Objectivism vs Relativism in Aesthetic Evaluation - Term Paper Example

Philosophy of Art: Objectivism vs. Relativism in Aesthetic Evaluation Introduction It is generally agreed that the perceptive and aesthetic scopes of an experience cannot be clearly notable from each other since their understanding may have aesthetic influence and aesthetic experience functions cognitively. Relativism is the view that states that morals and principles are valid, but they vary among the diverse cultures, (conventionalism) or by individuals (subjectivism). Conventionalists argue that diverse cultures observed on the planet hold differing principles, then how can one culture judge the other? Each culture morality is equally valid, and normal. Normality is said to refer to the accepted behavior in each culture, and for a behavior to be considered normal must be accepted by majority. Therefore, the majority of a population defines normality and lives by it, and a small proportion is considered abnormal for not adhering to the set behavior. In results that any behavior that is socially acceptable is therefore considered good. On the other hand, Objectivism is the extreme end of relativism, where morality is viewed and judged at individual levels, not social or universal. The morally accepted principles here and valid are the ones held by individuals, and consequently, all principles are equally valid (Curt, 1929). Aesthetics Viewpoints Inherent in aesthetic of art is that when a person makes an observation, judgment or talks of his preferences, it is a matter of opinion, not a fact. Individual expression about a piece of work in an audience is an inherent desire to sell one’s opinion to them, who may or may not agree with it. In case they agree with the opinion, it serves as a recommendation to all who share same tastes and preferences. Those who bear a differing taste, it arises from their expression in relative terms, and inherent convention on what encompasses beauty. Monroe states that superficial reasons are not candid reasons, and they cannot be compelling reasons. Though it is true that one cannot change a dislike into liking by way of arguments, it does not imply that a person cannot change at all, or that discussions cannot be held on whether or not it ought to be changed. Every person has preferences in what they like, hardwired in their body and minds. This is referred to as aesthetic taste by philosophers. Aesthetics in philosophy is the focal point on beauty in arts, music, and literature, among others (Monroe, 1958). Tastes can change over time, but there is a sweet spot in human mind for things that interests an individual. They emanates from various sources, among them the environment an individual grew up in, preferences passed down from parents and individual developed over time. Relatively, these tastes may be influenced by triggering the situations which bring their preferences, but they cannot be disputed in their objectivity. They are physiological and unique to everyone, and each reason that defends a taste is merely a preference because the objective of standards for judgment cannot be argued (Hume, 1757). Version of taste in art philosophy is a puzzle at the center of debates by various stakeholders. The subjectivity evaluation is highly criticized by philosophers, important on the language used by the artists and critics on their arguments. Nevertheless, all stakeholders’ sentiments are held to be right by theorists, owning to the right that none is real and that they are only opinions, determined by people understandings. Such understanding may be based on truth, fiction or falsehood, and the critics and philosophers role is to elaborate on this notably feature to allow for broad evaluation of the same. Theories of Evaluation There are two main categories on theories of evaluation, realistic evaluation and theory-of-change approaches. Realistic evaluation, developed by Tilley and Pawson argue that intervention work depends on the underlying mechanisms at play in specific context. Mechanisms refer to the intervention that triggers change to happen. What works, in what circumstances, for whom, how, in what respects are the critical questions realistic evaluators are interested in. Outcome of the evaluation is of no interest to them. In its initial stages, it tests the hypotheses about the probable outcomes results from various interventions (Monroe, 1958). Theory-of-change intervention involves developing theories to explain how the intended intervention will work, and stating the assumptions behind the theory. When the actual change happens, verification is done to analyze the extent to which the theory matches the actual change observed. Theories of Aesthetic Evaluation of Art Theory occupies a central role in history and philosophy of art. It plays major role in determining the nature of art, thus formulating it into a definition. Definition is construed as statement of the sufficient properties that are necessary, which may purports to be a true or false claim in the essence of art, distinguishing it from everything else. The major theories on art evaluation are Organicism, Emotionalism, Formalism, Intuitionism and Voluntarism. They all converge in an attempt to explain the properties of art. In aesthetic theory itself, the true definition of art is not achievable, because of insufficient properties. This owns to the fact that each age of art, each art movement, and each emerging philosophy tries to establish an ideal to be succeeded by the next level. In contrast, this ideal is reversed by the new level with new theories. It follows that philosophers supplant the question on the nature of art by itself (Monroe, 1958). Therefore, art theories