So at some juncture in a person’s life, after certain experiences, a piece of artwork that previously did nothing much for them - or maybe even repulsed them -comes to the fore as they’ve grown emotionally and/or have a more investigative interest in art in general. — I like sushi

Good point. I think the process happens in reverse too. Lots of things I liked when younger are impossible to enjoy now.

Good point. I think the process happens in reverse too. Lots of things I liked when younger are impossible to enjoy now. — old

I've never been able to relate to "outgrowing" any artworks. My tastes have always just broadened. I still like everything I used to like.

On a personal level, I think we all have our preferences. — old

I think that still comes down to defining good art as ‘ I know what I like’, which doesn’t really help in deciding whether elitists are defining art and therefore owning it and forcing it on us.

I've never been able to relate to "outgrowing" any artworks. My tastes have always just broadened. I still like everything I used to like. — Terrapin Station

My tastes have definitely broadened, but indeed I do find that only some of what I loved when younger is still enjoyable.

I think that still comes down to defining good art as ‘ I know what I like’, which doesn’t really help in deciding whether elitists are defining art and therefore owning it and forcing it on us. — Brett

Fair enough. Let's focus on the elite. Do they have much power to control art these days? At one time it may have been important to drop learned references. But now just about everyone can leap into school debt and sit through an English class. 'Shakespeare' is more likely to indicate an out-of-touch pretentiousness than a connection to money and the levers of power. Same with Rembrandt or whomever. It's not that expensive to visit a museum or by a coffee table book. I guess I just don't see much forcing of art on anyone outside of school. Some have complained that art has become too political/ideological in schools. In any case, I don't think it's very potent. A sophisticated cynicism seems to be the rule. Conspiracy theory is the mood of the times. Someone somewhere is pulling the strings from behind a curtain. Plato's Allegory of the Cave, The Matrix, political talk. While some people have more of a tug than others, I'd still wager that the world is just too complex for anything more than influence. After all, where are those who believe what they are told about good art? They are likely to be young people trying to decide on a public persona, which is to say choose a tribe.

quote="ZhouBoTong;d5398"]However, once convinced of their superiority, the elites are happy to force their tastes on the rest of us[/


I find it amusing how, after all this discussion, it’s only now ( I might be mistaken) that the idea of the elite actually having this power is questioned. You’re right, I don’t think they do have this power. Shakespeare might be performed in London by The Royal Shakespeare Company and attended by the elite. What of it? That’s what they like and pay for it. Even if some students are asked to study one of Shakespeare’s play it’s hardly forcing it down their throats, it’s just an aspect of English studies. The fact that there is so much art and so much different art, high and low, suggests that the elites play very little part in art. Sotheby’s might sell painting for millions of dollars, but that has nothing to do with art, elite or not, it’s commerce. Of course there’s nothing to stop the very rich thinking they’re elite, let them, they pay a lot for it and they only influence each other in the end.

Shakespeare might be performed in London by The Royal Shakespeare Company and attended by the elite. What of it? That’s what they like and pay for it. — Brett

Indeed. And let's not forget the groundlings. If I remember correctly, the elite were snobby about Shakespeare. He was a self-made man, only slightly educated, and his plays were rough as opposed to polished. He was as much pop culture as high culture. The theater was disreputable. It was controversial, sinful, the rock-n-roll of its day perhaps. But wait a few centuries and what was once pop culture is understood as something higher than pop culture.

Even if some students are asked to study one of Shakespeare’s play it’s hardly forcing it down their throats, it’s just an aspect of English studies. — Brett

I agree, and it seems to me that English studies don't have much weight. It is important to choose one's words carefully, as always, but then we have direct access to those who are praised and blamed and the kind of language they are praised and blamed for. Anyone who really cares will read and write in their lives outside of school, in the wild where English really lives.

The fact that there is so much art and so much different art, high and low, suggests that the elites play very little part in art. Sotheby’s might sell painting for millions of dollars, but that has nothing to do with art, elite or not, it’s commerce. Of course there’s nothing to stop the very rich thinking they’re elite, let them, they pay a lot for it and they only influence each other in the end. — Brett

Right. And as I commented on another thread, the dominant art of our time is on Netflix and Spotify. A tiny group of rich people can spend millions of dollars on possessing one-of-a-kind 'magic' items. Conspicuous consumption will perhaps always be with us. On the flipside we'll have poor junkies making extreme noise music in basements and feeling above everything safe and tame. Perhaps one function of art is to serve as an indicator of 'true' and not merely apparent status. At its most intense, art seems like religious iconography, with subjective content substituted for supernatural content. And perhaps the supernatural was a language for subjective experience all along, at least for some or partially.

