I would argue that on most objective measures some works of art are better than others. For example, some works of music are more complex if you want to define complex as meaning a piece has rhythm, beat, melody etc. You can argue that the objective measures we currently use are meaningless or insignificant to you, but art is made popular if it is loved by most people, so it is your job to try to convince people that the media you prefer is better on some measure . — curiousnewbie

"Objective" isn't the same thing as a consensus, and proposing that it is is just an argumentum ad populum.

Just in the news yesterday, by the way--a high school that did their own production of the film, Alien:

https://deadline.com/2019/03/ridley-scott-alien-the-play-reaction-new-jersey-high-school-gladiator-1202584389/

Yes, you’re right. Though the script for a movie is made for the camera and edits. But they could do scenes.

There’s another aspect to Shakespeare’s plays which is the poetry. There’s a rythmn to this writing which is about the spoken word and the voice as an instrument. Even if students studied other plays they would still miss out on this aspect.

Though the script for a movie is made for the camera and edits. — Brett

Scripts standardly have no camera notations at all. Only shooting scripts have any camera directions, but those are harder to acquire. Scripts you can easily acquire are written very similarly to plays.

I wouldn't argue that all dialogue is poetic in the same way that Shakespeare is--it's obviously not all in strict meter, for example. But it's wrong to say that dialogue doesn't typically focus on rhythm, careful word choice, voices as instruments, etc.

Scripts standardly have no camera notations at all. Only shooting scripts have any camera directions, — Terrapin Station

I wasn’t really thinking of camera directions, just that the script is written with the camera in mind. However I take your point.

Yeah, writers will often try to imply camera directions, but you have to be really careful about that. It's considered amateurish or unprofessional to do that too blatantly, because directors and cinematographers see it as you trying to do their jobs for them, trying to take over jobs and make decisions that aren't yours to make as a scriptwriter, not to mention that it can make it harder to sell a spec script in that case, because you're painting a much more restrictive picture that might not be feasible --camera decisions often have a pragmatic element to them, depending on equipment available, the film's budget, the shooting window (the time available), etc. You can't know any of that stuff especially on a spec script. For example, if you make something like a really elaborate, extended tracking shot an integral part of a script, you're decreasing the chances that you'll sell the script.

The alternative to ad populum in this case is to go with the opinion of a minority. If you say it is fallacious to go with the majority just because they are the majority, why is a minority's opinion any better than a majority?

If you want to follow others for some reason, and you prefer following the consensus, that's fine. The point is to simply call it for what it is. It would be your preference to follow the consensus merely because it's the consensus. There's nothing objective(ly correct) about it.

It's logically impossible to say that it's objectively true that all interpretation of art is subjective since that is an interpretation of art.

It seems a given in educated circles that Shakespeare and DaVinci created "better" art than, lets say, Michael Bay (makes movies that many would consider "low brow" like Transformers or Armageddon). Is there even a little justification for this? — ZhouBoTong

No. There is no 'good art' or 'bad art', nor is there any such thing as 'better' art. If the artist presents someting as art, it is art. Your part, and mine, is that we get to say "I like it" or "I don't like it". It's nothing more than personal taste. And every expression of personal taste is correct and unchallengeable, although other such expressions may contradict it. That's what personal taste is.

So no, there is not even "a little justification for this".

No. There is no 'good art' or 'bad art', nor is there any such thing as 'better' art. If the artist presents someting as art, it is art. Your part, and mine, is that we get to say "I like it" or "I don't like it". It's nothing more than personal taste. And every expression of personal taste is correct and unchallengeable, although other such expressions may contradict it. That's what personal taste is.

So no, there is not even "a little justification for this". — Pattern-chaser

I tend to agree with this, but I am always open to hear counter arguments. I would like to hear what @T Clark has to say on this.

the objective measures of what makes candy good — ZhouBoTong

I'm not a big believer in objectivity for any aspect of our emotional, intellectual, spiritual, and social lives. Science, morals, aesthetics. Everything always comes down to a matter of human values. Good or bad, right or wrong, true or false. But saying something is a matter of values is not the same as saying it is all a matter of preference. Values are a product of social, cultural, and personal factors. Biological factors.

The only art that is still taught is Poetry and Literature. And it is taught A LOT. Why? What gives these art forms more value than painting, sculpture, music, movies, or television? — ZhouBoTong

I am a verbal person. I place high value on words - reading and writing. So, my opinions are not unbiased. On the other hand, learning to communicate in words effectively is indispensable for everyone who wants to live in society. I think learning to read, write, and speak is different from the other arts.

No. There is no 'good art' or 'bad art', nor is there any such thing as 'better' art. If the artist presents someting as art, it is art. Your part, and mine, is that we get to say "I like it" or "I don't like it". It's nothing more than personal taste. And every expression of personal taste is correct and unchallengeable, although other such expressions may contradict it. That's what personal taste is.

