brianleepainter
-
Posts
174 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by brianleepainter
-
-
...My previous effort to provide objective standards for beauty isn't about accurate representation of something per se. My thoughts currently include the purpose of the object aesthetically speaking, and if the object serves some positive end. That is sort of vague, yes, as I'm mostly trying to figure this out, but that's my current lead. Anyway, Realism (as in, striving for near-photographic quality) isn't the only kind of good art I am sure, so there's no reason to suggest that beauty has to do with how well an artist copies what they see. If you use "beautiful" to describe things like sunsets, trees, cars, and interiors, then it is not quite good enough to talk about beauty *only* in relation to art.
What makes a mountain scene (before the painting was made) beautiful anyway? No one made the scene, it already existed.
While man needs an artwork that is representational, I do not favor realism if realism is defined by the artist recording everything in his sight without making value judgments, without omitting the negative and including the positive. What I want to see is an artists representation of what they value in a scene.I Just wanted to define my terms there.
I think a mountain scene, or sunset can be beautiful to an individual in that it is something that can be perceived as having beauty that is an end in itself. Once the observer sees this mountain scene, or sunset this can be something to focus ones attention on, and contemplate it and gain that life affirming value. There can be pleasure in the act of perceiving something beautiful in a way.
Once there is an existent, such as the mountain scene to perceive and then contemplate, the individual can then think as to why it is beautiful. The very act of an individual gaining an impression of something, from a relationship with the existent to think on, is an affirmation and can be an end in itself, or a beginning to look further into why it is beautiful. It is as if the vista, or other object, has something in it which when viewed by someone with their value judgments can be used to simply gain a value from it.
The impression, which I think can be a positive attribute that is noticed in an existent in part because of ones value judgments after having perceived the existent, can then be used to create an artwork, a painting of a sunset in this case. Perhaps the attribute which an artist had an impression of was color from the entity of the sunset. Now, how can color be turned into a concrete to give an affirming value to an observer? Color can’t just be placed onto a canvas without choosing an entity to represent in reality, it must be shown through the creation of painting a sunset and what standards the sunset requires because of its identity. I think the identity of the sunset sets the standards of what usage of measurements, principles, elements and truths are required to create a painting that can provide a life affirming value; beauty.
-
What are the attributes of beauty?
In order for art(in this case a painting) to serve the purpose of concertizing an idea in the form of a painting to be perceived there
must be entities that are represented. In order to show what is visually beautiful in a painting it is to be done perceptually. Not in written words.
I think in order for an artist to paint an entity he must paint it’s identity , how it looks visually. This can only be done through a visual example. When an artist has chosen a subject, he cannot deviate from the subject's visual identity or else he is no longer representing an entity in reality.
To make a beautiful representation of reality in the form of a painting for an observer to then perceive and have his value judgments act on the painting, the painting in itself must first be beautiful. The metaphysical that can be perceived is the standard. Deviate from this by using incorrect measurements in the form of line, shape, value, mass, color,etc. and the painter is no longer representing reality but either gibberish, or blueness removed from an entity, or ugliness. The incorrect use of a measurement where a correct one is required to represent an entity’s identity will result in ugliness. Keep licking on paint with the brush, mindlessly with no volition and the artist will create non-representation.
As an example, the painter must first decide on a subject in order to create beauty in a painting. I’ll use the example of a portrait of a man. In order for the artist to create beauty each brushstroke, each thought made explicit with a visual marking must be based on the entity he is trying to make beautiful and represent in a painting. The artist explaining how to make something beautiful will act in an ostensive way with visuals, showing to place the brushstroke to indicate the entity’s facial feature “here” and “here.” He has chosen to include the positive to represent a man. He has omitted the negative. The negative would be that which is included to NOT make a man. The artist is dealing with direct, visual measurements.
In order to make a beautiful mountain scene, the artist would not use the same visual measurements based off of the visual identity of a man. The standard of beauty is now what can be seen by perception. Look at a man. Then a mountain. This can only be done perceptually. Deviating from these measurements will create either non-representation or ugliness.
John Singer Sargent had chosen the correct measurements to represent a man. Jenny Saville purposefully had chosen to use the incorrect measurements in representing a man. She purposefully had chosen to use measurements that are not seen visually in the subject of a man. Jenny Saville had chosen to not deviate so far from her subject matter based off reality so that it is still representational, but not beautiful. What is beautiful in a man? This is done only perceptually. What is ugly in a man? Again, only perceptually.