At its most intense, art seems like religious iconography, with subjective content substituted for supernatural content. And perhaps the supernatural was a language for subjective experience all along, at least for some or partially. — old

Very interesting.

Thanks.

Sorry all, too many responses, would take forever in multiple posts...so here is 1 BIG one.

No, art is supposed to convey emotions and/or ideas of significant value. Entertainment need not do that. So, the two are different even though they may overlap in some instances. You can refuse to recognize the difference if you want but there's nothing particularly "elitist" in it—it's generally accepted even by those who are not into art. — Baden

I was trying to avoid this but your statement above seems to have added a great deal to the definition of "art"?

art1
/ärt/Submit
noun
1.
the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
"the art of the Renaissance"
synonyms: fine art, artwork, creative activity
"he studied art"
2.
the various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, literature, and dance.

I believe "Spiderman" made a similar point, but as that was 'low brow' entertainment, I expect it's just nonsense. — Isaac

No way. Just entertainment. You must have mis-interpreted that lesson :grin:

Just wondering if you might agree that Dickens did actually carry out his ‘duty’ with his books. — Brett

This case did not seem to be about Dickens carrying out duty but those who read him with the goal of real learning (I can "know" that poverty seems rough {understatement} from reading Dicken's, I don't "know" he is factually correct until I do research).

So it's not so much that Hamlet can't provide any learning, it's that, if it does, such learning is difficult to measure, may well be subjectively better for some people than others and is of an indefinable sort. How then can one be so sure that Hamlet is definitely better at this sybilline task than any other story? — Isaac

Yes! I never saw an answer to this...did I miss it?

How would you rationally support an opinion that x characterization is better than y characterization, a plot elements are better than b plot elements, etc.? — Terrapin Station

Again, dead on. And again, was there a response?

I'm not sure I'm so content with what seems a little slight of hand with defining these nebulous learning experiences as coming from art, on the one hand, and then on the other claiming that an art form's ability to provide these previously hazy experiences can be clearly seen, measured and compared. — Isaac

More greatness. I am glad you and @Terrapin Station could represent my opinion for the last couple days (and often said it more clearly and more concise).

That's because it wouldn't teach you anything of value. — NKBJ

Ok? Please tell me what I learned from Shakespeare, Homer, Dickens, Tolstoy, Hemingway, Thoreau, etc. Then I will find some low brow pop culture crap (all my favorites) that teaches a very similar lesson.

But some art is better than other art because it better fulfills what we want art to do. — NKBJ

Who is "we"? If Die Hard is what I (me) want out of "art", then why is "Hamlet" better?

See above: deeper. more complex, more rich artistically. — NKBJ

I think this highlights the problem. Which is deeper, richer, and more complex, the Mona Lisa or a Jackson Pollock painting? How would I even begin to measure those things. What if I fill a paper with pencil scribbles? Certainly not "richer", but certainly more complex (in some way - less in others) and deeper is just a matter of what a viewer interprets (although absent interpretation layer upon layer of pencil scratches would be a type of depth).

Michael Bay and all the others borrow from these basic plots and fail catastrophically to create anything of great value. — NKBJ

Michael Bay has added FAR more value to MY life than Shakespeare. And at best he has mildly entertained me for a few dozen hours. All Shakespeare has done is taught me is that some people in the past had crap morals (pure opinion) which as @Isaac said I learned much better from history. And nearly EVERY old book teaches that lesson anyway. Oh, and minus a few lines of decent trash-talk, I have received almost ZERO entertainment value from Shakespeare.

Some people just don’t ‘see’ art. — Brett

If you are one of those people then it’s most likely you’ll regard those art lovers as elitists. — Brett

Of course I do. They have just defined "art" as something beyond me. So all of this stuff in life that I like and thought was "art" (movies, tv, music, photography, paintings, literature, etc) actually is just "entertainment". If I want "real" "good" (better) "art" then I need to look at (or listen) the "art" ( (movies, tv, music, photography, paintings, literature, etc) that they have analyzed and approved as "good art"?

