Aesthetic Judgement

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Can aesthetic judgements be universally valid?

That is, can something in art or in nature be universally beautiful or aesthetically good, or is it just a matter of personal opinion?

Most people, I find, claim to believe that there is no such thing as good and bad art - it's just a matter of individual taste. I am more tempted to believe that there is such a thing as good art, whatever that might mean.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,908 • Replies: 54

No top replies

I think there are some aesthetic qualities that are universal, like if one were to look at a scenery of an open field with blue sky and clouds hanging above, most if not all people would find that beautiful. However, for some things it might be more different.

0 Replies

Re: Aesthetic Judgement

agrote wrote:

I am more tempted to believe that there is such a thing as good art, whatever that might mean.

So what you are asking is not whether or not there is good and bad art, but what the the terms 'good art' and 'bad art' mean. In other words, you 'believe there is such a thing as a definition of good art and bad art'. Unfortunately, there is no definition of good art and bad art -there is no definition of art, so what we could possibly mean by 'good' and 'bad' art is wondrous indeed.

0 Replies

Re: Aesthetic Judgement

John Jones wrote:

agrote wrote:
I am more tempted to believe that there is such a thing as good art, whatever that might mean.

So what you are asking is not whether or not there is good and bad art, but what the the terms 'good art' and 'bad art' mean. In other words, you 'believe there is such a thing as a definition of good art and bad art'. Unfortunately, there is no definition of good art and bad art -there is no definition of art, so what we could possibly mean by 'good' and 'bad' art is wondrous indeed.

Not exactly. I am asking you whether or not there is good art and bad art. Those that say appreciation of art is all about personal preference tend to mean that no art is unversally good or bad - there is no good art and bad art, only art, which people consider good or bad according to personal preference. That is what many people claim to believe, but I don't. Before we discuss what constitutes good art or bad art, we have to decide whether good and bad art exists.

I think that there is such a thing as good art, and when I say that I like a work of art I imply that others should also like it, because it is universally good. Though I'm not sure what I mean by that.

What do you mean there is no definition of art? It's not a meaningless word that we could apply to absolutely anything, is it?

0 Replies

Re: Aesthetic Judgement

agrote wrote:

John Jones wrote:
agrote wrote:
I am more tempted to believe that there is such a thing as good art, whatever that might mean.

So what you are asking is not whether or not there is good and bad art, but what the the terms 'good art' and 'bad art' mean. In other words, you 'believe there is such a thing as a definition of good art and bad art'. Unfortunately, there is no definition of good art and bad art -there is no definition of art, so what we could possibly mean by 'good' and 'bad' art is wondrous indeed.

Not exactly. I am asking you whether or not there is good art and bad art. Those that say appreciation of art is all about personal preference tend to mean that no art is unversally good or bad - there is no good art and bad art, only art, which people consider good or bad according to personal preference. That is what many people claim to believe, but I don't. Before we discuss what constitutes good art or bad art, we have to decide whether good and bad art exists.

I think that there is such a thing as good art, and when I say that I like a work of art I imply that others should also like it, because it is universally good. Though I'm not sure what I mean by that.

What do you mean there is no definition of art? It's not a meaningless word that we could apply to absolutely anything, is it?

While you wait for an example of good art, and perhaps for bad art as well, what art are you viewing at the moment? Can you give me an example of art that is neither good nor bad?

But if you give me an example of art that is neither good nor bad, do not give me an example of 'mediocre art' because that presupposes a halfway point between good and bad.

0 Replies

Agrote-

Try I.A.Richards' Principles of Literary Criticism.If you read that and follow some of the leads you will get a far better answer than you will on here.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Agrote-

Try I.A.Richards' Principles of Literary Criticism.If you read that and follow some of the leads you will get a far better answer than you will on here.

I spent a year doing 'philosophy of art' in uni. I know the best of the arguments arse backwards. I am not some flappy dappy johny come lately upstart. I should bloody charge for every answer I give out. Bloody nerve. Right. Give me your bank account details now! ALL of you.

0 Replies

You say that, John Jones, yet all of your posts are meaningless and suggest that you haven't read what I've said. Or maybe I'm stoned.

0 Replies

agrote-

You should change your supplier if you don't know whether you're stoned or not.