The attributes and standards of beauty are perceived from the metaphysical. In order for a man made representation of reality to be made of the metaphysical then these standards must be used.
edit:composition and grammar
-
Ah, so I'm a destroyer of greatness if I disagree with your opinions about what is beautiful, or if I identify the reality that you can offer no objective criteria for judging or measuring beauty?
Here is my understanding of objective beauty in regards to painting:
Firstly, I'll write a common example regarding the relationship between visual perception and object. Further into my writing I will then tie in how visual perception, knowledge, and value judgments forge a relationship into seeing beauty in a painting. I assume you have knowledge that, contradictions don't exist in reality. There is no contradiction in two individuals, one color blind and another with the full faculty of their sense organ to see an object differently, and both be objectively seeing the object without contradictions. To perceive something requires an observer that uses his infallible sense organ and an object to perceive. Color, exists not intrinsically in the object, nor subjectively in the viewer, but rather objectively in a relationship forged between object (in this case color is seen relative to its surroundings) and observer.
Having said that example of non contradiction on the subject of perception I will then address an example about the objective relationship between perception, knowledge, and value judgments to judge a painting. Two individuals viewing a painting(representational) can both objectively know that it is created skillfully, and is good, but they may have different views on whether one would like it based on their value judgments. Perhaps one is a painter themselves, and in viewing a landscape painting this observer is interested in the depiction of truths rather than imitation. Having knowledge that can aid them in the volitional act of seeing, after perceiving a painting with truth and one without truth, the artist may prefer the more truthful one. . The observer who is not concerned with the depiction of truths, would find the painting just pleasing the way it is. Or take for instance the application of paint, and the handling of materials, which is secondary to the subject matter. One may prefer a certain look which is only attained through the mastery of technique applied to subject matter. The act of trying to attain beauty without a subject is similar to trying to paint an attribute of an entity without an entity to represent. In order for an observer to enjoy a painting they can only judge it within the context of their own knowledge. There is no contradiction between two observers both seeing a good artwork, but both having
different likes, and one preferring another painting. Each viewer understands that the painting is objectively good.
Beauty is not self-evident in that it is not contained in the object only, or in the eye of the beholder, but rather requires an observer and an object to have the result of beauty.It is important to note that if an object does not have the required attributes in order for the observer to see beauty, than beauty cannot be seen. If the object is bad to man in his goal of life sustaining action than no beauty can be seen in an objective relationship with man. it is important to note that if there is no man present, than nothing beautiful can be seen. I think man looks at beauty in a speciest view, that which benefits man. I think my analogy between poison and ugliness is effective. In a speciest view, poison is objectively bad. Food is objectively good. Beauty is objectively good, and the polar opposite, ugliness is objectively bad.
There are some artists, creating works that are representational that have the purpose of creating ugly art. Then, there are some artists who have the purpose of creating beautiful art. In order to purposely create ugliness, ugly and beauty must be objective.
Jenny Saville is a painter that uses skill and understanding to create purposefully ugly paintings. Notice how her works are representational and ugly.
John S. Sargent had used skill and understanding to create purposefully beautiful paintings. His paintings are representational and beautiful.
There is a hierarchical order in judging an artwork, a painting in this case. Firstly, it must be an artwork, having an identity. Having an identity you can then judge it for the paintings subject matter, craftsmanship and skill, and style. There is no contradiction in saying that this painting is skillfully created but ugly.
Here is a contradiction: A non-representational artwork that is created to pass as a painting. A painting has an identity. It cannot be art and non art. It has to be one or the other. Accepting the subjective view has its consequences. Look around you today and see what passes as art. See what passes as a high market value and low philosophical value, while another artwork has as a high philosophical value while having a low market value. This is what a subjective view of beauty leads to.
Edit:composition and grammar
-
Art is a mixture of objectivity and subjectivity. Judgments of what is beautiful or ugly are subjective.
I disagree. I'm not willing to compromise on the purpose of art and be tolerant to non-representational works.
Doing so, acting on the ideology of subjectivity in regards to artworks sets the context for the really great
works of art to be displayed along side the really bad stuff in a business.
The purpose of art, which is detailed in the articles and works that I assume you have read, is not my opinion
but a requirement of man to live and pursue a good life in a relationship with reality. I'm also assuming
you understand what is good for man to live as a man, and what is anti-life, what is a poison. That which is
beautiful is a value,good for man. That which is ugly is bad for man, such as a poison. It would be presumptuous
of me to expound upon the texts that have already been linked to you in the previous posts.
