The question of whether or not there can be a completely objective standard of artistic beauty is quite a controversial topic in contemporary popular opinion. In order to properly understand one's position on art, we may first need to clarify what it means for something to be considered art. Definitions of art have been numerous and, for the most part, unfruitful, yet I will provide a brief background on popular definitions of the course of time in order to provide a proper context for the definition of aesthetic value. The purpose of this essay is to determine the factors which make particular pieces of art beautiful and others not. I will analyse what I consider to be the two major components of aesthetic value, subjective sentiments and …show more content…
Some of the most popular meanings of aesthetic value are subjectivism, relativism, emotivism, and intersubjectivism. Subjectivism, in the words of Hume, states that "beauty is not a quality in things themselves; it exists merely in the mind that contemplates them." A realist would disagree with that statement and proclaim that beauty is an objective property that exists in objects regardless of the mind which perceives them. In addition to these major classifications, there is the emotivist position, taken by thinkers such as A.J. Ayer which classifies all positions on aesthetic value as meaningless displays of approval or disapproval. Intersubjectivism, on the other hand, is a position taken by Hume in his essay 'Of the standard of taste' which says that when we call something aesthetically valuable we are making a claim about the value that an artwork has for a group of people of whom Hume says have a "delicacy of taste". My own view is that aesthetic value can be subdivided into two distinct components, subjective sentiments and objective …show more content…
Subjectivism is correct when we are assessing art for its sentimental value. That is, the types of feelings that a piece of art may evoke. My feelings, although they arise as a result of the object, are only discernable to me. This goes against Tolstoy's view that art is, in a sense, a medium for conveying the emotion of the artist onto the spectator. This is because there is absolutely no way of knowing whose feelings, if any, properly correspond with those of the artist's. When discussing whether an object's sentimental value is objective, one has to be mindful of the fallacy of composition. Even if a piece of art evokes the same emotion from every single member of a society, there is no way to validly infer that the object has a property, in itself, that evokes this universal sentiment. This alone, however, does not mean that all art is merely a matter of subjective opinion. This is because sentiment is not the only component which makes up aesthetic
The artistic value is the second point of view. This raises the question "Can this be considered a piece of art?". Personally, I think that this is art since art is the expression of an idea born of a human. Art can be more or less abstract or real, beautiful or ugly, and the ways to represent this idea are endless, not only a painting, but also literature, sculpture, poetry, movie, or photography. I would say that art is the concretization of an idea, not the idea itself. Tansey's art work here represents the definition of art, because it embodies an important thought, historical time, influence, and even a message. Art is hence certainly subjective, but it has something objective to making it eternal in
He clarifies his interpretation of aesthetic value, rejecting the traditionally narrow notions regarding beauty and composition, and expands his view to include insights and emotions expressed through the medium. Explaining that he views overall value as an all-things-considered judgement, he asserts the ethicist’s duty to contrast the aesthetic with the ethical and determine the extent to which one outweighs the other. Gaut calls on readers to defy the popular paradigm equating beauty with goodness and ugly with evil, allowing for great, yet flawed pieces of
Another example was the criticism made by Dr. Judith Reisman who disagreed that Mapplethorpe’s photographs were art because they “failed to express human emotion” because of the sexual images(379). But this statement also requires the question, by whose values? Maybe they do not show human emotion to her because she believes only traditional “beautiful” things can invoke emotion, but they may invoke emotions in other viewers, which is the artist's purpose.
artistic merit of the work: not that “it is a work of art,” but how good a work of art it is, and
Though most works of art have some underlying, deeper meaning attached to them, our first impression of their significance comes through our initial visual interpretation. When we first view a painting or a statue or other piece of art, we notice first the visual details – its size, its medium, its color, and its condition, for example – before we begin to ponder its greater significance. Indeed, these visual clues are just as important as any other interpretation or meaning of a work, for they allow us to understand just what that deeper meaning is. The expression on a statue’s face tells us the emotion and message that the artist is trying to convey. Its color, too, can provide clues: darker or lighter colors can play a role in how we judge a piece of art. The type of lines used in a piece can send different messages. A sculpture, for example, may have been carved with hard, rough lines or it may have been carved with smoother, more flowing lines that portray a kind of gentleness.
In existential thought it is often questioned who decides what is right and what is wrong. Our everyday beliefs based on the assumption that not everything we are told may be true. This questioning has given light to the subjective perspective. This means that there is a lack of a singular view that is entirely devoid of predetermined values. These predetermined values are instilled upon society by various sources such as family to the media. On a societal level this has given rise to the philosophy of social hype. The idea of hype lies in society as the valuation of something purely off someone or some group of people valuing it. Hype has become one of the main driving forces behind what society considers to be good art and how successful artists can become while being the main component that leads to a wide spread belief, followed by its integration into subjective views. Its presence in the art world propagates trends, fads, and limits what we find to be good art. Our subjective outlook on art is powered by society’s feedback upon itself. The art world, high and low, is exploited by this social construction. Even when objective critique is the goal subjective remnants can still seep through and influence an opinion. Subjective thought in the art world has been self perpetuated through regulated museums, idolization of the author, and general social construction because of hype.