Come on. Give me more. What are the OBJECTIVE cut offs? Where is the line that says this movie is art and that one is just entertainment? What is in the definition of art that allows one work to be "better" than another?

I find it amusing how, after all this discussion, it’s only now ( I might be mistaken) that the idea of the elite actually having this power is questioned. — Brett

I was really just referring to required reading in school. Did anyone NOT have to read Shakespeare in school? I have no more problem with a person liking Shakespeare than I do when a person likes Transformers. Just so long as they don't think they are right or better for that opinion.

English studies don't have much weight. — old

Careful. This fits my line of thinking. Someone who thinks Shakespeare (or any "classics") is great will feel that 4 years of required English class in high school is well justified. My thoughts are that poetry and literature should be reduced to electives with the rest of the arts (just to add, I entirely support teaching or encouraging "art" in school. But if painting and movies are de-funded, poetry and literature shouldn't be taught as if they are something "more").

So it's not so much that Hamlet can't provide any learning, it's that, if it does, such learning is difficult to measure, may well be subjectively better for some people than others and is of an indefinable sort. How then can one be so sure that Hamlet is definitely better at this sybilline task than any other story? — Isaac

The fact that it's been remembered and celebrated for centuries is evidence, if not absolute proof, that it's better than most at whatever it does. Whether it's better in a particular context depends on the story it's being compared to, what's supposed to be being learned, and who is doing the learning. As in most cases, when you say A is better than B, it's advisable to qualify your statement. A is better than B, for what? for who? In what context? Some people will be immediately turned off Hamlet because of the difficulty of understanding the antiquated language. Some people just don't like plays. The plot may confuse or bore others. And if a work of art can't engage you, it probably can't teach you much.

On the other hand, this doesn't mean there are no criteria under which the potential for learning can be examined or under which to make aesthetic judgements. Basic grammar standards along with style manuals can guide judgements on how badly or well books are written. Colour theory helps inform criticism of painting. Plots have structures that can be analysed and evaluated etc.

Re the latter, for example, here's a plot for a short story:

A woman joins a philosophy forum, makes a post and then drinks a cup of tea and goes to bed. The next morning she wakes up and goes to work. When she's finished work, she comes home and has her dinner. She then goes to bed again.

Not very good, is it? Why? Well, for a start it's not structured in such a way as to engage the reader (it's not even in the genre of narrative, so there's an argument it's not even a story rather than just a recount of events). There's no suspense. Nothing of interest happens. To most people, this general point would be obvious. But some (I don't mean you btw) will insist on arguing the false dilemma that because there can be no absolutely objective criteria re judging art, anything goes, and there's no way to say any one piece of art has more value than another or to claim something as art and something as not, which is a tiresome and boring position to take that suggests not much more than said person knows nothing about art or art theory, and instead of learning something about it would rather do other things such as spend time watching shit movies and resenting anyone who doesn't, or making arguments that aren't really arguments but are just complaints, and generally employ the pretence of intelligence to dig a hole under common sense into which they hope to drag everyone else into. To which I respond, if it's elitist not to join them in their bunkers, I'll gladly don the mantel.

Please tell me what I learned from Shakespeare, Homer, Dickens, Tolstoy, Hemingway, Thoreau, etc. Then I will find some low brow pop culture crap (all my favorites) that teaches a very similar lesson. — ZhouBoTong

I don't know what YOU learned, but then you are not the barometer of artistic quality.

As for what one can learn from these, I'll refer you to the WorldCat so you can peruse at your leisure the millions and millions of pages of dissertations, analyses, and commentary on the authors you mention in regard to pretty much any philosophical topic. Right there you have your proof of their depth and complexity.

Michael Bay's work simply cannot live up to such scrutiny. I do, however, tip my hat to this fellow who gave it one heck of a shot. (You'll notice he cheated the word count though with excessive use of stills from the movies, bold font, and just general recapping instead of analysis.)

Who is "we"? If Die Hard is what I (me) want out of "art", then why is "Hamlet" better? — ZhouBoTong

It's true that we must first define art. And then define what makes art great. I think "we," and by that I mean a nebulous mass consisting of the culture at large and more specifically the people who care to think about these things, define great art as something that enlightens, ennobles, enriches.