"Works of art—like everything else in the universe—are entities of a specific nature: the concept requires a definition by their essential characteristics, which distinguish them from all other existing entities. The genus of art works is: man-made objects which present a selective recreation of reality according to the artist’s metaphysical value-judgments, by means of a specific material medium. The species are the works of the various branches of art, defined by the particular media which they employ and which indicate their relation to the various elements of man’s cognitive faculty.
Man’s need of precise definitions rests on the Law of Identity: A is A, a thing is itself. A work of art is a specific entity which possesses a specific nature. If it does not, it is not a work of art. If it is merely a material object, it belongs to some category of material objects—and if it does not belong to any particular category, it belongs to the one reserved for such phenomena: junk.
“Something made by an artist” is not a definition of art. A beard and a vacant stare are not the defining characteristics of an artist.
“Something in a frame hung on a wall” is not a definition of painting.
“Something with a number of pages in a binding” is not a definition of literature.
“Something piled together” is not a definition of sculpture.
“Something made of sounds produced by anything” is not a definition of music.
“Something glued on a flat surface” is not a definition of any art.There is no art that uses glue as a medium. Blades of grass glued on a sheet of paper to represent grass might be good occupational therapy for retarded children—though I doubt it—but it is not art.
“Because I felt like it” is not a definition or validation of anything.-Ayn Rand, "Romantic Manifesto"
There is no place for whim in any human activity—if it is to be regarded as human. There is no place for the unknowable, the unintelligible, the undefinable, the non-objective in any human product. This side of an insane asylum, the actions of a human being are motivated by a conscious purpose; when they are not, they are of no interest to anyone outside a psychotherapist’s office. And when the practitioners of modern art declare that they don’t know what they are doing or what makes them do it, we should take their word for it and give them no further consideration."
The fact that you or Hicks or anyone else doesn't like the idea of non-representational art doesn't alter the fact that it can be beautiful, pleasing and harmonious. If anything illustrates the subjectivity of aesthetic judgment it's people's anger about non-representationalism tainting their ability to see beauty in it.The emotion of anger in response to a non-representational work held above a great representational work is an emotion I have had. I've had this emotion due to my value judgments, and what I know to be the purpose of art and how much potential is possible.
Anyway, what are your objective criteria that I can use when looking at an image to determine that it is objectively beautiful or ugly -- I mean, without having to ask you about what your judgment is of each specific image? Currently, all that you're doing is merely declaring that your and Hicks' subjective tastes are objective. That really doesn't tell me anything other than that you personally find certain images pleasing and others not.There are paintings about which you and Hicks will disagree as to whether or not they are beautiful. In such cases, which of you is right? Which of you is objective, and by what standard?
I do not know which artworks Dr.Hicks finds to be most beautiful and enjoyable. I can only think for myself. I would be interested in finding this out though. So, if you do have
any questions perhaps you can ask Dr.Hicks. I would be curious to read what you've learned.
There is no contradiction in two individuals not having the same preference for a representational artwork. Therefore, both observers of an artwork, with a different preference
can both be right. Objectively so.
The objective criteria required to judge whether a painting is beautiful or ugly requires an observer with a sense of sight to perceive the painting, in addition to their value judgments
and of course an object, the painting. This process is objective. I need to see the subject matter.
-
Regardless of whether it's appropriate to speculate about why Hicks didn't define beauty, I think it makes the article quite ineffective. The Dali painting he linked, why is it ugly anyway? I actually like it because it's kind of silly and dream-like. Without a definition of beauty provided, Hicks is going off a subjective standard.
I think the important point in Dr.Hicks' article, "Why Art Became Ugly" is his explanation as to the "why" art had become ugly and then showing
explicit examples of ugly products that are considered artworks. In his article, "Post-Postmodern Art" he had shown explicit examples of beauty. The
power of showing what is beautiful and what is ugly, I think is well done.
-
I think the author, William R Thomas, does a good job in explaining what is art in his article entitled: "What Does Objectivsm Consider to be Art?"
-
What is it about Hicks' opinions on art and aesthetics that you find to be so valuable and deserving of attention? I find his opinions, and his methods of presenting them, to be rather childish and embarrassing. And beyond that, I don't see him as applying Objectivism in his aesthetic rants, but as deviating from it while mistakenly believing that he's defending it.