may be generalized as inadequate, owing to their contradictions and failure of continual in asserting of the existing ones by contemporary theorists. These basic inadequacies reside in their fundamental failure of understanding, and not on the complexity or difficulty on the nature of art. Objective Principles in Aesthetic Evaluation Formalist theory suggests that anything that is art is an instance of significant for, and anything that is not art is of no such form. Its proponents, with reference to paintings, assert that what they find in art is generalized as art in others as well. They maintain that the essence of painting is the combination of shapes, volumes and everything that on the canvas except the representational elements, which conveys unique response. This theory evaluates art as a unique combination of specific elements. The Emotionalists responds to this by arguing that the true essential of art is missing. They argue that defining property is does not express art; rather, an expression of emotion through public medium denotes art. Projection of emotion in a piece of art may be a piece of stone, through words and sounds is the real art according to emotionalist (Monroe, 1958). In their terms, the intuitionalist repudiates both the emotionalists and formalists form of defining art. In their version, art is the awareness of the distinct individuality of objects, without any scientific or moral content. Their definition essence of art is spiritual in nature. On the other hand, Organicist explain art as whole body, consisting of distinct but inseparable elements, which are presented in some medium. For any piece to be considered work, it should possess complex interrelated parts interrelating with one another in some surface of sort. Finally, the voluntarist evaluation on art offer a sophisticated insight by stating that all popular definitions of art are false, because they neglect the essential aspect of art. This approach does not give a definitive proposition on what art is; rather it explains the complexity of art and its nature which makes it impossible to conclude in one statement what is art, without failing to leave out major aspect of it nature. It evaluates art on three major aspects which should be in harmony for a piece of work to be regarded as art. They are satisfaction of wishes and desires, language through which the medium for conveying meaning is selected and unification of varying layers of imaginative projection. This paper holds the view that aesthetic evaluation is a hybrid of relativity and objectivity, and a clear distinction is not possible. This owns to the fact that some aesthetic viewpoints are universally agreeable by qualified observers: this point out that aesthetic viewpoints are a matter of taste, which is objective in nature, and there exists exemption to the beauty, basing on other factors which are completely relative. Theorists Positions on Objective Principles in Aesthetic Evaluation Passmore explains that there is something suspect about beauty, because artists and philosophers seem to get along in it absence. He argues that beauty is unreliable and useless because it expresses the wrong social values. He attributes his arguemnets on the basis that many arts on beauty have been criticized for promoting negative values such as anti-feminism and racism. McDonald ideas on the intrinsic value aesthetic appreciation relates to public attitudes towards conservation and related decisions of animal species. On the other hand, Isenberg distinguishes between critical and theoretical approaches to art, an approach that includes moral judgments in making statements about beauty and ugliness. Consequently, aesthetic judgment will always contradict moral judgment. He thus advocates that it is impossible to simultaneously derive pleasures from an object on one’s moral convictions and scientific grounds without impugning on one of them. For instance, a poem give rise to negative moral judgment, but produce favorable aesthetic pleasures. Knight’s ideas on aesthetics concentrate on evaluating the aesthetics of web from the user perspective. He understands aesthetics on human computer interaction platform, and suggests that physical objects become a mere façade in an individual aesthetic response, and that emotional façade are the basis of one aesthetic judgment. All the approaches are dissimilar in their bases of aesthetic evaluation, but agree that aesthetics principles among individuals based on one emotional response. Standard Theory of Aesthetic Evaluation Understanding and expression of beauty should be disinterested, that is independent of it purpose and the pleasurable sensations it brings about. This theory understands beauty to be the free play when there is internal harmony on the observer. Therefore, this paper is of the opinion that aesthetics of art is sophisticated, in both its relativity and objectivity. This theory conflicts itself by rejecting the universal aesthetic standard, by stating that, a piece of art is art because it is said so, creating room for more confusion and inadequacies during interpretation because critics and philosophers first struggle to understand the expressed meaning in lay mans language without incorporating art into it. However, it points out a very worrying aspect in art philosophy, where an artist’s is viewed to be of more importance than the piece of art itself. Consequently, important pieces are left out, because critics and philosophers pay much attention on artists instead of art itself. Reliance on documented texts and materials is an inadequacy of the standard theory. This paper is of the opinion that work of art must stand on its own, for them to convey messages