Appeal vs. Objective Quality
The topic for my question started with consciousness: “How do we think?” I after many hours spent trying to find an article related to my topic, I realized that my question was more of a psychological question than philosophical. I decided to switch my topic to something more inclined to exist; Descartes First Philosophy was in a way related to my question, so I figured I would change my question to “What can we know?” However, I quickly got bored with this topic. In class, we spent much time discussing Descartes and his first Philosophy, and it had little fascination left for me. After all that, I still didn’t know what my question was.
Sitting in class, I was on my phone, scrolling through google to see if I could get any type of inspiration for another topic. My peers were sitting beside me, pestering me for an opinion. I kept trying to shut them out, because I had work to get done. Slowly, I allowed my concentration to waver, and I entered a quite one sided argument about the quality of art, and objectivity’s relationship to aesthetics, and that’s how I stumbled on to my question: What is more important, Objectivity, or Subjectivity?
Schelling defines philosophy of art as a “construction of art”. Philosophical construction means for him “presentation in the absolute.At this epoch “absolute” signifies for Schelling the unconditioned identity of subjectivity and objectivity that constitutes knowledgeas such. Hence the title “identity philosophy” stands for the systematic unveiling of this identity in each and every object of knowledge.
The basis of my article, is how a different article failed to count in most pieces of art when discussing aesthetics; from what I understand, the author means to counter this, and say that it’s more important to regard subjectivity in relation to /every/ art piece when considering aesthetics.
During our group discussion, the main concept that was being discussed was “Is art objectively good or bad?”
During this discussion, Dom was adamant with his argument:
There are curriculum’s based around different Arts,
Curriculum’s have content in them
There are ways you can be taught to improve your art
Therefore, there are basic techniques that can be used that create good Art
From this, we can see that Dom is more of a believer in objectiveness in Art; that there are certain qualities a piece of Art can have that improves its quality. One idea that he presented that no one could completely refute, was that when one creates a movie, it’s typically a good thing to have good acting, pacing, music, etc. and that the better these qualities are, on average, the better the movie. However, Matthew and Brian weren’t so sold on this point.
Mr. Jackson presented the strongest argument we managed to come up with: The Eagles are widely considered to be an incredible group of musicians, and are heralded as a world class band. However, Mr. Jackson thinks they are terrible; what creates the difference?
The first conclusion that comes to my mind, is that there can be no objectivity in art. Objectivity is based around something having a lack of human bias; how can something which has its central idea of subjective appeal be objective? It’s a direct contradiction. Sorry, Dom!
The main question I have, is: how can Dom’s argument make sense? There are Art courses, that people can take in order to improve as an artist, but how can someone teach how to subjectively appeal to a mass group of people?