Jonathan13, Dr.Hicks' article gives a thorough explanation as to why art deviated from beauty and became ugly. Art is objective, and the artists that Trebor
had linked produced objectively beautiful art, and the individuals that Dr.Hicks linked produced objectively bad creations. Yes, I did not even consider
some of the individuals that Dr.Hicks had linked as artists. What I find childish and embarrassing is how the art world digressed to a cult of ugliness,
if I may use this phrase from Scott Burdick in his video "Banishment of Beauty."
I think it's worth noting that Hicks is not an art historian.I think that is not worth noting, in that a background in art history is not a prerequisite to distinguish between beauty and ugliness, art and smear marks devoid of
representation.
-
"I have been advised that my recent characterization of Dr. Stephen Hicks was inaccurate and that he is not, in fact, a “Marxist educator.” My conclusion was drawn upon a series of videos in which he discussed Marxism and education. Upon further research, and out of an abundance of caution, I have asked BigGovernment.com to take down my post. I apologize to Dr. Hicks."-Kyle Olson
-
Wow, what an example of context dropping by the author, Kyle Olson.
Here are a few comments on youtube,
-"I'm sure Dr. Hicks, an advocate for Ayn Rand's Objectivism, will be surprised to learn that he is being called a "Marxist Professor" here.
I would advise eagfoundation to check Dr. Hick's website.
Hicks is also the executive director of the Center for Ethics and Entrepreneurship.
Objectivists have been called many things but Marxist is not usually one of them. I think an apology to Dr. Hicks is in order." (bold mine)
-"Dr. Hicks writes on his web site in reply to a comment about this series of videos:
"This lecture is part of a series on eight (so far) philosophies of education. I present each from the perspective of that philosophy."
...
"In this case, I am very much not a Marxist, but in introducing it as a philosophy of education in this lecture my first goal is to present it, not to advocate or criticize it."
Hicks is an individualist, not a Marxist as this post suggests."
-
Your first statement is wildly untrue. The Bible is littered with verses that forbid killing, taking vengeance, etc. The whole point is, Christianity (and Islam) is not an integrated philosophy, but a religion based on a text that contradicts itself. The Christian who chooses one side of the contradicting passages is no more or less consistent than the Christian who chooses the other. Certainly, the Christian in your example is more radical than the other, but it is simply ignorant to claim that he violates no Biblical scripture when he "takes the next step."
Even though Christianity and Islam are not integrated, in that contradictions exist by following a religion to guide your life, the radical followers
do not remain passive. A radical of religion picks and chooses, and in doing so they can act consistent up until a point, and it is logical that they do
so. As an example, if a radical follower goes on faith that a fetus has rights granted by God, and a fetus is then aborted,then it is logical that the follower
thinks this is murder,then it is consistent and logical that they may then seek justice on Dr.Tiller. Several contradictions occurred regardless if the radical
chose to remain passive or initiate force.
-
What do you mean when you say "those are the ones that matter"? Do you mean, those are the ones to be worried about, because they are the ones seeking us harm, unlike muslims who are more moderate? That is to say: those are the ones who matter to us... i.e., the ones we have to watch and act against.
Or do you mean something more? For instance, do you mean they are the ones that matter because they determine what their nations are going to do, that they determine the future political ideology, that they eventually act to change the views of the more moderate ones? If the latter, I don't understand the basis for this claim. As a principle, it would imply that Galileo's christian detractors had more impact on history than Galileo did.
My point was that in Islam there are both radicals and moderates. In a compromise between the two, the radical Muslims have everything to gain and nothing
to lose when moderate Muslims are following "Islam; the peaceful religion".
In regards to your example of Galileo, he was able to achieve much while living partially destroyed, under the initiation of force by religious clerics.
-
Calling someone a Muslim tells me nothing about what they think is the proper role of religion in public life. Even many Muslims in the Middle East drink alcohol and visit prostitutes. Had we been having this conversation 1000 years ago, you might be telling me that Christianity is inherently impossible to separate from the state, whereas Islam has a streak of tolerance and relative progressivism.
You are citing opinions. For every cleric you can find that holds this view, I can find one that disagrees.
A christian cleric who acts consistently in assigning abortion as murder, and takes the next step in seeking justice by murdering the abortion doctor
is a christian who acted consistently. A Muslim cleric who decided that Muhammad is not to be depicted and sought justice through murder is a Muslim
acting consistently. Those are the ones that matter, the consistent ones. The radical ones. I wonder what the clerics that disagree with the exampled
clerics would label them under.