As I already said, Bay and others make a certain kind of art very well: entertainment art, or "pop art." It's main purpose is to entertain. It does! I'm thoroughly entertained by these movies. But one does not walk away from them a better person, or filled with new ideas about philosophy, or enriched in any meaningful way. Maybe these movies have a moment here or there that sort of nod in the general direction of a thought, but it's not the multi-faceted approach you get from, say, Hamlet.

Michael Bay has added FAR more value to MY life than Shakespeare. — ZhouBoTong

That says more about you than it does about Shakespeare.

All Shakespeare has done is taught me is that some people in the past had crap morals (pure opinion) which as Isaac said I learned much better from history. And nearly EVERY old book teaches that lesson anyway. Oh, and minus a few lines of decent trash-talk, I have received almost ZERO entertainment value from Shakespeare. — ZhouBoTong

This tells me you haven't spent much time actually analyzing Shakespeare. But maybe you have, and it's meaning has eluded you.

But show some humility for crikey's sake: Shakespeare has been read and admired for centuries by millions of people. Thousands of people have, as I pointed out above, written millions of pages explaining just how and why his words are deep. And here you, piddly little you, come along and want to claim with one fell sweep that because YOU can't understand Shakespeare it's suddenly not great art? That your personal favorite action movies could somehow even compare? It just doesn't make sense.

And before you tell me "well, just cause a lot of people believe something doesn't make it true." Sure. BUT, Okham's Razor says that if the majority believe it is, and you don't (for no good reason, I might add), then you're wrong.

Someone who thinks Shakespeare (or any "classics") is great will feel that 4 years of required English class in high school is well justified. My thoughts are that poetry and literature should be reduced to electives with the rest of the arts (just to add, I entirely support teaching or encouraging "art" in school. — ZhouBoTong

I've like many of the classics, personally, but I do have my doubts about forcing them on students, especially when students have to pay for the privilege and the experience is tainted with having to squeeze points out of some teacher. To me there's something gross about using a profound work in a game of grade-chasing. Responses are graded, implying the inferiority of the student's perspective.

Let's say we free up the situation: no grades, just talk. Well anyone can do that already. Unless the professor is charismatic, there won't be any customers. I'm no Jordan Peterson fan, but that's an example of a more honest product, honest in terms of students gathering around someone charismatic willingly and not being randomly assigned to a hit-or-miss piece of the academic machinery. If the student isn't engaged and is just hacking some 'stupid requirement,' the class may even be counter-productive, a turn-off -- especially if the teacher doesn't inspire respect. It's just hard to see what purpose forced and graded literary studies serve other than indoctrination, and some of my classes in the humanities did feel like lengthy sermons, with a little knowledge sprinkled on top at no extra charge.

The fact that it's been remembered and celebrated for centuries is evidence, if not absolute proof, that it's better than most at whatever it does. — Baden

Fair a start this is a statistical inevitability, they've been around longer than these Michael Bay films that are being referred to (I should confess now I've not seen any, so I'm limping them in with general action films). It's therefore a biased comparison already to say they're probably better because they've stood the test of time.

Secondly, the judgement begs the question. It only works if, by "celebrated for centuries" you already mean "celebrated by the very elite whose authority your argument is supposed to demonstrate. Otherwise, the most celebrated book of all time is without a doubt The Lord of the Rings, which vies with the Bible for the most popular book of all time. There is, as I understand it, an entire subculture and an entire industry built off the back of it. I can't think of a much more objective definition of "celebrated" than the fact that more people have a copy of it than any other story in the world. Do we teach that book to our children in English class? No.

Not very good, is it? Why? Well, for a start it's not structured in such a way as to engage the reader (it's not even in the genre of narrative, so there's an argument it's not even a story rather than just a recount of events). There's no suspense. Nothing of interest happens. To most people, this general point would be obvious. — Baden

You've given a straw-man of an example. Even Harry Potter meets all the criteria you've set there. Readers are undeniably "engaged". Its definitely within a "genre", suspense is subjective, but to the degree we'd all agree on the definition, the book definitely has suspence. I read it to my children, and couldn't wait to find out what happened next on some evenings. It's abundantly clear that things of interest happen because thousands of children (and quite a few adults) are "interested" enough to have considerable discussions about it.