0 Replies

beauty is relative
Beauty is relative to the observer. Each and every one of us sees the same thing differently. What pleases one may not please another.
We each agree on the basic look of something but there it stops. We each have our own unique realities and likes and dislikes.
People automatically assume that everyone sees the same thing when they observe something, but they don't.
There is art that is commonly appreciated and thought of as good. It attains popularity and people agree to like it, and vice versa.
Certain styles and colors appeal to people at different times for different reasons. Just like music, literature, and everything else.
That's what I think!

0 Replies

Actually...there does seem to be one significant universal aesthetic agreement.

Babies...babies of almost ever species on the planet...seem to elicit an "I like it" universally.

0 Replies

babies
Oh, but I have seen many babies that I have considered ugly and I will say something like "Oh, what pretty skin." (or hair or lips" or whatever so I don't have to lie and say pretty) LOL Makes me think of the Seinfeld ugly baby episode~

0 Replies

Sorry Frankie, but blonde babies make me feel squeamish.

0 Replies

Re: beauty is relative

keenu wrote:

Beauty is relative to the observer. Each and every one of us sees the same thing differently. What pleases one may not please another.
We each agree on the basic look of something but there it stops. We each have our own unique realities and likes and dislikes.
People automatically assume that everyone sees the same thing when they observe something, but they don't.
There is art that is commonly appreciated and thought of as good. It attains popularity and people agree to like it, and vice versa.
Certain styles and colors appeal to people at different times for different reasons. Just like music, literature, and everything else.
That's what I think!

Symmetry is attractive to the human eye

Today, this symmetry has been scientifically proven to be inherently attractive to the human eye. It has been defined not with proportions, but rather with similarity between the left and right sides of the face.

http://www.jyi.org/volumes/volume6/issue6/features/feng.html

0 Replies

symmetry
Yes, I have seen that television special on the human face. But each individual will prefer different faces. Some like more feminine, some more masculine, some dark, some light. Beauty, as I stated, is in the eye of the beholder. Sure, there is an accepted beauty standard that we go by and we do have a preference for symmetry, I will agree with that and it has been "scientifically proven". As for my thoughts on science, well, that's another story.

0 Replies

What I think/feel:

Human beings share a common appreciation for certain aesthetic qualities.
We all draw from the same source of beauty; and we all have the same basic equipment in which to perceive it.

Therefore: there is something from which we can judge art as good/bad.

0 Replies

Re: Aesthetic Judgement
agrote

Aesthetically good is not the same thing of being beautiful. A work of art is expressed in a specific language, based on a specific technique.
For example: there is a technique to compose a fugue. If the composer dominates entirely that technique, that means he dominates the language in which he wants to express himself.
And there we can have objective judgements about a work of art (no matter what definition we gave of art: it is a convention, in the sense that a work of art is what is considered, by most people, to be a work of art).
And so we can define how good or bad a work of art is. It has to do with the skills that the artist shows in order to express himself and communicate that to us.
But, assuming that two artists show identical quality in dealing with the materials - technique/language - and express themselves the best way, then the decision of good or bad work of art, better or worse, depends only on the subjective taste of a community in an historical period, or even an individual taste.

0 Replies

We should stick to talking about art rather than babies and faces and such, I think, because thinking babies are 'cute' may be a biological thing. There's no obvious biological reason why we should find a piece of music beautiful...

keenu wrote:

Beauty is relative to the observer.

Then why do we all hear a song that we like and say, "this is a beautiful song," implying that others should feel the same way, and even share the song with other people in the expectation that they will appreciate it - because it is beautiful.

I'd be disappointed if beauty was relative - it would mean there was no such thing as beauty, really.

0 Replies

JJ asks " Can you give me an example of art that is neither good nor bad?" This question assumes there is a "thing" called art (by this I mean more than objets d'art and performances) and that "it" has objective properties. That may be so, but as I see it, art is a process, an essentiallly subjective activity. Its meaning for the artist and the viewer are strictly private and deeply personal. One might answer JJ's question with "art that is good for some viewers and bad for others." In other words, there is no absolute perspective that would determine the objective quality of the work of art. I DO think, however, that some subjectivities are more sensitive and refined than others. THESE are what I am more likely to consider "objective" than the art they respond to.

0 Replies

beautiful song
"Then why do we all hear a song that we like and say, "this is a beautiful song," implying that others should feel the same way, and even share the song with other people in the expectation that they will appreciate it - because it is beautiful."

Because we assume that all people hear and see and taste the same as we do. But they don't. Everything is relative. Again, there is only an agreed upon basic sameness.

0 Replies

Aesthetic Judgement

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know