The same thing goes for composition in general re keys, chords, progressions, melodies, counterpoint, large-scale structures (say a 12-bar blues versus sonata form or whatever), and so on. You can be an expert when it comes to identifying such things, identifying relationships between them, and so on, but you can't be an expert that any content is better than any other content.

I judge this to be contrary and you don’t. One of us is wrong, agree? FIN

I judge this to be contrary and you don’t. One of us is wrong, agree? FIN — I like sushi

Sure. So what you'd have to do is show some sort of evidence for there being a fact that one possibility is better or worse than another. (Anything you'd like to use as an example --this chord progression versus that one, this melody versus that one, this piece of music versus that one--whatever example will most easily serve the demonstration of a fact that one thing is better than another.)

why would humans need art in order to think of a story or be inspired? — NKBJ

Well, if the definition of "art" is broad enough to embrace creativity, that would be one reason. :chin:

It's just that you can't be an expert on value judgments, because there's nothing to be correct or incorrect about. [...] you can't be an expert when it comes to claims that any content is better than any other content — Terrapin Station

Well said. Art is art if the artist says that it's art. Our part in this is that we - as individuals, not collectively - get to decide whether we like it or not. That's how artists and their audiences relate.

That is simply wrong. You’ve not explained anything regarding an understanding of musical composition, a trained ear, a broad appreciation and exposure to various music forms, let alone the tone and timbre of someone’s voice (which can be in and out of key).

The simple fact is some people are better equipped than others to judge music; in this sense they have more EXPERTISE. — I like sushi

If you're talking about a technical appraisal of the music, you're right, of course. But if you're referring to making a value judgement of the music as art, then you are wrong, I think. There's no such thing as Good Art or Bad Art, in that sense, but only art. Art is art if the artist says it is. You only get to say if you like it or not. And no-one is more qualified to do that that anyone else.

Even with technical aspects, there still are no factual/human-independent valuations. It still comes down to what people like/dislike, and it's still a fallacy to say that something is a factual value just because there's a consensus about it (that's simply the argumentum ad populum fallacy).

People mistake consensuses, widespread agreement for facts independent of the widespread opinion as such.

it's still a fallacy to say that something is a factual value just because there's a consensus about it — Terrapin Station

I absolutely take your point. But in the case of a technical appraisal of a musical performance, such as one musician might make of another's performance, it's fair to say that some have more expertise than others. :chin:

Well, you can better identify what folks are doing, how they're doing it and indications of the sorts of things they can probably do, at least.

:up:

That is all I was saying.

You didn’t reply to my post. I asked whether it was my comments you were calling rubbish or my paraphrasing Zhoubotong.
Just in case it was mine I’d like to make it clear that I’m in agreement with you, though your posts haven’t been successful in convincing others.
One of my comments was: ‘I know a movie script is a tool, but looking at things in terms of the same form, writing, then ‘Macbeth’ contains a lot more than the script for ‘Transformers’, the poetry for a start‘.
What I’m saying is that in writing we can at least judge one piece from another based on how the sentences are structured, syntax, etc. At the very least it can be judged by how easily the reader understands what the writer is saying. I don’t think this is a subjective, or based on likes or dislikes, it has to reach a certain standard to succeed at what it sets out to do. If you agree with this then it can be taken further: the script for ‘Macbeth’ and ‘Transformers’ must at least have achieved this criteria. After that they begin to separate in relation to content. ‘Macbeth’ continues on with other attributes that ‘Transformers does not have.
It’s a shame we’ve got stuck on Shakespeare. It would be a lot easier to refer to some contemporary written work, then we might be able to compare apples with apples.

At the very least it can be judged by how easily the reader understands what the writer is saying. I don’t think this is a subjective, or based on likes or dislikes, — Brett

?? How would understanding not be something dependent on mentality?

You shouldn't define art.

Art goes undefined like it's nature, or it is a signifier of something good.

Is smell art? Yes. Is the smell of strawberry good art? How? With rhythmic body movement and emotion cycles.

So your definition of art is that it shouldn't be defined.

I would consider it lack of definition, or claiming something is good, even godly for sensory property.

?? How would understanding not be something dependent on mentality? — Terrapin Station

Well your right, but in this conversation it seems to me that by subjective we are meaning something determined to be ‘good’ or ‘art’ by personal likes and dislikes, personal preferences, and because of that it’s impossible to determine whether ‘Macbeth’ is better than the film ‘Transformers’.

When I said “At the very least it can be judged by how easily the reader understands what the writer is saying. I don’t think this is a subjective, or based on likes or dislikes, it has to reach a certain standard to succeed at what it sets out to do”, I was referring to the idea that writing has to reach a degree of function to be understood. The writing of a ten year old is more advanced than a six year old. This develops until a degree of sophistication is reached that is determined by everyone around us. If it can’t be read and understood then it fails in intent.