You're playing sleight of hand again. You're argument here is - "there are criteria we'd all agree with that make a goid/bad story... Therefore the art critics are right". Your logic just doesn't support the conclusion. It's not the very basics that are in dispute here, it's the claims of the sort that Hamlet is better, more worthy of study, than The Lord of the Rings.

Both are written in perfectly correct grammar (in fact, much of Chaucer's grammar is now incorrect, and we still study that, so that argument is bullshit for a start). Both engage readers, both have a narrative, both clearly interest people. So if you want to defend the notion that one is objectively better than the other, you'll have to do better than laying out a few basics.

Sure. BUT, Okham's Razor says that if the majority believe it is, and you don't (for no good reason, I might add), then you're wrong. — NKBJ

Woah. So in the nineteenth century someone who believed that black people were of equal value to whites was "wrong"? What kind of bullshit argument is that?

The final part of my argument above wasn't aimed at your points, but at the superficial skeptics extant here. Establishing that Hamlet is 'better' than 'Harry Potter' or the 'Lord of the Rings' would require much qualification. Better at what? Better art? Probably... but all three works mentioned have definite merits and are the result of much skill and creativity, and it would take an extensive analysis to do a proper evaluative comparison. So, dismissing them out of hand would be elitist, I agree. A Michael Bay movie, on the other hand, is primarily a bunch of visual porn, the movie equivalent of a brief sugar high, and isn't worth discussing in terms of art.

You missed the part where he said 'for no good reason'.

There are posters around here who would, in the name of philosophy, point at turds in toilet bowls and babble "Why is this objectively worse than a gourmet meal! Prove it! PROVE IT! Objectively! Philosophically! Rationally!..? Why? Why? WHY?" falsely imagining because they said some words smart people regularly use, some of it must inevitably rub off on them. The correct response is: You feel thus? Fine, eat the turd, I'll stick to the chicken soup. Any further time spent on them is likely to be effort wasted.

Establishing that Hamlet is 'better' than 'Harry Potter' or the 'Lord of the Rings' would require much qualification. Better at what? Better art? Probably... but all three works mentioned have definite merits and are the result of much skill and creativity, and it would take an extensive analysis to do a proper evaluative comparison. So, dismissing them out of hand would be elitist, I agree. A Michael Bay movie, on the other hand, is primarily a bunch of visual porn, the movie equivalent of a brief sugar high, and isn't worth discussing in terms of art. — Baden

But this is the exact point I'm interested in. The actual mechanics behind keeping a bridge up are complex beyond my level of understanding, but the measures by which a good bridge is distinguished from a bad one are there for all to see. Maybe not everyone will realise that, in addition to supporting the traffic, it may need to earthquake proof, resistant to salt spray, cost-efficient, but these are easily told. Maybe there are a small number of more comex measures of bridge quality that are too complex for the layman to understand, but these are undoubtedly minor, because the bridge serves a purpose that was not set by the engineers employed to build it. We (the bridge users) must understand the main purpose of the bridge because it is we who's asked for it.

We (the mass public) are the consumers of art, not just the artists, not just the art critics. Or else you have an extremely narrow definition of art. So for we, the consumers, to be told we don't understand what good art is, is patronising and elitist. We're the one who asked for it in the first place. Now I accept you could make an argument that a painter may still paint even if no one ever asked him to, and I accept that, but by entertaining the concept of art criticism, you are explicitly including the consumer of the art otherwise it has no one on which to have its effect.

Hence my accusation of sleight of hand. You seem to engineer your responses to shy away from a simple statement of the main things a work of art is supposed to do, such that art can be compared by its ability to achieve it. I'm not looking for an exhaustive list, but I am looking for some measures which support your claim of objectivity. All that has been given so far are measures like "engagement" which are entirely subjective, or measures like grammar, which are met by virtually every book that's seen a copy editor.

You missed the part where he said 'for no good reason'.