without difficulties. Any documented accompanying document on a piece of work must be essential in extracting sense on what is being communicated, failure to which it represents relativity misrepresentations of the art in abstract. As a result, little or nothing is achieved by the arguments proposed in this theory, because it lacks integral and artistic status. Documentation occupies a critical role in this theory, which according to this theory. In artistic terms, documentation is not art, in both its objectivity and relativity The striking feature of Plato’s dialogues in his inquiry into art and beauty is that he devotes lot of time on both topics but treats them oppositely. Poetry represents art, which he refers to be the greatest danger, and beauty is deemed to be greatest good. Beauty is a special compliment to goodness, and fits awkwardly in objectivity in its’ role on ethical probation, and loosely meaning admirable. Telling the criterion of beauty and art is therefore philosophical, and relevant in providing a debating base for philosophers. Feldman supports Beardsley art criticism criteria by providing four major steps to follow. They are description, analysis, interpretation and judgment. Descriptions denote use of words in their neutral terms, so that to draw attention to a piece of work without denoting valuesoa snot not pass judgments. Analysis involves examining the relationship among facets of an object, such as texture, colour and shape. Employing information gained in the above two steps, interpretation is achieved. This is interpretation of varying ideas and facts discovered and not feelings or sensations. Judgment, is the opinion expressed about a piece of work, with no informed knowledge. Critical Communication of Art The term aesthetic is understood to designate many things. Among them, some type of judgment, kind of attitude, experience, value and a kind of object. Aesthetic theories at this time are not in agreement. They are divided on how to embrace the basis of aesthetic judgments (Hume, 1757). It is universally agreeable that aesthetic objects should not be judged solely or in isolation. Rather, they should be judged in respect to moral standards. By employing this approach, one employs personal aesthetic judgment on an abject, blurring out the intended aesthetic judgment. This points out to the fact that contextual factors are relevant in assessing an art aesthetic value. Therefore, factors such as the cultural situations in which a piece of art is made need to be considered. The morals of the society are also relevance in determining the aesthetic value (Monroe, 1958). Artistic minimalismexamines relevant properties of objects artistically, properties in virtue of which it is an artwork of which it is good or bad, which are formally mere and typically regarded as properties by sight of hearing or merely sight. Monroe gave artistic formalism articulated sophistication at its’ best, by use of reason andrelevancy in grasping the representational properties in objectivity of the classes they belonged to. During this era, aesthetics were not able to explain why one work of art was fine and the other was not, owing to the practical reasons and purposes that both works were aesthetically indiscernible. Therefore, if one was beautiful, then the other was beautiful or had to be beautiful, because they looked similar to the naked eye of a keen observer (Curt, 1929). Stolnitzadvocates that criticism enhances appreciation of piece of art, and that criticism is irrelevant to appreciation. Furthermore, viewing an object as an aesthetic object depicts that an individual is the object of someone else aesthetic attention. Consequently, any object may be said to be an aesthetic object owing that it is attended in the right way by someone. This means that the object itself tells you nothing concerning it, and any understanding of it is subject on how it is viewed. The world ugliest is an aesthetic object, ridiculing the taste theories and the perception of beauty (Curt, 1929). Proponents of aesthetic attitude are of the opinion that contextual data is irrelevant to aesthetic attitude and value. Monroe expands on this notion, by suggesting that to appreciate a piece of art, we need to experience it. Judgments are side effects to aesthetic experience and they are relevant, because aesthetic value is not determined by aesthetic judgments alone (Monroe, 1958). Therefore, for a piece of art to convey a message, its facets must be interpreted without passing judgment, an experience that is only possible by the art maker. Aesthetic Judgment and Attitude Theories of taste propose that humans judge objects as beautiful by applying the principles of beauty to them. Consequently, existence of beauty exhibits itself as objectively construed state by an individual. In contrasts to their proposals, some theorists of taste disagree with the existence of such principles, while others such as Hume and Hutcheson affirm to their existence. However, philosophers maintain that judgment of beauty is judgment based on taste and not reason, which operates on according to some generally agreed principles, which may be discovered through empirical investigation (Hume, 1757).. Debate among proponents of theories of taste makes it difficult to gauge the relevancy and objectivity of their arguments. Judgment of taste involves attitude, which refers to a motive to do nothing in particular. Attitude is more contemplative than particular, and the attitude we gauge on an object is presumably not practical. For this reason, it is reasonable to speak about our attitude towards an object as disinterested. Edward Bullough and Jerome Stolnitz aesthetic attitude theories are