Can someone explain to me the ambijectivity of art judgments?

Can someone explain to me the ambijectivity of art judgments?

>it's all subjective; if I like Beethoven and you like fingernails on blackboard then there is no possible way I can judge you or prove your tastes to be flawed
sounds ridiculous, but
>it's all objective, there's an order to the top 10 Dickens books in the same way there's an order to integer numbers - any divergence is simply false; if your culture, upbringing, personality or life experience affect your evaluation of art in any way then you're doing it wrong
also sounds ridiculous.

I'd say the truth must be somewhere in between those two extremes, but where?

I guess part of the answer is in dissolving the equivocation between different types of the idea of "enjoyment". "I love my children" and "I love turkey sandwiches" are (usually) not the same experience even if you use the same word to describe them; likewise, if you achieve the same profound experience when reading Twilight as I do when reading Hemingway then I can't judge you, but since you probably don't, then I can. But then again, most works of art aren't evaluated by polls on how many of their viewers claim to have experienced the Sublime, but rather by some intrinsic criteria.

Opinions? If any essays or books explain this I'd appreciate it as well.

just b urself

>but it sounds ridiculous
The universe is not arranged according to what you find palatable.

If you cannot prove it, it isn't so.

Ergo, the subjective understanding of art is correct.

How can you prove subjectivity

It's intersubjective.

>it's all subjective; if I like Beethoven and you like fingernails on blackboard then there is no possible way I can judge you or prove your tastes to be flawed
>sounds ridiculous
No it doesn't. The idea that someone's -preference- could be 'flawed' is what sounds ridiculous. As long as you're talking only about what people like, it's obviously subjective.

If you want to get to the point where you can rate, discuss and criticise things, you need to be talking about much more than just whether you 'like' it.

Prove subjectivity then.

If you can't prove the existence of objective standards of merit for art then there is no rationale to assuming that they exist.

In the absence of such things, it's all subjective mayne.

Not A = B
Why not then
Not B = A

I guess it's kind of like with determinism or eliminative materialism - they may as well be true, but once you step out of the armchair and into the street, the intuition against them becomes so strong that you can't help but act as if they are false.

Likewise, you might be right that absolute subjectivism is the default hypothesis with no evidence against it, but do you actually believe "Beethoven = nails on board if someone says it is" in your day to day encounters with art and art criticism?

autistic formal reasoning like this is what makes people question if there is such a thing is objectivity and subjectivity, look into informal reasoning
Chaim Perelman - The realm of rhetoric
Daniel J. O'Keefe - The concept of argument and arguing
James A Herrick - Argumentation: Understanding and shaping arguments

etc

Think about it for five seconds, my man.

Objectivity is "A". Subjectivity is not B, it is "Not A". Subjectivity is not its own thing, it is merely the absence of A.

If you can't show A exists, then Not A.

Whether or not you like something is not a thing that requires proof, unless you habitually assume everyone is lying all the time.

>do you actually believe "Beethoven = nails on board if someone says it is"
No, but then I didn't say that. I said someone could -prefer- nails to Beethoven and it would be absurd to argue that their preference is somehow 'wrong'. Enjoyment is just a mental state.

And someone could prefer shitting on the street, naturally cleaning it up afterwards and taking it home, whilst taking a leak in the sewer system on the street.
After all, it is mere preference, to argue that this somehow is 'wrong' is absurd.

Not an argument

Correct. "I don't like thing, therefore it can't be true," is not an argument.

An opposition to subjectivity on the basis that it provides an insufficient platform to lord your taste over others is not an argument.

See what you're doing with that wacky analogy? You're moving things on by talking about things other than preference- social impact, impact on the individual, social norms, etc etc. How would you apply that to nails on a blackboard vs Beethoven?

you ever wonder if things sound ridiculous to you not becaue they are ridiculous but because you're an idiot?

Likewise, if you can't prove Not A, then Not Not A, otherwise known as A. Formal logic is not helping anything here.

If you want to base artistic judgement on empiricism, here are the observable facts: people (and only people) say they like things; different people may at different times say they like different things; people might say they disagree with what different people like; people might describe their artistic views as impersonal facts or as personal norms.

How do you interpret this?

>if you can't prove Not A
You don't have to prove Not A. The world is either A, or Not A. If it's not A, it's Not A. Seeing as A is unproven it must therefore be Not A.

>but Not A is also unproven
Not A is not a position to be proven. Not A is simply the situation that results from absence of proof of A. That's why it's Not A and not B.

>people might say they disagree with what different people like
Not that user, but that makes no sense.

A: "I don't like thing"
B: "I disagree"

Unless B is calling A a liar, it's completely nonsensical.

>I said someone could -prefer- nails to Beethoven and it would be absurd to argue that their preference is somehow 'wrong'.

Seems like you're attached to the idea of "preference" here, making an important distinction between "I like X" and "X is good". Would your argument be different if I switched the two around?

Obviously I can't prove that I'm not wrong about everything I believe, by definition.

>Would your argument be different if I switched the two around?
Yes, but arguing about whether A is 'better' than B without qualification is almost as absurd. Better for what? Better in what way? Better for who? If you want to get beyond subjectivity, you have to talk about specifics.