There are posters around here who would, in the name of philosophy, point at turds in toilet bowls and babble "Why is this objectively worse than a gourmet meal! Prove it! PROVE IT! Objectively! Philosophically! Rationally!..? Why? Why? WHY?" falsely imagining because they said some words smart people regularly use, some of it must inevitably rub off on them. The correct response is: You feel thus? Fine, eat the turd, I'll stick to the chicken soup. Any further time spent on them is likely to be effort wasted. — Baden

I didn't miss that part, I ignored it. The point you're making here is another straw-man. No one actually is arguing that turds are better than gourmet meals. The point these people (myself included) are arguing against is the misuse of common agreement to get controversial opinions passed without argument by appeal to it.

Personally I'd rather live in a philosophical climate where it was hard to say gourmet meals are better than turds than I would live in a society where it was easy to say Jews are a lesser species and point to the fact that "everyone knows that!" as my evidence.

We're the one who asked for it in the first place. — Isaac

You didn’t ask for it, it was given to you. I keep telling you, the artist doesn’t care about you.

We (the mass public) are the consumers of art, not just the artists, not just the art critics. Or else you have an extremely narrow definition of art. — Isaac

I’m happy to exclude art critics, but if you are going to give the consumer the same understanding of art as the artist then you yourself don’t know anything about art.

Your analogy of the bridge doesn’t work because in art the purpose of the bridge was not set by the consumer.

You didn’t ask for it, it was given to you. I keep telling you, the artist doesn’t care about you. — Brett

I don't have any art 'given' to me. I'm not sure I understand your reference. I get the idea that artists make art whatever, that's a given. But we're not discussing why artists make art, we're discussing which works of art are better than others, and we're discussing it specifically in the context of the effect such works have on the consumer of that art.

If the question was "which artworks are better for the artist who makes them?", then maybe my point about creating a demand for art would be irrelevant, but we're not. Art has an effect on people because they consume it in some way. It is in the public domain to be consumed because there is a demand for it. If there weren't we'd have nothing to discuss here.

I didn't miss that part, I ignored it. — Isaac

Then you obviously straw-manned him. There are good reasons why slavery was wrong (and why anti-semitism is wrong). Nobody is making an argument purely from popular opinion here otherwise Michael Bay would win out over Shakespeare hands down.

The point these people (myself included) are arguing against is the misuse of common agreement to get controversial opinions passed without argument by appeal to it. — Isaac

Again, one example of that would be a claim that Michael Bay movies have artistic value because many people enjoy them.

You seem to engineer your responses to shy away from a simple statement of the main things a work of art is supposed to do, such that art can be compared by its ability to achieve it. I'm not looking for an exhaustive list, but I am looking for some measures which support your claim of objectivity. — Isaac

I'm not making a claim of "objectivity". There is no purely objective stance that can be taken on art. There are though good reasons to believe certain works are more artistic than others. Sometimes that justification needs to be made and sometimes it doesn't. And there are thousands of works out there on art theory and criticism that do justify artistic judgements.

So, can the elites get it wrong? Sure, of course, why not? But if by "elites", all you mean is people who actually make an effort at understanding, examining, analyzing and writing about art then it's at least more likely that they'll have something to say worth listening to than random people who make no effort to understand art, don't appreciate it, and speak primarily from a position of ignorance. Can we agree on that at least?

We're the one who asked for it in the first place. — Isaac

I’m saying you didn’t get it because you asked for it. You found it.

But we're not discussing why artists make art, — Isaac

Well we are if you think it was made because you wanted it, that you asked for it.

It is in the public domain to be consumed because there is a demand for it. If there weren't we'd have nothing to discuss here. — Isaac

Actually, whether there was a demand for it or not by consumers art would still exist and the discussion would still be alive.

Then you obviously straw-manned him. There are good reasons why slavery was wrong (and why anti-semitism is wrong). Nobody is making an argument purely from popular opinion here otherwise Michael Bay would win out over Shakespeare hands down. — Baden

It doesn't matter if its 'popular' opinion or the 'opinion' of some selected group (in this case art critics and academics). The danger remains the same. The delegation of reason to some group of people presumed to just 'know' what is best is a danger I'm not prepared to support. Where did those 'good' reasons get the Jewish people in Nazi Germany, or the millions of African-Americans in 19th Century America? Nowhere, because people simply declared that their opinions on the matter must be right because "look at {group x}, they all agree its right". Its bad philosophy simpliciter.