the most influential in the 20th century. According to Stolnitz theory, bearing an aesthetic attitude towards an object refers to attending to an object without willingness to, and with no other motive rather than to attend to it so as to end it sympathetically. This means accepting an object in its own terms, allowing it to guide an individual attention through it, which results to a richer understanding of the object. Practically speaking, it means embracing an object objectively, bearing in mind that it relevance to you does not exists. Practically speaking, attitude guides an individual when embracing an object, allowing such individual to see the features which are relevant to them. In contrast, Stolnitz emphasizes that aesthetic attitude enables an individual to focus on an object in isolation (Hume, 1757). Aesthetic attitude allows for an individual to appreciate an object, out of context in the actual practical self, by allowing it to stand outside the context of our personal beliefs and needs, by looking at it objectively. By allowing for such reactions on ourselves, even the subjective affections of moods of our being are in harmony with the characteristics of the phenomenon in question. Aesthetic attitude conveys three main assumptions (Curt, 1929): Isolating and describing the psychological aspects that constitute the “aesthetic attitude” Perception of an aesthetic experience, through conceiving it as being derived from an aesthetic object; which is contradictory in itself. Developing of an aesthetic object, which is the object of aesthetic attitude. Peffer’s Analysis on Aesthetic Judgements Peffer urges that in order to grasp the current global rage of art, there is a need to begin looking for early writings about arts. He suggests that art is a peculiar sensation, in that it involves the sense of looking at oneself through the eyes of the others. Interpretation of art in both the objective and subjective approach is the accurate way of passing aesthetic judgment. This relates to art philosophy on aesthetic evaluation, which advocates for an understanding about a piece of art before passing aesthetic judgment. Aesthetic Experience Aesthetic experience is argued by theorists and philosophers to be a subjective and objective phenomenon, in critically deriving deeper meaning to aesthetic experience. Their arguments are supported by theories which are largely categorized into internalist and externalist theories. Internalist theories concentrate their efforts on aspects internal to experience, whereas externalists theories plea to aspects external to experience.Internalist theorists agree that all aesthetic experiences have four common features, which every person can test in his or her own experience. They are intensity, unity which is a matter of coherence and completeness and focus, which refers to the one which one’s attention is fixed to. Coherence is subjective in it understanding, referring to a chain of causation, where each part leads to another for continuity without gaps. Through this a pattern of guidance is achieved, cumulating energy orderly to a climax (Curt, 1929). Completeness is objective in nature, and contrasts coherence because it relates to counterbalancing of elements such that a “whole”, stands apart from elements. Aesthetic experience understood from externalist point of view suggests that features visible to the eye determine aesthetic character in an object. It aims at understanding and appreciating the aesthetic properties of the object, the object itself providing a valuable experience that could only be the experience of that object. Consequently, aesthetic experience lies in experiencing the object itself, in a sincere way that is no aesthetic, so that the understanding and appreciation of the object is achieved. Defining and distinguishing aesthetic experience is a blurred aspect, acknowledging the fact that when one is asked to explain his experience, he starts explaining the feelings that an object construed in him. What to make of this fact is the true aesthetic experience (Curt, 1929). Ability of pieces of art to cause aesthetic pleasure is not agreeable by art theorists. General principles, such as rules and culture among others are relevant of passing aesthetic judgments which generates pleasure. These general principles cause complexity, intensity and unity within the form of art. Internal human conditions are relevant in expounding aesthetic pleasure, and determining the kind of beauty inherent in a piece of work. This criterion is objective in its view, and for someone to be qualified to be judging the pleasing aspects of a piece of art raise questions on the necessary requirements. Reflections on Aesthetic Evaluation Diverse criticism follows the discussion and evaluation of art aesthetics. With the prevailing socio-political environment, critics pursue to provide a rational basis of appreciating art, in the context of aesthetics. Art theory is acknowledged to be old as art itself, and it is believed not to be sophisticated as elaborated by critics and historians in their bid to bring art to a wider audience. This paper suggests that art criticism is the real reason for advancement in art work, because it stimulates creative instincts in artists, drives innovation because of the queries it generates and as a consequence, enhances art appreciation because it offers broad and enriched explanations. Contrary to the naked sight of a piece of art observed by any observer, a piece of art is held by many to hold mystic explanations behind its creation whose essence lies in indiscernible trajectory, which requires paranormal capabilities to comprehend and appreciate it. Philosophy has assigned art criticism