, they are not objective? But that doesn't follow.

When two critics cite passages from a novel to show that its characters are or are not emotionally complex, this is more than “I like it/I don’t like it”. About the latter, there can be no reasonable disagreement, but the former involves shared standards. The intersubjective is a kind of objectivity.

If nothing else, there have been so many conflicting theories of art and what makes it good that it seems impossible for there to be a single "standard" for what makes objectively good art. — MrLiminal

Disagreement doesn’t disprove objectivity; it presupposes it.

I'm not sure I understand your point. My argument is that if artist A and B have conflicting opinions about what makes art good (say, maximalist vs minimalism), then that implies there isn't an objective correct answer.

And I’m saying it implies there is an objective fact of the matter. If it were merely subjective, there would be no reasonable disagreement. It would be e.g., “I find this boring” vs “I find this exciting”.

The subjective is about the subject. The moment people disagree, they are talking about what is not specific to a subject.

I'm not sure I agree, if I understand you correctly. I would think it would be the opposite: that there could be no arguing with objective truths because they are, by their nature, objectively self-evident. It is difficult to argue that the sky is not blue, for instance, but people can argue all day long about how the color blue makes them feel. Though as I said in my original comment, I think the difference between objective and subjective is partially a matter of where you approach the question from. In minimalism, less is better. In maximalism, more is better. Within their own genre there are "objectively correct" approaches, but within the larger field of art there is not.

but people can argue all day long about how the color blue makes them feel. — MrLiminal

But these arguments are stupid. Since they are not arguing about something shared, their argument is meaningless.

What people actually do is dress up subjective differences as objective, e.g., “the sky’s colour has a peaceful quality” vs “no, the sky’s colour has a stressful quality”.

Practitioners in the Humanities, like historians and philosophers, endeavour to do more than that, i.e., to give their arguments about objective qualities some substance, even if they cannot be decided. “The primary cause of the Second World War was the harshness of the Treaty of Versailles” cannot be proved, measured, or agreed upon, and is certainly not “self-evident”, but it’s not merely subjective.

And I’m saying it implies there is an objective fact of the matter. If it were merely subjective, there would be no reasonable disagreement. It would be e.g., “I find this boring” vs “I find this exciting”.

The subjective is about the subject. The moment people disagree, they are talking about what is not specific to a subject. — Jamal

If you ignore Hume's dictum, there are certainly objective facts about a piece of art that can be pointed out in support of a subjective value judgement; but they do not necessitate such a judgement. After all, people liked Star Wars.

I'd admit the special effects, the art and design, the music and so on were all good. But the writing was bad, the light/dark moral dichotomy - simplistic and positively damaging, the politics was contrived, the force is wholly unscientific, there are allusions to bestiality, I could go on.

The fact it was popular is not an objective fact that necessitates subjective approval.
I positively disliked Star Wars; other people loved it.

I think we may be talking past each other, tbh. I'm not necessarily saying that popularity = objective quality. I'm saying that if there was an objective standard of "good art" then it would be impossible to make good art that does not follow that standard. The fact that this is not the case implies there is no objective standard, imo. If there was a known way to make art good every time, artists would just do that.

An example that comes to mind is how art of the past sometimes becomes subject to "Seinfeld is unfunny" syndrome, where when it first came out it was considered groundbreaking and amazing. However, over time other art emulated it to the point that it robs the original of all the things that made it new and interesting, making it seem bland in hindsight. Over enough time, this cycle can start over with the changing of culture, and those things can become new and fresh again.

If it were objectively true that Seinfeld broke new ground when it first came out; that wouldn't necessitate that someone like it. Maybe some people don't enjoy new things. That's a subjective value judgement. Nor is it necessary that just because something has been emulated - that it is robbed of what makes it interesting. Again, that's a subjective value judgement.
Getting down to long established philosophical principles.... no quantity of objective facts add up to a subjective value. If the purpose here is discussion rather than learning philosophy, maybe I'm stepping on the discussion, but I feel like the OP asked a specific question deserving of, what is - the well established answer.

But that goes back to my original point, that it depends on how you define objective vs subjective. I think the answer changes depending on what scale you look at, but that on the largest universal scale, there is no objective standard of art. The point I am trying to make is that on small scales (small communities or specific art movements), objective standards might be possible for art, but that in the larger scale they are not. I feel like that's not coming across based on the responses I'm getting.