Again, one example of that would be a claim that Michael Bay movies have artistic value because many people enjoy them. — Baden

Yes, it would be, but that is not the claim here. The claim is that those films are no better or worse, than Hamlet. That is an ontological claim about the existence or otherwise of factors which objectively raise one above the other.

I'm not making a claim of "objectivity". There is no purely objective stance that can be taken on art. There are though good reasons to believe certain works are more artistic than others. — Baden

Claiming that there are 'good' reasons is the objective claim that I am objecting to. There are reasons, sure. But an argument that those reasons are 'good', as opposed to just ones you personally like, is an argument of objectivity.

's at least more likely that they'll have something to say worth listening to than random people who make no effort to understand art, don't appreciate it, and speak primarily from a position of ignorance. Can we agree on that at least? — Baden

No, I don't see any reason why that would be the case without begging the question.

Firstly, such people will definitely have more to say sensu lato, but I don't see any obvious reason reason why, what thay have to say is likely to be of more worth. What is the connection you're drawing between spending a lot of time analysing a piece of art in a particular way, and the results of that examination being of objective worth? Someone could spend years analysing the hue of the pages Beowulf was written on, they're certainly in a better position than others to give that information in exact chromatic scale, but does that automatically make their opinion on Beowulf more worth listening to? It seems to me something more is required to add worth than time spent.

Secondly, art critics are no less human than any other group. They will be just as affected by in-group bias, mutual-reinforcing of beliefs, fashions and errors as anyone, as a base. So the fact, alone, that they give a relatively unified answer that is different to the average, is not evidence of anything more than simple group psychology. You'd still need to show some reason why any analysis might yield insights, in order to make an argument that greater analysis will yield greater such insights. If there's nothing to find, more time looking will simply yield nothing still.

Basically, we haven't yet surmounted the fundamental problem of what art is supposed to do. If the things which art is supposed to do are nebulous, then any judgement about its ability to do that will be nebulous too.

I’m saying you didn’t get it because you asked for it. You found it. — Brett

I find shoes in a shop, I bring home and wear the ones I ask for. It is only those whose effect on me I can judge.

You're slippery but transparent.

Woah. So in the nineteenth century someone who believed that black people were of equal value to whites was "wrong"? What kind of bullshit argument is that? — Isaac

False equivalency.

First of all, nobody is talking about race here. We're talking about art.

Second of all, race is an objectively poor measure by which to judge the worth of people. We have things to point to outside of ourselves that make that a dumb idea. Zhou is trying to claim that Shakespeare et.al . are not as great as previously thought not by reference to any objective standard of measure, but by reference purely to himself and his personal whims.

Third of all, if you find that the majority of people believe x, and you believe y, then you really should reconsider y, even if you think x might be immoral. And if through reconsidering you find the objective measures I mentioned above that support your y over x, you can stick with y. But if you can't, then show some humility.

Fourth of all, try using your brain and formulating an actual argument before just dismissing others crudely.

First of all, nobody is talking about race here. We're talking about art. — NKBJ

This is not a relevant point on its own. Cats are not dogs, that doesn't mean they're not both hairy. The fact alone that we're not talking about race doesn't make any equivalence I draw automatically false.

Second of all, race is an objectively poor measure by which to judge the worth of people. We have things to point to outside of ourselves that make that a dumb idea. Zhou is trying to claim that Shakespeare et.al . are not as great as previously thought not by reference to any objective standard of measure, but by reference purely to himself and his personal whims. — NKBJ

If race is an objectively poor measure by which to judge the worth of people, then why did so many people used to think it wasn't? All you've done is kicked the can. Now we have to decide if race is or isn't an objectively poor measure. Do we trust the majority here?

Third of all, if you find that the majority of people believe x, and you believe y, then you really should reconsider y, even if you think x might be immoral. And if through reconsidering you find the objective measures I mentioned above that support your y over x, you can stick with y. But if you can't, then show some humility. — NKBJ

And what is it that makes you sure Zhou hasn't already done this... That he didn't reach the same conclusion as you? I've seen little in your responses along the lines of guiding Zhou through a process of looking at the objective measures used to judge art. I just see a lot of bluster and bare declarations.

Fourth of all, try using your brain and formulating an actual argument before just dismissing others crudely. — NKBJ

I presume this is meant to be ironic?