Robert,
That was a very interesting post you made, and got me thinking. Before I comment more fully, let me begin by saying that I was recently ‘properly’ humbled on what I thought was at least a solid foundation on my understanding of art – and one’s response to it. So this post is more of a ‘seeking guidance’ than a counter-argument. That said, I would like to challenge a couple of your points that seem to me somewhat vague.
You said: The standards and principles shared by both groups of observers may well be a sincere appreciation for the heroic quest for human knowledge. But their divergent evaluations of this particular work reflect their individual selectivity of focus. One group focuses on the "heroic" elements, the other on the "conflicted" elements. Factually, all the physical facts being described ARE present and being perceived. But what emphasis and interpretations people will give to each of those facts depend upon factors quite outside the field of aesthetics, and which lie within the realm of personal, contextual emotional associations and symbolism. Michael is very right in his "Rorschach inkblot test" metaphor. Everyone is looking at the same things, but "sees" something different, depending upon personal context.
You say, “Outside the field of aesthetics,” how so? Isn’t this like saying that a physics problem lies outside the field of mathematics? And would it not be more correct to say, not that the factors lie within the realm of the personal, emotional or symbolism; but rather lie on what the premises by which one makes their metaphysical value judgments? The examples you gave seem to be more of 'effects' not 'causes' of the differing judgements two people make on the same piece of art.
Later you say: “This is why I find laughably futile the arguments over which artist or work is "the best." Two distinct aspects of that debate are usually conflated: the technical artistic merits, and one's own appreciation. In the former area alone, there are so many elements that it's impossible to rank their importance.”
Help me understand here, are you saying that one cannot make an accurate (and universally true) qualitative distinction between two works of art because of the interpretive factor that is dependent on selective focus? While I can see how your argument applies to ‘the thinker’, I must ask how it would apply to a work like ‘Piss Christ’ or a Jackson Pollack piece, when compared to piece by a Vermeer or Monet?
Lastly, you said that, “Better for us to say which are our "favorites" and why, than to make apples-and-oranges comparisons of "superiority. (Why some people seem to NEED to assert superiority in their aesthetic proclamations is an issue beyond the scope of this post.)"
How does one choose a ‘favorite’ without making a value judgment on the degree of the piece’s superiority or inferiority to other pieces? The word ‘favorite’ seems to me to ‘demand’ that this is done. It’s not a question of ‘needing’ to assert superiority, but perhaps having no other choice but to do so.
Help me out here?
George
(Edited by George W. Cordero on 3/18, 11:01am)
| 
