Is there any theory or form of philosophy that can evaluate Works of art with some sort of rigid and unchangeable criteria?
For example: both Beethoven and Kanye West are musicians. Both produce works of art in the category of music. My very entrails tell me that Beethoven is superior in every way to Kanye West, and that even to put them together in the same sentence is some sort of indignity to the famous German Is there any theory or form of philosophy that can evaluate Works of art with some sorto f rigid composer, but how can I validate my statement that Beethoven is superior to Kanye West? How can I use a philosophical argument to show: “this work, A, is superior to that work, B”?
If other people come to me and say that everyone posses their particular taste and that all tastes should be respected and that there is no way of saying that Beethoven is actually superior to Kanye West, how can I make a solid, almost mathematical argument that will show that Beethoven is superior to the rapper, or that Shakespeare’s poetry is better than Eminem’s efforts, for example.
No, but you can learn the theory and use that to explain why something is more complex and original.
Chase Turner
you can't. or you can try and be wrong. there's your two choices
Robert Lewis
No. Grow up and learn that your opinions aren't objective facts.
You can do this, but keep in mind that complex and original isn't always good.
Lincoln Lee
On the one hand, it's not true -- you're just socially conditioned to think so.
On the other hand, the entire society having been conditioned in that same way, it's much easier for a talented classical composer to spend his entire life developing their talents and doing nothing else, so in turn it gets much harder for consequential talented classical composers to top them, so the classical genre therefore becomes more appreciable because it really is harder to make, i.e. it becomes more "serious".
If a talent for good hiphopping/rapping weren't a sign of prestige only among one small niche group, but rather appreciated throughout the entire society young and old, in several hundred years hiphop would also become a much more "serious" art.
Adam Foster
>and unchangeable criteria
Probably only the test of time is some imperfect form of judge on this matters.
As for Kanye West in particular, dont worry: he will not pass the test of time.
Jacob Morales
i think what you mean is a subjective aethetical value
Lucas Myers
>complex and original isn't always good.
Name good works of art that are shallow and cliched.
Jeremiah Cook
there's this thing called in between opposites
Angel Cook
roger scruton's book 'the aesthetics of music' makes a fairly decent stab at it, although he's wrong
Isaiah James
nothing will
Luke Jackson
>learn music theory >now you can prove that Beethoven's music is better than Kanye's
Bentley Johnson
oh you mean mediocre and clichéed?
Isaiah Sullivan
How hard is music theory? I'm guessing very hard. I'm not OP, just asking because I'm learning the saxophone. Where do I begin with theory?
Colton Morgan
bump
Elijah Smith
OP, what you're looking for is the transcendental theory of art, which begins in Plato and peaks with Kant's aesthetics, expounded in his Critique of Judgment, and forms the backdrop for all formal modernist art criticism best exemplified in the essays of Clement Greenberg.
This is the sort of art criticism that was dismantled by post structuralism and post colonial theory which came to the fore in the 1980's-90's. Now the sort of post-structuralist thinking is both the cultural and academic default.
So read up on Kantian aesthetics and check out Greenberg's essays if you're interested in this kind of thing.
For the wider critical context, check out the essays of Thomas McEvilley - Art and Discontent, and Art and Otherness.
Jonathan Brooks
Yes, the entire discipline of aesthetics.
Ethan Cooper
This person is wrong, OP. Don't listen to this person.
You can literally use science to make this type of an argument, OP, since science admits of objectivity as a category of thought, whereas the minute you confine yourself to philosophy, you are confined to the exact sort of squishy territory that you seek to escape. It is the very squishiness of the territory itself (together with the insufficiently scientifically understood vagaries and differences of human culture, of lived human experience) that makes it possible for competing political ideologies to continue to exist, even though some (fascism, communism) are demonstrably "bad", albeit this "bad" value judgment is usually confined to interpretation of history, and not always repairs to science.
By way of example for this type of thing, read heartiste on beauty for more on this.
He uses gleefully shitlordy, unscientific prose, but he cites science and turns rhetoric up to 11, to argue that beauty is objective. If you can ram some version of that premise home (for which you will be obliged to cite and/or do science), then you can also begin to judge beauty and art according to objective criteria. This is how I suggest to you to build an evidence-based aesthetics along the lines of what you seek, but you will have to have a lot of intellectual honesty and add in a raft of caveats to make your thing work.