-
In regards to consistency in Islam:
Seperation of Church and State
"So how are Muslims to approach the modern trend of separation of religion and state? The basic belief in Islam is that the Qur'an is one hundred percent the word of Allah, and the Sunna was also as a result of the guidance of Allah to the Prophet sallallahu allayhe wasalam. Islam cannot be separated from the state because it guides us through every detail of running the state and our lives. Muslims have no choice but to reject secularism for it excludes the law of Allah."-Dr. Jaafar Sheikh Idris (Bold Mine)
"There is no doubt that secularism contradicts Islam in every aspect. They are two different paths that never meet; choosing one means rejecting the other. Hence, whoever chooses Islam has to reject secularism. In the following, we go in the details of explaining why. "-AlJumuah [The Friday Report], vol III, no. 10.
-
Aren't the inconsistent followers that notice the contradictions the ones that don't matter in that they can practice in "peace", but it is the few that are willing
to die for consistency that make the difference that you read on the "headline news".
Are the ones that declare jihad giving a bad name to Muslims who are not consistent with their ideology, or are the inconsistent majority of Muslims
giving a bad name to the ones that become martyrs through violence? Diluting the religion in a way.
-
Justice for the husband of victim
"...and I couldn't help but think that as we dumped his body into the depths of the ocean,
so did God dump his soul into the depths of hell." -says Charles G. Wolf, who had lost his
wife during the 9/11 tragedy.
-
Would I have a right, as long as the theater owner did not kick me out to shout over the movie sound track until the dingaling in the ten gallon cowboy hat removes it? Is there nothing that can be considered disorderly conduct if it is on private property and no rights are theoretically broken?
I am not suggesting some kind of *social sentiment* be given legal status so that we act like the polite Japanese, but there should be an expectation of civilized behavior.
If the owner of the private property, the theater manager, considered your conduct to be disorderly and had an expectation for you to behave civilized in his theater, then he
may ask you to leave his property. Notice that he has say in that it is his property, while the cowboy has no say in regards to the property of the theater that he does not possess. The cowboy may only inform the manager
so that the manager may make the decision for you to leave.
-
I think this issue is contingent on property rights, very personal ones at that but all property is of course personal. If force was initiated on the woman
which directly caused a forced miscarriage I think this can be similar to an initiator of force damaging or removing something similar to a fetus, collection
of cells, an organ or a shiny golden tooth. They are all personal property.
If the criminal was charged for manslaughter then I would think the judge would also have tried the woman for murder when she had menstruated.
-
He states that there is no such thing as natural rights of man.
He says that rights are analogues to privileges. He says no right to life exists unless your neighbors let you live thus recognizing (directly or lazily) your right to live. He thinks that if rights can be violated than they aren’t absolute.
Since the primary right to life and its corollaries; liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness are a prerequisite to live according to the nature of man
in a society, they(rights) do not simply cease to be depending on the location of an individual. Go to North Korea and you will not have your rights upheld but rather infringed upon.
I had a conversation with one of my neighbors who thinks that rights are NOT objective but rather subjective. After I had told him that rights are
a requirement of man, the rational animal, to live his life he then responded and asserted that I was operating under a subjective bias. At that point
I could only direct him to Rand's quotes on rights after giving him the definition of the right to life, and then simply end the discussion. There was nothing
more for me to say.
-
"Rand was not a conservative or a liberal: She was an individualist. "Atlas Shrugged" is, at its heart,
a plea for the most fundamental American ideal—the inalienable rights of the individual. On tax day,
with our tax dollars going to big government and subsidies for big business, let's remember it's the
celebration of individualism that has kept "Atlas Shrugged" among the best-selling novels of all time."
An interesting article by Donald L. Luskin : Remembering the Real Ayn Rand
-
Unfortunately, although not surprised, the opponent's arguments to net neutrality didn't even give
notice that this issue shows how property rights are not being applied and upheld. I was reminded
of Rands article "The Property Status of Airwaves".
Here is another video, where the correspondent gives an analogy of the usage bandwidth to that
of a tube-like system. So, the example given shows that bandwidth is a limited resource yet this
salient point is hardly considered?
Preserving freedom through more regulation? What an inversion.
-
Couldn't that be an argument to ban late term abortions.
"Is a fetus an independent being?