the responsibility to demystify and deconstruct the web of transcendental the art creator thinking, who in return face difficulties and start antagonizing. Art criticism is different from aesthetic, in that it concerns itself with investigating the nature of art and determining its essence of beauty. It is also different from philosophy of art, because it aims at assessing the quality of work, its nature, and symbology in general and interpreting it meaning. However, it does conflicts with aesthetics and philosophy, because by just being practically critical of art itself, it tries to modify it and bolster it. Aesthetic and Moral Relativism Aesthetic relativism refers to the school of thought that judgment of beauty is relative to diverse people and cultural settings, and that there are no universal criteria of beauty. Beauty is part of human life, and so is ugliness. It therefore follows that philosophers are interested in human judgment on beauty and ugliness. However, judgment in this area seems to have a standard of correctness, not in arbitrary terms, but error terms referred to as true or false. Theses judgments, answers to, or describe anything in objective of reality. Aesthetic judgments came in for criticism during the discourse on beauty in 18th century, giving birth to moral relativism. Moral relativism seeks to understand whether aesthetic experiences and judgments are legitimate, rooting its arguments in broader cultural puritanism, which fears the connection between aesthetic and pleasure. In contemporary society, any suggestion that a piece of art is good because it is pleasurable, as opposed to politically and morally beneficial is to court decision (Curt, 1929). Aesthetics argue that reason itself for which a piece of art is created explains beauty of it. However, it is morally accepted that beauty is independent of any particular object, figure or reason beyond the construing of an object. Art aesthetic is thus relative in it meaning and definition, relating to beauty and ugliness as a condition, rather than an experience. However, philosophers and lovers of art agree that each type of art, for instance pottery, sculpting and painting are so distinctive from each other, thus the commonly accepted understanding of aesthetic will not apply. Universality and subjectivity are two main conditions which judgments are based on, consequently giving rise to moral relativism of the concerned piece of work. In subjectivity terms, one makes decisions on taste on basis of authority or inductive grounds. However, to make a subjective judgment, the individual needs to account on the nature of the pleasure on which the taste of beauty is based upon. Beyond this point, judgment on beauty cannot be pursued independently, and the metaphysical issues about realism and moral relativism stems in. Question rises on whether pleasure in a piece of work represents properties of beauty and ugliness. Philosophers argue that disinterest inpiece of work represents ugliness, because it falls short of pleasures which refer to beauty. Pleasures rise from the imaginative and understanding in harmony with the object in focus. Morally, this is not true, nor is it in agreement with the cultural context and way of life through which pieces of art are assembled. In relative terms, aesthetic pleasures which denotes beauty and ugliness of objects is not in agreement with generally accepted views on beauty and ugliness, for their definitions are not definitive, rather they are abstract in their meaning, and are left out for the diverse populace to understand them on their own. Conclusion There is need for hierarchical, rather than egalitarian conception on aesthetic notions. This would allow mankind to make aesthetic and nonaesthetic distinction in useful way and provide answers to art critics. This paper suggests that aesthetics judgments are not possible, though aesthetic is an aspect that can be defended in art philosophy. Every interpretation of artwork implies a qualitative judgment. Evolvement of artwork as a professional continues to develop people trough forming of habits that traces their forms and origin on the influences of ancient art workon contemporary societies. This makes it difficult to find art philosophy, criticism and aesthetics in isolation. They are conjoined in various scholarly articles and philosophers teachings to form a solid framework of understanding art. In conclusion, this paper states that in construction of a piece of work, the artist portrays a visual statement which in turn becomes the subject-matter response or reaction from the observer, usually the critic. Therefore, art work may be referred to as a language spoken through objects. Work Cited Curt Ducasse “Taste Cannot be Disputed” (1929) (10) Monroe Beardsley “Tastes can be Disputed” (1958) (7) David Hume “On the Standard of Taste” (1757) (12)) R.GPeffer “British Enlightenment Aesthetics: Theories of Taste (An Outline)” George Dickie ‘Twentienth-Century Theories of Evaluation” (Dickie 127-141) R.G. Peffer “Theories of Aesthetic Evaluation/Art Evaluation” (11) (Peffer Folder) An Implication and extension of Dickie analysis) George Dickie “Monroe Beardsley’s Instrumentalism” (Dickie 142-151) “Beauty, Ugliness, and Aesthetic Experience” (Puzzles 28-29) William E. Kennick “Does Traditional Aesthetics Rest on a Mistake” (11) R.G Peffer “Aesthetic and Moral Relativism” (6) (ERES-Peffer Folder) R.G Peffer “Peffer’s Notes on Recent British Aesthetics” (10) , Articles by John Passmore, Helen Knight, Margaret Macdonald, Stuart Hampshire & Arnold Isenberg) E.B Feldman “The Theory of Art Criticism” (18) E.B Feldman “The Critical Performance”. (24) “Critical Judgement” (Puzzles 180-217) Read More