The taboo against this type of discourse/argumentation is that it gets closely tied to (real) notions of racial/cultural superiority, from which we are trained to expect monstrous consequences, which are themselves "bad". So rather than taking anything to its logical conclusion, present culture demands that the analysis not be performed. Also it bears mentioning that related ideas/programs from the early part of the 20th century have been legitimately refuted as bogus, so you'll need to study those and overcome that, because leftists falsely believe that they've been vindicated about subjectivity of aesthetics. You'll also need to explain why some people have different tastes (hint: certain tastes are pathological, per heartiste and common sense. A fat fetishist who goes for a morbidly obese woman who drops dead shortly before giving him a baby is a poor mate choice, evolutionarily speaking. The fetish suggests a maladaptive deformity of the man's psychology, which the norm repudiates).
Schopenhauer holds that the experience of “absolute” music (music that does not seek to imitate the phenomenal world and is unaccompanied by narrative or text), occurs in time, but does not involve any of the other cognitive conditions on experience. Thus, like the feeling of embodiment, Schopenhauer believes the experience of music brings us epistemically closer to the essence of the world as will—it is as direct an experience of the will qua thing in itself as is possible for a human being to have. Absolutely direct experience of the will is impossible, because it will always be mediated by time, but in first-personal experience of volition and the experience of music the thing in itself is no longer veiled by our other forms of cognitive conditioning. Thus, these experiences are epistemically distinctive and metaphysically significant.
Daniel Long
this thread is not deserving of this post
Sebastian Clark
Roger Scrotum is a terrible philosopher and you should feel bad for implicitly suggesting one of his books
Easton Ross
>beauty is objective how does this explain scat porn
Jaxon White
kys alain de botton
Adrian Cruz
Clement Greenberg wasn't a music critic.
Joseph Hernandez
If you were capable of reading for more than a minute, then you would have found your answer at the end of my post: certain tastes (not "all" tastes) can be legitimately explained as being maladaptive, pathological, etc.
If someone has a constant compulsion to eat shit, to the point that they catch multiple versions of hepatitis, then we may clearly say, nay we may objectively say, that the person is disordered, or whatever word the psychologists currently prefer to use to really mean "objectively bad".
The mid-functioning autist or hermit who hates and shuns human contact, does so at the peril of his own lifespan. Eventually, he will get sick, break a bone, etc. Humans are social animals, and are obliged to socialize with other humans to some extent, to ensure their survival. The outliers are just that - outliers. Pic related still was quite uncomfortable during the winter, and he had a habit of coming onto people's property late at night and taking what he could find (and this habit that he had could be argued to be objectively against society, or: an antisocial behavior). It really did frighten the locals, so he's lucky that no one blew his head off.
Samuel Cooper
Here is the picture that I meant to attach. Christopher Knight, the sperg hermit of Maine who lived off of other people's scraps for 30 years innawoods, was caught a few years ago.
Camden Cooper
>lots of people like the same thing therefore objective, people who don't are wrong and live in the woods :D
kys mm
Brody Bell
When it comes to formal aesthetics, music is a subset of art, so when you hear of an art critic, music criticism is often within their purview, though the reverse doesn't seem to be the case....hmm
Again, this goes all the way back to Plato for whom both visual arts and music were predicated on numerical harmonies, i.e. mathematics, as represented in Republic and Laws. Kant's aesthetics flowered from this idea - though in his work the harmonies were internalized - not reflective of ontological forms, but reflective of the a priori categories of perception (space, time) through which we engage with the art work.
On this view, whether it's a painting or a sonata, the same principles hold, as they are being approached through the transcendental human cognitive apparatus.
Music criticism in the 20th century, as far as I know, did not have the same sort of modernist paragon as Clement Greenberg was for the visual arts. It's often a bit more difficult in music to tease out form and content, where the entire transcendental theory of art is predicated on the elevation of form over content (and now we've got the reverse in POMO art criticism of today, where it's all content and there is no form - i.e. it's all opinion).
But the evolution of music and visual arts was heavily intertwined in the 20th century. Just look at the developments at Black Mountain College in the post WWII period - you had John Cage doing all his avant guard music shit, and the guys he was hanging out with brought about Neo-Dada, and Beat poetry.
Samuel Lopez
The ONLY WAY to try to measure music is by the sale numbers.
Henry Roberts
>No. Grow up and learn that your opinions aren't objective facts. This is a stupid and faulty line of reasoning and for this argument especially. Certain opinions can be and are objective facts and can/have been proven as such. It is absolutely true that Beethoven's superior to West gave a good reason Beethoven/Classical is superior >On the other hand, the entire society having been conditioned in that same way, it's much easier for a talented classical composer to spend his entire life developing their talents and doing nothing else, so in turn it gets much harder for consequential talented classical composers to top them, so the classical genre therefore becomes more appreciable because it really is harder to make, i.e. it becomes more "serious". especially here >a talented classical composer to spend his entire life developing their talents and doing nothing else To hold the opinion that Kanye West is better than Beethoven should deservedly get such an opinion holder laughed at. Beethoven's better exactly because he is better. In every way. If he wasn't, hewouldn't be held in such high esteem and West would be better. But Beethoven is and West isn't; and and anyone claiming the opposite would be rightly laughed out of conversation. All opinions may not be objective facts, but a true opinion is. "Everyone's right/special snowflake bullshit opinion matters arguments are full of shit. When something like Beethoven's deservedly earned the right to be called better, you'd better come along with something at least in the same league before you start spouting off about it. Otherwise, you're wrong and don'r have anything valid or of substance to prove something subpar is superior to whats earned is place.
John Perry
yeezus is objectively better than anything memehoven wrote
Bentley Mitchell
how many beethoven albums got a 10 on pitchfork.... oh yeh, zero
you are a retard
Nathaniel Myers
If you're serious about it, begin with harmony, learn what chords and scales are (deeply intertwined) and how to make them and use them. Sax needs a lot of ear training too so play and listen, get yourself practice partners; there's no point in learning sax if you're not gonna jam. Tbh get a teacher first.
this guy write like a complete faggot and his points are not too relevant to music
Ethan Bell
These snarks are intellectually dishonest in that they wilfully ignore where objectivity is clearly located in the above.
You pretend to obviously point out that "of course whatever humans want, or normally do, is not 'objective' " and so you falsely pretend victory on this point. When rather, it is clear from context that there is a local sense of objectivity entailed by the above, which is what is meant. Specifically, that since humans are constituted in a particular way, that if one considers the point of view of "the human population", then it can legitimately be said that certain unpleasant behaviors or pathologies are /objectively bad, insofar as a human population will be concerned./ This is not to be confused with subjectivity, it consists very simply in observing animal behaviors over and over again, and drawing evidence-based conclusions. You have demonstrated nothing, whereas I have.
Connor Richardson
My prose is excellent, my argument wholly germane to music, and to aesthetic endeavor in general. You are wrong, and the reason why you are wrong is because science has not yet fully pushed into the realm of taste, as I've explained.
Grayson Nelson
In the very unlikely scenario that this isn't an ironic swipe at Sam Harris read le is/ought gap by Desmond Hume m80.
Zachary Cruz
>how many beethoven albums got a 10 on pitchfork.... oh yeh, zero >pitchfork Yeah I'm sure the Beethoven could have gotten a 10 on pitchfork, because it and the internet existed in his time...Oh wait... Let me know when Kanye West recieves the level acclaim as Beethoven and accomplishes feats on the same level Beethoven has. And the only West album that got a 10 on pitchfork was my Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy. One album on fucking pitchfork Yeah that sure BTFO Beethoven alright. >you are a retard You posted what you just posted and I'm a retard? You're the exact kind of person I was talking about who should have their opinion immediately discarded for how utterly bullshit it is. Did you post
too? If you did you especuially now don't have the right to be calling anyone retarded.After posting what you just did you should have killed yourself out of shame.
Bentley Ortiz
Taste is subjective. Most people consider Kanye West way better.
Gavin Thompson
>Taste is subjective. Most people consider Kanye West way better. So most people are idiots and have shit taste? And water's wet. News at 11. You can personally like Kanye over Beethoven. But to say Wests better is assinine.
Jason Morgan
He's miles better. Beethoven was about when music was shit. We now have all the tech available to us that we can make whatever we want sonically.
Anyone can shit out a Beethovenesque concerto nowadays with some practice and a slightly creative mind. No one does and no one tries because music has moved on. Beethoven is no longer interesting and that's why pitchfork don't review him and why kanye is superior.
Eli Phillips
>Beethoven's better exactly because he is better. In every way. If he wasn't, he wouldn't be held in such high esteem and West would be better.
This is literally circular reasoning followed by an appeal to public opinion.
Supported by 'laughing at Kanye supporters makes Beethoven objectively better' and and empty rhetoric.
Which is expected, because there is no such thing as objectivity when it comes to aesthetic and inherently subjective experience.
Camden Hall
i love people who just read one blog entry and think they understand everything because they were so easily convinced by the blog
Charles Davis
>Is there any theory or form of philosophy that can evaluate Works of art with some sort of rigid and unchangeable criteria?
Yes.
The theory of flammability.
Dat shit burn yo?
Thomas Garcia
as of now west is better because he is more relevant to contemporary modes of musical production and consumption, just as beethoven was in his time. different time, different standards
Chase Barnes
Hume?
Jace James
wanting to do such a thing is a sign of intellectual immaturity. you shouldn't be reading philosophy instrumentally.
Benjamin Powell
sorry pal
Nathaniel White
>Beethoven's better exactly because he is better. In every way.
"i am saying a thing is true, because it is true." you've already committed to tautology, but let's see just how much further you've decided to take this
>If he wasn't, hewouldn't be held in such high esteem and West would be better.
seeing (unconsciously, to be sure) the futility of your circular argumentation, you've decided another tried-and-true rhetoric, inciting public opinion. of course, you haven't cited any actual data in re: your claim, so i have no reason to believe west is held in lower esteem than beethoven, or vice-versa—and nor does anyone else! but even if you did have such a study, it's impossible to show that "more esteemed" and "better" are "objectively" interchangeable descriptors. you could try and show that there is a preferential ideology at work in the culture which values traditionally white art forms over traditionally black ones, but such a critique would be misplaced by about a decade, probably more—i suspect an ideology of exactly the opposite kind is currently dominant in America, at least.
>and and anyone claiming the opposite would be rightly laughed out of conversation.
he stutters—his anxiety shows. i won't get too psychoanalytical, but i suspect you've had a bad experience with being publicly shamed in your past, which leads you to think public shaming somehow measures objective truth.
Liam Gonzalez
I like this post
Daniel Perry
>It is absolutely true that Beethoven's superior to West
While I also prefer Beethoven over West I have to say you should really read about the difference between objective and subjective and especially how words like good and bad are related to it. Love you user, have a nice day.
Justin Bailey
Not really. Aesthetics is a clusterfuck and hardly studied as a relevant, serious philosophical discipline anymore. Shame because I kind of like it,
Caleb Baker
Again, you can't bring yourself to clearly state your argument, so you are forced to faux a superior "oh dear how could someone be so stupid, yes, oh me I do hope it's very unlikely that you're the stupid one", which doesn't even work in this case as you're simply wrong.
You are forced to concede that I am simply right about what I've said, once you go back and re-read and actually understand what I've said. I have not described subjective wishes, or fancies, but instead a simple program whereby detached, general value judgments can be made. You can't actually refute this, and the reason why you can't is not because I'm being somehow stupid, or intentionally difficult, or don't know the appropriate vocabulary (all false). Rather, what is really going on is that you are confusing human subjectivity with true objective observations about human subjectivity, and about trends in human subjectivity itself, which trends have objective truth as-observed. Stop trying.
Lincoln Young
...
Desmond Hume awaits my man
Ian Baker
>implying there is one universal "music theory" Music theory is just a tool for understanding and constructing music within a very specific framework. It can not be applied to all music in the same way and you are incredibly misguided if you think that it can
Angel Harris
>You have demonstrated nothing, whereas I have
I like this thread
Isaac Roberts
>Beethoven's better exactly because he is better Nice argument m8.
You guys should know better that this, arguing with people is pointless, you will probably never convince anyone with 'logic' and you will end up looking up like an aspie.
What is superior, a tornado or a cat ? Give me a program to analize their value plz ! Sage because this thread is juvenile, pointless and idiotic. OP is just a sad little man with no apparent will to understand something so basic.
Juan Cruz
>you can't actually refute this
because it's unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific, like all aesthetic value judgments. QED gentlemen.
Joseph Miller
Nope, nope, nope and nope. Hume, by the way, has no pertinent input on what I've said, once you actually read him and reconsider what I've said. The other person has to convince themselves that one true illustration I've used is the extent of my reading, and another has me confused with the OP, as well. I declare total, objective, victory, and say it again, one last time: It is tenable for human beings, subjective beings, to use science to construct an objective aesthetics. That is the central premise which none has actually refuted, because they can't.