What we require in writing to be understood are the accepted rules of language, otherwise it’s meaningless.

Some writers develop great sophistication in their use of language, but we would still not call it art. It’s just extremely functional writing. But it’s recognised as being more advanced than how people generally write.

The rules of language. These are understood and agreed on. Without grammar sentences would be unintelligible, the meaning would be lost.

Then someone who has proven themselves to be a master of this functional form of expression or communication suddenly breaks the rules. An example of this would be Virginia Woolf or James Joyce. Joyce wrote ‘Dubliners’, ‘A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man’, then ‘Ulysses’ and then finally ‘Finnegans Wake’.

‘Finnegans Wake’ broke the rules completely. The trajectory of his writing is like a curve moving from functional writing steadily through to something completely unknown. Somewhere on that curve he crossed over into art, but he was still operating in a form rooted in tradition and the rules of language, even if that meant breaking those rules

The writing of a ten year old is more advanced than a six year old. This develops until a degree of sophistication is reached that is determined by everyone around us. If it can’t be read and understood then it fails in intent. — Brett

How does that wind up making anything nonsubjective when it comes to judgments? We can note objective differences in the writing--for example, comparing "Jack ran" to "Jack sprightly sprinted through the spruce forest." One objectively has more words, more types of words, one has alliteration, etc., and we can call one more sophisticated, though especially as something with a normative or evaluative connotation, calling something more sophisticated just because it has more words, etc. is itself subjective. But also saying that "more/ less sophisticated writing is better" is subjective.

It seems like maybe you're appealing a bit to consensus, at least a consensus of people considered "experts" (by another consensus), but that would simply be an argumentum ad populum for claims of objectivity that aren't simply and explicitly claims about what the consensus is.

Let me try this using the soccer analogy. There is one player among the team of players who are all extremely skilled. This player takes more goals and creates more opportunities for others to take goals. He doesn’t use any other moves or techniques that the others don’t use, but there is something about how those skills when he applies them that create magic to watch.
Those people who go to the games regularly or watch his team on tv recognise that there is something special going on here, within the rules of the game. Those who do not follow soccer would not recognise what they are seeing, what is happening in front of them. But everyone else does: the fans, the coach, the team, management, the media.
The important thing is that he is playing within the rules, the language, that others operate within and those that watch recognise.

Is this merely consensus when it’s the very rules he operates under, those that confine him and direct him, that prove and demonstrate his skill above all others. The rules aren’t arbitrary, nor are they interpreted differently by each individual watching. If, to perform his magic, he breaks the rule then he’s immediately penalised, and everyone can see, because they know, when he breaks a rule.

People can have a mental model of an ideal for something, and people can influence each others' mental models, so that many people who spend time focusing on a particular thing have a similar ideal model in mind. And yeah, that happens moreso when it comes to sports, since there are literal rules, statistics are kept, etc.

But none of that is non-subjective re valuing or evaluating anything.

But none of that is non-subjective re valuing or evaluating anything. — Terrapin Station

I don’t think I can, or need to, prove that these evaluations in art are non-subjective.

I haven’t seen anything to convince me otherwise that art is common only to people. If this was not true then, if it appeared that other life forms created art, then there would be grounds for believing there was an objective evaluation of art.
Though there is a problem with that, because if someone showed me an example of art being created by an animal then I could not be sure we were back to the subjective again. So I can’t see any way of proving an objective evaluation of art.

That doesn’t mean I don’t believe that there is work that is greater than work that is lesser. For some reason I do believe that, and in this post I’m trying to build an argument that I can put into a language that is beyond ‘good’, ‘bad’, ‘brilliant’, etc., all obvious and useless subjective views.

In schools in this part of the world, as a teacher, you are discouraged from teaching ‘creativity’ in art classes on the basis that if you can’t assess it then you can teach it. If a parent comes to you, concerned that their child got low marks in creativity, how are you going to explain to them why they don’t have it?

Creativity shouldn’t be confused with expression, which is what children do with paint.

So I’m looking for a set of rules, a language, that’s understood and agreed upon to move a bit further up the curve, closer to that line we cross into art. Sport is very easy, as you say. My example of writing still holds, I think. And not because sophistication is indicated by the number of words as you suggest but by the control over those words.

I think I missed something in that last post.

Art is man made, so of course any evaluation is subjective. That’s doesn’t preclude us from understanding and appreciating what we might regard, or construct, as more valuable in terms of art. Somewhere I believe there is a way of determining this in a rational way, as opposed to the way Schzophr regards it.