A being is a physically independent entity. A fetus is physically/physiologically dependent on the woman (host) for its survival—especially during the early stages of pregnancy. Only upon birth is it physically independent of the woman's body, an actual independent being. A baby, in contrast, though 'socially' dependent on the actions of other human beings for its survival, is physiologically and physically independent of the body of its mother.
(An argument can be made that a viable fetus that is fully developed (physiologically independent), but still inside the womb (physically dependent), should not be aborted, but should be delivered early.)" Quoted from Abortionisprolife
-
Yes, I was not aware either, thank you very much for the information.
-
I have read most of the 50+ pages in this thread. The support for abortion rests on two legs. One leg is that a fetus has no inherent rights, no right to not be killed. The other leg is that even if a fetus had such a right, it would not obligate the mother to provide the means of keeping that fetus alive to her own detriment. Every single time the discussion gets going about one leg, someone confuses the issue by saying, essentially, "leg #1 doesn't matter because of leg #2," or vice versa. This is why I am asking questions ONLY about leg #1.
Myrtok, have you thought of what it would essentially mean to uphold the right to life on fetuses? If not, I'll inform you. There would be a contradiction, which is what advocates for
anti-abortion movements are trying to achieve. There can be no right that encroaches and violates another right, which is exactly what these anti-life(anti-abortion)campaigners are
pursuing. There is no such thing as a right to enslave.
There is a huge and important difference between permitting a living thing with potentiality to live inside you; and caring for a living potentiality independent from you, thus having
the right to life. Think about this important difference, and you will see that the differentia is an independent being.
Only individual rational beings have a right to life.
Again, I'll refer you to Leonard Peikoff's article on abortion, re-read it now after hearing as to the WHY of the right to life.
I highly suggest reading the Q&A segment as well.
-
I have asked myself this, and I have concluded that it is irrelevant. The tapeworm I mentined before, or any number of other parasites cannot exist outside of their host, yet they are living entities by Miss Rand's definition. They are not required to live and thrive outside their host to achieve that status. I can find no reasoning that would require a human fetus to exist outside the body of its host to gain the status of "living entity".
Myrtok, I think question isn't regarding what is a "living entity", but more importantly what is an individual:
"Why does a child, or adult, have a right to life, and not a fetus?
A child, like an adult, exists as a physically independent entity. A fetus cannot exist as a sovereign entity, but requires a host to survive. A fetus' so called right to life boils down to the "right to remain in the womb"—and such a "right" is only possible by the violation of the actual right of the pregnant woman to her body. In contrast, observe that a child's right to life does not contradict the rights of anyone else. The principle here is that any alleged "right" that by nature entails the violation of the rights of another is not a right. There is no such thing as "trading one's rights for the rights of others." Proper rights, i.e., rights that are objectively defined, are non-contradictory." -From the Q&A page of Dr.Peikoff's Abortion article
Banishment of Beauty
in Visual Arts
Posted · Edited by brianleepainter
The painting itself, the content of the painting itself, sets the context for what and how much of a life affirming value can be gained from the painting once an observer comes into an objective relationship with the object, the painting.
I think when trying to answer your question as to what is beauty(in regards to a painting) that it can only be done most effectively by using examples of an individual’s value judgments acted upon an existent, in other words a painting. If an individual, questioning the objectivity of beauty and ugliness in paintings, perceives painting after painting and sees the similarities and differences between them, then he will see that some paintings are better than others, and the better ones have something(be it a universal, an attribute) that the artist had chosen to include while choosing to omit a negative universal, or attribute. The omitted can be seen by what the ugly paintings have in common that is included among them by the artist.
To emphasize my previous paragraph, I think writing about what is objectively beautiful and ugly in regards to painting is not enough, in that words cannot substitute for actually perceiving what is under question of being objective or not, beauty and ugliness in a painting.
This is how I understand it: If a painting is a recreation of reality based off of the artist’s value judgments and if the artist values beauty, then a viewer questioning the objectivity of beauty needs to perceive examples of paintings based off of the metaphysical and compare the painting to the metaphysical, the subject matter. The subject matter which has a specific identity will have a standard that the artist uses to represent beauty. If this is done again and again then certain universals, attributes, that are pleasing can be seen from painting to painting. But, if the artist had chosen to NOT include the positive and include the negative(rather than omit it) then certain universals, attributes, can be seen from painting to painting. I do not think only words can show that beauty is objective. It is ostensive in this way. When an individual is questioning the visually beautiful, only other artworks will do.