So no, there is not even "a little justification for this".
— Pattern-chaser

I tend to agree with this, but I am always open to hear counter arguments. I would like to hear what T Clark has to say on this. — Noah Te Stroete

I want to make sure we're talking about the same things. @Pattern-chaser says there is no good art and no bad art. P-C brought up Robert Pirsig recently in a different thread. Pirsig said that art is "high quality endeavor." Seems like P-C would disagree with that. I, on the other hand, don't really care if something is art or not. I care if it is high quality. I also care whether or not I like it, but, as I've said, I believe those are different things.

So what makes a piece of art high quality? And why should anyone accept your standard? I’m open to arguments.

So what makes a piece of art high quality? And why should anyone accept your standard? I’m open to arguments. — Noah Te Stroete

As I said a couple of posts up:

Everything always comes down to a matter of human values. Good or bad, right or wrong, true or false. But saying something is a matter of values is not the same as saying it is all a matter of preference. Values are a product of social, cultural, and personal factors. Biological factors. — T Clark

Judgment of quality is an application of social values and, as I wrote, those are determined based on social, cultural, and personal factors. As with all social judgments, consensus plays a big part. There's lots of room for individual preference, but if you get too far out, you are no longer talking to anyone other than yourself.

No. There is no 'good art' or 'bad art', nor is there any such thing as 'better' art. If the artist presents someting as art, it is art. Your part, and mine, is that we get to say "I like it" or "I don't like it". It's nothing more than personal taste. And every expression of personal taste is correct and unchallengeable, although other such expressions may contradict it. That's what personal taste is.

So no, there is not even "a little justification for this". — Pattern-chaser

If art is anything an artist presents as art then anything can be art, and by extension, anyone can be an artist. This is true, in my opinion, but all it really means is that presenting something as art is essentially offering an invitation to view something aesthetically. We may or may not have the ability or choice to do so. In any case, claiming that something presented as art is not art is a refusal to view it aesthetically and does not mean that it's not art.

There are various criteria for evaluating the quality of art.

Judgment of quality is an application of social values and, as I wrote, those are determined based on social, cultural, and personal factors. As with all social judgments, consensus plays a big part. There's lots of room for individual preference, but if you get too far out, you are no longer talking to anyone other than yourself. — T Clark

I find this to be a strong argument. Rembrandt produced high quality art. That at least is the consensus of the art world. It’s rooted in Western social, cultural, and historical factors that give rise to our common values. I might like my art, but if I’m the only one, then it is not high quality. It also probably does not reflect our common social, cultural, and historical values. I would also add that most high quality art is difficult to produce; taking a lot of creativity, skill, and/or original thought.

However, a lot of people really enjoy craft fairs and fill their homes with such artifacts. These artifacts may also reflect these values, and they might also require skill, creativity and/or original thought. You won’t find any of these artifacts in art museums, though.

presenting something as art is essentially offering an invitation to view something aesthetically. — praxis

I hadn't thought of it that way before. I think that's a good way of avoiding the whole "what is art" argument. Now we can have a "what is aesthetic judgement" argument.

I find this to be a strong argument. Rembrandt produced high quality art. That at least is the consensus of the art world. It’s rooted in Western social, cultural, and historical factors that give rise to our common values. I might like my art, but if I’m the only one, then it is not high quality. It also probably does not reflect our common social, cultural, and historical values. I would also add that most high quality art is difficult to produce; taking a lot of creativity, skill, and/or original thought.

However, a lot of people really enjoy craft fairs and fill their homes with such artifacts. These artifacts may also reflect these values, and they might also require skill, creativity and/or original thought. You won’t find any of these artifacts in art museums, though. — Noah Te Stroete

I agree with the things you've said. As for things that aren't in art museums, I don't really care about whether it's art, I care about whether it's good.

presenting something as art is essentially offering an invitation to view something aesthetically. — praxis

I've been thinking about this more and I really like your way of looking at things. I've always been bothered by the "I say it's art so it's art" argument, but this gets around that. Saying "this is art" is no longer an arrogant claim of significance. It becomes a humble request to be judged.

I think it's actually a beautiful thing, to ask others to view something in the world aesthetically, maybe especially if that thing is not what we'd normally consider beautiful or pleasing in some way.

I think it's actually a beautiful thing, to ask others to view something in the world aesthetically, maybe especially if that thing is not what we'd normally consider beautiful or pleasing in some way. — praxis

It also really changes the texture of this whole discussion. It's hard to make the case that judgments of aesthetic quality are elitist if the artist knows to expect that judgment and perhaps welcomes it.

It's logically impossible to say that it's objectively true that all interpretation of art is subjective since that is an interpretation of art. — NKBJ

No, it isn't. "All interpretation of art is subjective" is not an interpretation of art. What artwork is that supposed to be if it's an interpretation of art? Who is the artist?

