I am relatively new to Objectivism. I agree with much of it, but a question arises…
If it is possible to objectively classify art as good or bad depending on the validity of the artist’s representation of life as either benevolent or malelovent, how then, can one determine if another’s art accomplishes this end, considering everyones perception of life differs depending on his/her personal experiences?
Any discussion would be appreciated.
Rocky
Your question contains a premise which is even wider than art and is the source of your confusion. You state that each individual’s “perception of life” differs because each individual has his own “personal experiences”. Based on these premises, you wonder how(on what basis - by what measuring stick) the results of these individual experiences may be judged as valid or invalid by anyone else.
The wider question is: since everyone has his own “personal experiences” - ie has unique life history, meaning the events of one’s life are unique to one’s self - each individual thus has a different “perception of life” - ie comes to different conclusions about existence, based upon those unique “personal experiences” - and so how does anyone judge the conclusions reached by another as valid or invalid, since they have not had the same set of experiences themselves?
In other words, by what standard does one judge the thoughts or actions of another human being?
If you know the answer to this question, then you should be able to apply it to your more specific question. If you do not know the answer, hopefully the way the question has been rephrased will help you discover that answer - or at least the path leading to it. (hint: implicit in your question is an underlying false premise about the validity of the senses)
(hint: implicit in your question is an underlying false premise about the validity of the senses)
I may have not realized the premise of which you speak but in the interest of discussion, and upon reflection, I realize that art is what it is. It is up to the individual to determine if and how much art contains morally compelling messages. In other words, regardless of the conclusions person A hase made of existence, art exists the same to him as it does to person B who has reached entirely different conclusions about existence (due to any number of different geographical or demographical circumstances). My question lays here. Is it possible for these two people to have had the same sensory reception of a work, one of them acknowledging the work as morally compelling while the other passes it off as lackluster?
okay, i just read that post and realized i answered my own question
I am relatively new to Objectivism. I agree with much of it, but a question arises…
If it is possible to objectively classify art as good or bad depending on the validity of the artist’s representation of life as either benevolent or malelovent, how then, can one determine if another’s art accomplishes this end, considering everyones perception of life differs depending on his/her personal experiences?
If you say that you “agree with much of” Objectivism then I think that you hold life as the standard of value. I am assuming too that you hold happiness to be the moral purpose of your life. In that regard you would not think that you live in a malevolent universe (i.e., one where man’s happiness were not possible). The art produced would reflect your view that reality is knowable, that happiness is the purpose of life and that man is a heroic being. Art in this framework ought to represent the artists’ sense of life (assuming he holds the right values). The art produced would be a representation of things as they should and ought to be. Note: If I said something wrong I would love to be corrected.
I am assuming too that you hold happiness to be the moral purpose of your life. In that regard you would not think that you live in a malevolent universe (i.e., one where man’s happiness were not possible). The art produced would reflect your view that reality is knowable, that happiness is the purpose of life and that man is a heroic being.
Your assumption of my moral happiness being the purpose of my life is correct. However, nowhere in my discourse did I imply that I believe I live in a malevolent world. I DO believe that art is meant to inspire in humans a deep emotional response. This ‘stirring of the psyche’ could result from seeing depictions of life that are beautiful and hold man as a heroic being. On that same note, art that depicts man’s utter moral reprehensibility is also inspiring, because, I believe, it leaves us with a strong desire to overcome those short-comings.
That said, and with the premise that we are all individuals, who have individual understandings of existence based on past experiences, I am wondering if anyone else has input as to if man’s cognition of moral reprehensibility depicted through art varies depending on their individuality. And if so, would not art, good art, bad art, be subjective?
A loose example perhaps: Say I have grown up on a chicken farm in Alabama, small community… I have a deep love of my work, I enjoy the fruits of my labor, I make lots of money doing what pleases me most. Raising and killing chickens. I am happy, and believe that I have achieved my goals in life. I believe that a piece of art depicting an axe coming down on a chicken neck on a cutting block was the embodiment of good art based on objective reasoning.
But the man who has grown up in the industrious city, whose achievements are larger-scale, buildings, architecture, Roark-like if you will, would not find any meaning in art such as this.
I understand that everyone is an individual, but how can one surmise an absolute standard for art if the perception of that art illicits different emotions in individuals?
by the way, i didn’t grow up on a chicken farm in Alabama, and sorry if this example doesn’t quite convey the meaning of my argument, it’s late.
What you are forgetting is that even though everyone has their own experience of existence they are all experiencing the same existence and if they all correctly identify experiences then they should all come to the same conclusions.
Funny thing is, that on the top of this page, the random quote that comes with every new window was this:
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.–Daniel Patrick Moynihan