You're confusing scientific principles with formal logic. The burden of proof makes a lot of pragmatic sense, but is not based in logic.

You're absolutely right. Let me rephrase that statement: people might describe their differing opinions normatively.

>You're confusing scientific principles with formal logic. The burden of proof makes a lot of pragmatic sense, but is not based in logic.
Elaborate on this.

I'm saying that in the absence of any reason to believe that objective standards of merit exist, we have no reason to believe that objective standards of merit exist.

Therefore we should not act as if objective standards of merit exist.

"Subjectivity" is nothing more than the phrase we use to describe a lack of objectivity. It is not a thing in and of itself.

I think that though there are different levels of compositions, it depends on how each type of composition intends to resonate on the subject and what he perceives as good.
We aren't all equal, and not always differences are on a knowledge level. Two equally competent persons may find, for example, Finnegans wake, either genious or pure wankery. Of course, its "artistic merit" and influence is way more then, lets say, Lovecraft, but thay doesn't make it inherently better. One may appreciate Lovecraft's simple tales more intriguing than some irish dude showing how smart he is, because rather than artistic "merit" he's looking for feelings.
So, even though history doesn't lie, our taste does, and even though something is more innovative, doesn't make it inherently better.

There is nothing conclusive about finding lack of evidence.

Will you accept an analogy as explanation? Right now, if someone asked you if I happened to be thinking about apples, what would you reply? We agree that it would be reasonable to say that no, I am not thinking about apples. There is, after all, no evidence that could point to such a conclusion. A logician, though, would say that he couldn't answer the question, as there is no evidence for either possible answer.

I am analogous to the world, and the thoughts that I might hold about apples are objective standards. It is reasonable to say that they don't exist, but not according to the principles of classical formal logic.

brought up the logical side of the debate. went along with this, while it should have admitted unprovability in this respect, and changed the method of attack, like to informal or probabilistic reasoning.

If a problem solving method is incapable of giving actionable answers in the real world it is a tool of semantic diversion, and any who engage in it need to divest of their pretensions of being anything other than ivory tower academics giving irrelevant answers to unimportant questions.

If you can't prove it, it isn't so.

What is an actionable answer?

The given answer is most certainly relevant. The implicit question that was raised during the previous posts was if the existence of objective standards could be proven or disproven with formal logic. The answer to that question is: no.

This answer is obviously relevant to the question, but perhaps you think it's not relevant to the overall question, being 'do objective standards exist?' I'd have to agree. But I do think it's an improvement that one part of the debate is closed, and that we can focus on other methods of seeking answers. Do you have one, besides restating your opinion?

>What is an actionable answer?
Something that significantly affects the way that Joe Blogs who works at the steel mill in flyover country will live his life.

>But I do think it's an improvement that one part of the debate is closed
Bullshit. That's the viewpoint of an ivory tower intellectual who wouldn't be getting paid if he couldn't justify his existence with meaningless tripe like "one part of the debate is closed."

Formal logic was never part of the debate because it is a waste of time. It has never produced anything meaningful outside of maths, which incidentally is all that it is - maths autists attempting to inflict their highly specific knowledge in places where it is no longer useful.

Do you think the average Athenian patted Plato on the back, congratulating him with the fact that for thousands of years, billions of lives would be affected by the rammifications of his philosophies? I don't believe many of his neighbours would find his work actionable at all. I wouldn't exactly call this the Akademia, but the same principles apply.

Why the need to objectively rate art? There are so many other aspects you can study and analyze to arrive at objective truths.

Even if there was a way to objectively rate a painting or a book, you'd still be talking about personal preference. There is bound to be someone who'd have a contrarian opinion for the hell of it, and your theory is ruined, and that's just intentional nitpicking. There are bound to be many who sincerely disagree with your opinion on art.

>he ACTUALLY THINKS philosophy matters
Comedy gold.

>ambijectivity

this is not a real word. stop trying to make it one.

Please get out of my philosophy-friendly safe space

Quick touch

Just because there isn't an objective truth doesn't mean we can't reach consensus on what is beautiful according to human standards and what is not often considered so.

>Why the need to objectively rate art?
Because it would help with resource distribution. If science somehow invented an infallible aesthetometer it would be much easier to establish how much funding from the state or charities which art should receive.

Because I have very strong intuitions for both "this is beautiful, but that's just my impression" and "this is beautiful and that's a FACT" and I wish to achieve reflective equilibrium on this.

Because I want to win arguments.

A much better question is, why do you even care? If someone enjoys Twilight more, it doesn't affect your enjoyment of Hemingway the least. An able person will tell what makes them enjoy X over Y, so you could understand but it the end, even that has no difference for you.

But you can't. Much more people will find Beethoven enjoyable because his music made in a way that makes ... music more enjoyable purely on technical level compared to nails on a board but if you compare him to a modern artist like Taylor Swift, you'd prolly find more people liking the latter.

Most art gets funded by the market and the market doesn't care about muh objectivity.

>this is not a real word
Why not?

>stop trying to make it one
Why not?

>he thinks he's well versed enough to neologize
the gall. what a pleb.