I think it depends on what you mean by "objective." Within certain cultures or even human culture at large, I think there are some "objective" art standards that tend to appeal to how our brains are wired. However, I think what we see as objective truths are just subjective truths that are broadly applicable to our lived experiences, and are not based on true external universalities. If nothing else, there have been so many conflicting theories of art and what makes it good that it seems impossible for there to be a single "standard" for what makes objectively good art. — MrLiminal

There are deeper arguments that invoke evolution in relation to physical reality, in the construction of aesthetic psychological architectures, but I think that's a lot to lay on the OP, who - it seems to me, is probably not an expert.
There are also arguments that might be made about whether x painting is an objectively good example of a certain style of painting, maybe. But again, I think you're then into philosophy as it plays out in a socio-cultural milieu - again, pretty advanced stuff.
The short answer to the OP's question is 'no.' There is not an objective quality. That's a contradiction of terms. Rule of thumb: Qualities are subjective. Facts are objective. And then we can see how far we can bend the rule.

...objective... — Red Sky

So hackneyed a term, given that no one seems to know what it means.

Are you looking for a mind-independent truth? But how could a judgement be mind-independent? Are you looking for something impartial or unbiased? But the whole point of attributing quality is to be partial and biased. So are you looking for values that exist despite opinion? What could that mean?

Are we left, then, with "intersubjective agreement", So that the bare fact that so many people eat McDonalds (or watch Star Wars) means it must be of a high quality?

Or is aesthetic judgement embedded in community and culture, tradition and workmanship, coherence and responsiveness; is it learned and communicable, an aspect of growth?

An activity rather than a thing.

I think the interesting philosophical question, is why objectivity is tacitly regarded as the sole criterion of quality. Objectivity generally refers to the ability to set aside personal beliefs so as to arrive at a judgement based solely on the attributes of the object or situation. Interestingly the term ‘objectivity’ enters English only in the early modern period, reflecting a broader underlying cultural shift. As science begins to hold sway, knowledge came to be understood as that which is independent of individual perspective. This was a shift from earlier models of truth, such as aletheia in Ancient Greece or veritas in the medieval Christian context, which assumed a participatory or disclosed relationship between knower and known.

And clearly in many occupations objectivity is necessary and desirable - such as jurisprudence, history, and the like. But aesthetics, literature and philosophy are a different matter. Objectivity is part of it, but you’re also appealing to factors which can’t be reduced to objective terms. How it moves you, what it evokes, how it resonates - none of these qualities are strictly objective, but they’re also not necessarily subjective in the sense of being simply or merely personal or pertaining only to the individual.

don't know what “does no good” means. Maybe you mean that because they are not quantifiable, they are not objective? — Jamal

Meaning it doesn't help to answer the question. Not only are these not objectively quantifiable, they are not objectively evaluable at all.

but the former involves shared standards. — Jamal

Except the standards are likely not shared at all, hence such arguments are interminable.

Disagreement doesn’t disprove objectivity; it presupposes it. — Jamal

It might presume it. But that presumption can easily be a mistake, precisely the kind of mistake philosophy should aim to correct.

Disagreement doesn’t disprove objectivity; it presupposes it. — Jamal

I can see how this works and there's an intuitive appeal to it, after all, if people are disagreeing, they seem to be appealing to some shared standard, however vaguely defined. But I remain ambivalent.

Isn’t it also possible that disagreement just reflects a clash of preferences or worldviews, with no stable objectivity underneath? When I respond to your view here, am I really engaging in a rational pursuit of truth, or am I simply performing a kind of power move, attempting to universalise my own subjective stance?

Even the very structure of philosophical debate sometimes feels less like a search for objective truth and more like a struggle over whose lens on the world becomes dominant. In that case, disagreement doesn’t so much presuppose objectivity as it performs a social contest, perhaps masked, by the language of reason. Or something like this.

And yes, this implies that all discourse is problematic, ultimately lacking foundation. You raise the idea of intersubjective agreement or epistemic communities. But does that amount to a form of objectivism, or is it merely a cluster of like-minded individuals reinforcing a shared orthodoxy? After all, what counts as “evidence” or “sound reasoning” within such communities is often defined by the very group that claims to be rational. So are we talking about objective standards, or just mutual reinforcement dressed up as epistemic legitimacy?

Great post. I hope to reply later. I suspect I will conclude that all of that makes objectivity difficult, but not impossible.

:up:

That word - objective - again causes more confusion than clarity.

If had only said that disagreement can only take place against, and so presupposes, a background of agreement, instead of saying it presupposes objectivity.

But yes, great post.

If ↪Jamal had only said that disagreement can only take place against, and so presupposes, a background of agreement, instead of saying it presupposes objectivity. — Banno

Maybe it means the same thing. Maybe I'm bringing the concept back to its roots.

But sure, point taken.

Maybe it means the same thing. — Jamal

No!

The objective/subjective dichotomy is a mistake. Much clearer to use charity and truth, after Davidson.