Values are a product of social, cultural, — T Clark

How exactly would social or cultural values obtain?

As with all social judgments, consensus plays a big part. — T Clark

Consensus is simply a fact that a lot of people feel the same way about something, that they have the same preferences. It's nothing more than that.

What artwork is that supposed to be if it's an interpretation of art? Who is the artist — Terrapin Station

All art by all artists. You're interpreting art to be endlessly interpretable by the individual viewer/reader/whatever.

"All art by all artists" isn't an artwork, though. And we're not interpreting anything by noting an ontological property of interpretations. Noting an ontological property of interpretations isn't something limited to artworks, either.

In any event, saying that interpretations are subjective doesn't denote that interpretations are "endless" at all.

Say that we have a world where there's one artwork, and one person who views it on occasion O. The person offers an interpretation, I, and then they're promptly killed, with no one else who ever views the one artwork. So there was only one interpretation, and there can never be another interpretation in that world. The interpretation was still subjective. "Subjective" doesn't at all imply "endless."

And we're not interpreting anything by noting an ontological property of interpretations. — Terrapin Station

Yes, you have to. It's part of the process of being able to say anything about an artwork or art is to interpret it. You literally can't say anything about art without interpreting it.

In any event, saying that interpretations are subjective doesn't denote that interpretations are "endless" at all. — Terrapin Station

Aha! Now that's just gonna lead you to a place you don't like. If there is nothing objective about interpretation of art, then how could you possibly make any claims about the objective limits of subjective interpretations?

If I want to say that Hamlet is about green martians and pink unicorns, then that is MY interpretation. If you tell me I can't realistically have that interpretation, then you're saying that there ARE objective parameters to how any artwork can be interpreted. If so, then those objective parameters apply to the relative depth of possible interpretation of Bay versus Shakespeare.

Yes, you have to. It's part of the process of being able to say anything about an artwork or art is to interpret it. You literally can't say anything about art without interpreting it. — NKBJ

It's not saying something about art per se. It's saying something about interpretations, what they are ontologically. I already explained this. It's in no way itself an interpretation of any art.

If there is nothing objective about interpretation of art, then how could you possibly make any claims about the objective limits of subjective interpretations? — NKBJ

First, "You can't subjectively make a claim about an objective state of affairs" is false.

Secondly, you're just repeating the same idea here. It has the same problem. A claim about the ontological nature of semantic interpretations is not itself a semantic interpretation. It's not a semantic claim at all.

. If you tell me I can't realistically have that interpretation, — NKBJ

??? Why would you think I'm saying anything like "You can't ('realistically') have that interpretation"? (And what the heck would it be to realistically versus non-realistically have an interpretation?)

then you're saying that there ARE objective parameters to how any artwork can be interpreted. I — NKBJ

What's an objective fact is that interpretations, not just re art, are subjective. All that's saying is that it's an objective fact that interpretations occur mentally, that they're mental phenomena, and they don't occur in the world outside of mental phenomena. (And all that's saying is that it's not only mental phenomena that interpretations only occur as mental phenomena. It's a way the world is extramentally, too.)

relative depth of possible interpretation — NKBJ

I'm not saying anything at all like this . . . whatever "relative depth" of "possible interpretation" would be, by the way.

It's not saying something about art per se. It's saying something about interpretations, what they are ontologically. I already explained this. It's in no way itself an interpretation of any art. — Terrapin Station

In order to do so, you must simultaneously be making claims about the art itself. There's no way around that.

First, "You can't subjectively make a claim about an objective state of affairs" is false. — Terrapin Station

Either way, you're admitting to there being objective limits to the interpretation of art.

??? Why would you think I'm saying anything like "You can't ('realistically') have that interpretation"? (And what the heck would it be to realistically versus non-realistically have an interpretation?) — Terrapin Station

Because you said that there are limits to art interpretation. I made up an example, but the precise example doesn't even matter. An objective limit exists, and thus defeats your claim that it's all just subjective.

I'm not saying anything at all like this . . . whatever "relative depth" of "possible interpretation" would be, by the way. — Terrapin Station

Again, just an example of the ways in which there are objective truths about art and the way art can be interpreted. The example doesn't matter as much as the fact that these truths and parameters exist beyond any subjective opinion.

Like it or not, Terrapin: you can't have it both ways. You cannot both claim that there is anything objective about the interpretation of art and that it is solely subjective. You can try to twist yourself into some sort of logical or mental pretzel all you want over this, but it's just gonna lead back to that simple contradiction. :)

Let's start by seeing if you can understand what I'm claiming.

I'm saying that interpretations are mental phenomena, and only exist as mental phenomena.

I'm also saying that the fact that interpretations are only mental phenomena is not itself only a fact about mental phenomena.

Do you understand that so far?