They are right ya know - never in the history of the world have artists of any kind made political statements. No one sang about wars or what leaders are doing. No song as ever done that. No art has ever done that. Music and art are only about love, and happy things. Or about your own personal demons. They never touch upon social commentary and such. Only the experts such as media bloggers and influencers should be able to comment on politics or life.
While I'd agree the evaluation of art is subjective, I don't think I can follow you all the way to which one "you like the most." We can see that there are some correlations between good craftsmanship or intelligent design and what ends up being widely regarded as good art. I think we would be stopping short if someone were to say Vanilla Ice was a good artist and we just said, 'fine, it's whatever you like best.' There are reasons why many, many, many people have come to a different conclusion about Vanilla Ice's work and maybe the person in question should consider whether he's really appreciating Vanilla Ice's work on its merits, or merely pretending it's good to serve other motives.
Claims about the quality of art do not share the same level of intersubjective congruence as claims such as I feel hunger when I haven't eaten. If a piece of art was objectively good, then everyone who experienced it would say that it is good. This is not the case. People have vastly different preferences and evaluations of different pieces of art. Take Convergence by Jackson Pollock for example. This painting is heralded by many as excellent and the work of a genius. To many others it is just messy slops of paint. What is the objective quality of Convergence? An art dealer may put a monetary value on it. Art appreciation students may discuss the techniques involved and the technical competence with which they were employed. Others may find meaning in it beyond simply admiring the image as an image. No one can say it is objectively a 10/10 though. I look at it and it does nothing for me. It isn't a style I enjoy and I wouldn't want to hang it in my home. If I had it I would sell it, because the monetary value is much greater to me than owning it. I reject aesthetic realism. Were it true, the agreement on what the best movie or song or painting or sculpture is should be as universal as the agreement that 1+1=2. It clearly is not. You can ask just the people in this thread what the best of every one of those categories is and I guarantee you will get no consensus. Why would me thinking all art is subjective make me more likely to buy what you are selling? If anything, I would be less likely to pay for whatever you think is objectively bad but are representing to me as worth buying, because I don't value some "objective" standard in art. I would be happy to look at anything someone wants to sell, but the value to me would be based on my personal evaluation, not on some claimed quality. Your statement would make more sense if I were claiming that there was an objective value, but I was better able to determine it than anyone else. If someone really loves Vanilla Ice's work, who am I to tell them it isn't good. Many people like Megan Thee Stallion's work. I don't. I like things many other people don't. Not for any reason beyond I enjoy listening to one but not the other. It's possible (even likely) that some element of craftsmanship or technical proficiency leads to me or you or anyone liking a work more, but there can be a perfectly crafted piece that I hate and a slapdash piece of trash that I love and the latter is of more value to me than the former.
that's fine not true. Just as in science there are different paradigms for comprehending reality, it is also possible to have different paradigms in aesthetics, and this does not negate the objectivity of either science or aesthetics. Objectivity is not 100% certainty: that is the view known as "infallibilism." That view has been discredited for over 100 years, Charles Sanders Peirce is generally credited for articulating its conceptual opposite, fallibilism. they may not be what Hume referred to as "qualified judges." Regardless: truth and objectivity are not popularity polls. There are criteria and justifications for considered judgments. if you have access to a good library with interlibrary loan service, you might try to locate a pdf or Xerox of this essay by Richard Miller, "Three Versions of Objectivity: Aesthetic, Moral, and Scientific": https://www.cambridge.org/core/book...d-scientific/FF9FA053B13916097A59578FB706A101
First of all, it's a rhetorical point which I think you know. Secondly, there is no way you can claim that a child's finger painting is at an equal or higher standing than the mona lisa, which proves there is an objective standard to art. There is also subjectivity to be sure, but to deny that art isn't objective at all is disingenuous at best.
To the parent of that child, it might be their favorite piece of art in the world. That's the point. Is a fraudulent copy of the Mona Lisa better, worse, or equal to the original? It looks the same, right? I don't care about the Mona Lisa at all. You can value it however you like, as can everyone else.
What you’re mostly talking about is “taste” and “preference” which are inherently subjective the epistemological issue that @Os Trigonum was raising is more about trying to quantify an agreement on art beyond just personal Taste. Your example above actually provides a bit of an answer that just beyond the aesthetic or technical aspects of art there is context behind the creation of art and in many cases the story of the artists and their creation becomes a very important part of the appreciation of the art. What you choose to like and what you spend your money on is your preference and that is inherently subjective. That doesn’t mean there aren’t standards that have been applied to what are considered great art.
My point is that those standards are just the preferences of some people that are given more weight than those of others. That they choose to develop some heuristic for evaluating art is no more or less valid than my method of whatever you like. There is no way to scientifically prove that one piece is better than another, you can just choose to establish a set of rules that claim one is better than another. Is War and Peace better or worse than The Grapes of Wrath? Is the Mona Lisa better or worse than Starry Night? Is Citizen Kane better or worse than Michaelangelo's David?
A new Washington Post/University of Maryland poll finds that GOP voters — especially those who watch Fox News — are the most likely to believe that the FBI was behind the January 6 insurrection. In an article published on January 4, Post reporters Tom Jackman, Scott Clement, Emily Guskin and Spencer S. Hsu explain, "The Post-UMD poll finds 39 percent of Americans who say Fox News is their primary news source believe the FBI organized and encouraged the January 6 attack, compared with 16 percent of CNN or MSNBC viewers and 13 percent who get most of their news from ABC, CBS or NBC. The poll finds 44 percent of those who voted for Trump say the FBI instigated the attack."
fox is the megaphone for maga, I am stunned every time I hear someone parrot the false news they hear on fox, there just brainwashed by the likes of the carlson, hannity, ingrahm and the rest of the bozo anchors..............fear, fear and more fear, I used to tune in every once in a while, just to hear what they're saying and it's just so blatant I don't even bother anymore. My folks who grew up with the likes of Dan Rather and Cronkite can't imagine a news station lying but they fell in the fox trap to, on one hand I feel sorry for them and on the other I get pissed just thinking about it. If you listen to my dad, its all a set up by the libs and trump was the best president ever SMH
Yes there are critics, style mavens and etc. yes those peoples preferences do carry significant weight and in some cases their standards are as subjective and narrow as any others. That doesn’t meant that the assessment of art is hopelessly limited to personal preference. Aristotle talked about the nature of art through almost medical terms and viewed drama as a necessity towards good health. In that sense it wasn’t just what someone liked but understanding how the creation and performance of art could affect the human condition. In this case you can look at standards for art like standards for food. Your own taste and preferences might be for donuts and pepperoni pizza but that doesn’t mean that you can’t appreciate a spinach salad with poached salmon for its health benefits