Art is art if the artist says it is. — Pattern-chaser

This is probably based on the comment of Duchamp. It has some merit, but it only leads us to ask “What is an artist?”

How do we trust the artist, how do we know he’s being honest and not just playing a game?

Art is art if the artist says it is.
— Pattern-chaser — Pattern-chaser

That is not the same as saying some art is better than other art. That is clearly no the case and there are objectively measurable reasons for this due to geometric patterns and things such as ‘harmony’.

I can club a baby to death whilst screaming and farting and call it ‘art’, but I am pretty sure no sane person would regard it as ‘art’ or class it as anything other than an abomination. If I used my club in a rhythmic manner, and/or farted a tune then there would be a technical basis for calling it ‘art’.

Technical ability is part of the artistic endeavor. People reach for perfection in art they don’t abandon it; even if they claim to be reaching for the perfection of not expressing art perfectly - such talk is in the realms of the so-called ‘conceptual artist’ (not something I am inclined to regard as ‘art’ for the reasons outlined).

Art is art if the artist says it is. — Pattern-chaser


This is probably based on the comment of Duchamp. It has some merit, but it only leads us to ask “What is an artist?”

How do we trust the artist, how do we know he’s being honest and not just playing a game? — Brett

An artist is someone who creates art. You don't trust an artist, any more than you admire a scientist. Trust yourself to determine if you like it (the art, that is). Art can be a game too, and maybe even a deception (for artistic purposes). Art is art. Analysing art leads to misleading and misguided conclusions.

Art is art if the artist says it is.
— Pattern-chaser — Pattern-chaser


That is not the same as saying some art is better than other art. — I like sushi

No, it isn't. We agree. :up: Art is art if the artist says it is. There is no art that is "better" than other art; there is only art. You will find that you like some art, and don't like some other art. This is the nature of you (i.e. all of us humans), art and the world.

That isn’t an argument it’s opinion. You’re confusing blind opinion ans want with measurable differences in aesthetics. Just because something cannot be measured precisely it doesn’t mean it cannot be measured at all - or you wouldn’t have an opinion in the first place.

If you shit on the floor and call it ‘art’ I ain’t gonna do more than regard you as an imbecile (unless you happen to be able to shat out some geometrically beautiful wonder.

If you take my post as “agreement” you clearly misread or have no idea how to think. Regarding any item of human experience as ‘art’ willy nilly isn’t ‘art’ it is merely to have an ‘artistic’ outlook on experience. You may as well say anything is what I choose to say it is because I say so. That is likely why you believe no art is ‘better’ or ‘worse’ even though you personally experience ‘better’ and ‘worse’ every moment of your life.

That isn’t an argument it’s opinion. You’re confusing blind opinion ans want with measurable differences in aesthetics. — I like sushi

Agreed. Again. :wink: Opinion is all there is when we're judging art. Subjective truth, wholly dependent for its truth on the person who holds that it is true. As for measurement, if you're trying to measure art - aesthetically or otherwise - in order to judge it, I think you may misunderstand art. :chin:

That is likely why you believe no art is ‘better’ or ‘worse’ even though you personally experience ‘better’ and ‘worse’ every moment of your life. — I like sushi

I make value judgements all the time. As you say, we all do. But the words we use to express ourselves matter, especially here, in a philosophy forum. So I say it's wrong to describe art as being better or worse, because those words imply that my own conclusions have meaning and value to someone else. If they do, it's mere coincidence. What I experience every moment of my life is 'like' and 'don't like'. My opinions, not presented or offered as anything more. There is no reason to expect you to agree with my opinions, and it doesn't matter anyway. If we're offering value judgements on art, then our words reflect only our own opinions of it.

Just because something cannot be measured precisely it doesn’t mean it cannot be measured at all - or you wouldn’t have an opinion in the first place. — I like sushi

In the broadest sense of the word, I suppose we could agree that a value judgement is a sort of measurement. But I wouldn't use that word, as it carries many baggage concepts that don't belong (in a discussion about value judgements). Opinions aren't based on measurements. They're based on mood, feeling and emotion. And loads of other influences too. Maybe the pattern the wind blew the leaves into just before you saw the art you're judging. This is not measurement; it's just saying, what you (or I, or whoever) like.

If you shit on the floor and call it ‘art’ I ain’t gonna do more than regard you as an imbecile — I like sushi

And yet, if he was still with us, Salvador Dali might disagree with you. [Remembering that Dali was a renowned artist and coprophile (if I spelled that correctly).]

In the broad sense of “agree” - if it also means “disagree” - I guess you believe we “agree”.

Have fun playing with someone else :)

OK, if that's what you want. But why not just come out and say that you think beauty is objective? Then we'd know what we were discussing, and why. :chin: