Objectivity and Art
by Joseph Rowlands
One of the central principles of Objectivism, as well as one of the more powerful tools, is the concept of objectivity. It dominates every branch of the philosophy. Metaphysics elaborates on the premise of an Objective reality, and details the requirements of it. Epistemology explains how we acquire knowledge from this objective reality. Much of it details how our knowledge is objective. The Objectivist theory of concepts, for instance, is an explanation of how concepts can be objective, paving the way for thought and communication. In ethics, all values are organized based on the objective criteria of how it impacts your life.
Well what about that bastard step-child of Objectivism, esthetics? You know...the "fifth branch"? This branch always gets the short-shaft in an introduction to Objectivism. It's not just because it's poorly understood. There are some fundamental misconceptions. The biggest is that art has nothing to do with objectivity. If art is purely subjective, which many people believe, then it doesn't really belong in the body of Objectivist thought.
One problem with this view is that it misses one of the important insights in Objectivism. Knowledge must be objective. Saying that something is subjective is not an explanation. It's an evasion. You're not identifying any facts of reality, you're merely claiming that there are no facts. If you say that a concept or field of study is subjective, you're really saying that it's not a real concept or field of study. In the case of art, you'd be saying that there's no such thing as art, and it's just a mistake or scam. You'd be saying that there's nothing that really ties the different arts together into a single concept. You'd be dismissing it all as pointless, meaningless, and useless.
If on the other hand, you do think art is real and the different arts have something in common, you have to accept objectivity. You may not be able to clearly explain what they have in common, but there would be something.
One reason why art is considered subjective is that it's often improperly defined as that which is beautiful, or some other variant that upholds beauty as the essential quality. If this were the case, the whole field of esthetics would be severely limited. When we talk about beauty, we're usually talking about how we react or feel about something. If we find a woman beautiful, it's not that we've deduced from her proportions that she's healthy. Instead, it acts more like an emotion. It's an instantaneous reaction we have. And the reaction can be non-rational like any emotion. Some people might find beauty in distinctly anti-life material. If beauty were the essence of art, anything could be art. Anyone who happens to fancy something could call it art, and it would just mean "I like this". This is subjectivism.
A related justification for subjectivism in art is that the emotions you feel with respect to a work of art can often be very personal. For instance, a poorly painted picture of a puppy might remind you of a dog you once owned and loved (or hated). Isn't this a clear indication that art is subjective? Only if you assume that every emotion reaction to a work of art is due to its nature as art. The truth is, if you saw a dog similar to the one you owned, you'd react the same. It's orthogonal to the issue of art. By trying to attribute too much to art, you also make it meaningless.
Whatever the reason for accepting subjectivity in art, it's still a dismissal of objectivity, a primary tenet of Objectivism. It also abandons art as a topic of rational thought. It's like saying that you think rationality should guide your life in all things, except art. Fundamentally, this approach is dead wrong. Once you accept the premise of subjectivity, you close your mind to the possibility of objective knowledge. Even if you don't understand art, your basic position should be that the Law of Identity applies, and you just need to look to reality and integrate what you see.
Discuss this Article (13 messages)
|