The attempt to base a standard for assessing the value of works of art upon sentiment (the feeling of pleasure or displeasure) was famously made by David Hume in his essay "Of the Standard of Taste." Hume's attempt is generally regarded as fundamentally important in the project of explaining the nature of value judgements in the arts by means of an empirical, rather than a priori, relation. Recently, Hume's argument has been strongly criticized by Malcolm Budd in his book Values of Art. Budd contends that Hume utterly fails to show how any given value judgement in the arts can be more warranted or appropriate than any other if aesthetic judgements are determined by sentiment. This is a remarkable charge, since Hume explicitly sets out to introduce an aesthetic standard for "confirming one sentiment and condemning another." I examine Budd's arguments and conclude that Hume's position-and the empiricist tradition that it inaugurated-can withstand them.
Just as other works that reflect art, pieces in the category of fine arts serve the important message of passing certain messages or portraying a special feeling towards a particular person, function or activity. At times due to the nature of a particular work, it can become so valuable that its viewers cannot place a price on it. It is not the nature or texture of an art that qualifies it, but the appreciation by those who look at it (Lewis & Lewis, 2008).
Philosophies of Art and Beauty Edited by Hofstadter and Kuhns, (Chicago: University of Chicago press, 1976) chapters one and two for an overview of the aesthetics of Plato and Aristotle.
David Hume’s essay “Of the Standard of Taste” addresses the problem of how objects are judged. Hume addresses three assumptions about how aesthetic value is determined. These assumptions are: all tastes are equal, some art is better than others, and aesthetic value of art is defined by a person’s taste(from lecture). However, Hume finds the three beliefs to be an “inconsistent triad”(from lecture) of assumptions. If all taste is equal but taste defines the aesthetic value, how can it be that some art is good and others bad? Wouldn’t all art be equal if all taste is equal? Hume does not believe all objects are equal in their beauty or greatness. He states that some art is meant to endure, “the beauties, which are naturally fitted to excite agreeable sentiment, immediately display their energy”.(text pg 259) So how will society discern what is agreeable and what is not? Hume proposes a set of true judges whose palates are so refined they can precisely define the aesthetic value of something.
Of course, this argument cannot be held to all art. If that were the case, then a majority of artwork would be then considered worthless. Bell’s principle of aesthetic emotion is far too specific to define such a wide array of visual art. Not to mention, everyone’s interpretation of what
Aesthetics is the theoretical study of the arts and related types of behavior and experience. It is traditionally regarded as a branch of philosophy, concerned with the understanding of beauty and its manifestations in art and nature. However, in the latter 20th century there developed a tendency to treat it as an independent science, concerned with investigating the phenomena of art and its place in human life. Yet, what in a field with a hazy line in between being classified as a science or study of beliefs is considered data for determining what can be studied? It can simply be drawn to the only three things involved in the process of art : The creator, the person experiencing, and the art itself.
In Aestheticism, life is viewed as an art. Aesthetes found beauty in art and in whatever was attractive in the world. Altick said, "The connecting link was Rosetti, whose poetry and painting inspired the Aesthetes"(page 291). Art’s purpose for the Aesthete was for pleasure. The Aesthetics interpreted his artistic aim as the pursuit of beauty separated form social meaning. Oscar Wilde’s theory towards Aestheticism was that the only reality worth seeking was not material goods but the individual experience. And so Aestheticism involved a complete revulsion against received standards of values.
Some, such as Toby Syoboda, claim that “human beings lack any evidence for the position that non-human entities have intrinsic value”. Svoboda proposes that we cannot assign intrinsic value, as in another world that thing may not possess any value at all; however, I propose that things can have intrinsic value on the grounds that they are valuable with no regard to their function in human society, meaning that value does not come from being instrumental. I believe intrinsic value is something can exist with and without instrumental value; the most apparent example of something with both forms of value is friends; whilst friends do have instrumental value by giving us connections and doing us favours, they also have value in-themselves. Of course, I expect a friend to help me if they can, but if they cannot I value them no less, even though their instrumental value would be less significant to me. Moreover, there are also instances where things have had instrumental value, that has been lost or taken away leaving purely intrinsic value. A prime example of this is Marilyn Monroe’s “Happy Birthday, Mr. President Dress”. This year, the dress sold at auction for $4.8 million, so that it can be displayed in Ripley’s Believe it or Not Museum. Normally, an expensive dress is purchased as it is well fitted, or made of a material which will last a long time but ultimately to make the person wearing it more attractive. However, in this instance, one of histories most expensive dresses is merely sitting in a display. Whilst the dress could have this instrumental value, the intrinsic value overwhelms it to the extent that its instrumental purpose becomes redundant. On the other hand, we can also have value completely exclusive of instrumental value. For instance, Van Gogh’s painting, The Starry Night, to most people, holds absolutely no
views as to what art is; and as they say, beauty is in the eye of the