Relativism vs. Objectivism in Aesthetic Evaluation - Essay Example

? Relativism vs. Objectivism in Aesthetic Evaluation The criteria on which personal views on objects or events are based are usually differentiated, being influenced by the beliefs of each individual. Under certain terms, subjective views, i.e. those views based on objects or events that can be evaluated differently are not accepted as valid. At this point, it would be critical to understand the level at which people tend to be differentiated as of their evaluations. Current paper focuses on the differences between objectivism and relativism, especially regarding the use of the above concepts in the context of aesthetic evaluation.. In accordance with Young (2003) ‘the aesthetic value can be objective or subjective, being influenced by the criteria used for evaluating a specific event/ object’ (Young 2003 p.117). On the other hand, it should be made clear that a work of art is considered as having no value when the specific work of art has no effect on people. Moreover, the evaluation of a work of art should be primarily based on the potential benefits that the specific piece would secure for the public (Young 2003). In any case, when no reference is made to the pleasure that a particular work of art can offer to the public, then the evaluation of the specific work of art can be characterized as invalid. The identification of the influence of objectivism and relativism on the aesthetic evaluation is a difficult task. In terms of its nature, aesthetic value is a concept used for explaining the value of an object based on its characteristics. In accordance with Bunnin and Yu (2004) the aesthetic value can be described as ‘the properties rendering a work of art good or successful, such as balance, charm and elegance’ (Bunnin and Yu 17). Aesthetic value, in the above sense, can be focus on different characteristics of a work of art, such as its colour or its significance for the society’ (Bunnin and Yu 17). As explained above, the complexity in the relationships between relativism and objectiveness is high; the analytical review of the key principles of these concepts is necessary when having to identify and justify the value of a work of art.(Young 2003). In order to understand the relationship between relativism and objectivism in the context of aesthetic evaluation, it would be necessary to refer primarily to the key elements of the above two concepts. Then, their role in aesthetic evaluation would be made clear. It should be noted that the existing theory on relativism and objectivism, especially regarding the aesthetic evaluation, is based on different approaches, mostly because of the extensive use of these concepts in explaining the response of individuals to their external environment. It should be noted that the relevant views will be presented and analyzed, as possible, especially in regard to their relation to aesthetic evaluation. In accordance with Baghramian (2004) relativism can have three different forms; it can be characterized as subjective, social and conceptual (Baghramian 7). Subjective relativism is based on the view that ‘aesthetic evaluations are depended on the beliefs of individual thinkers’ (Baghramian 7). The above type of relativism is differentiated from social relativism, which highlights the importance of social conditions as a criterion for the development of aesthetic evaluation. Moreover, conceptual relativism is highly based on ‘ontology and scientific paradigms’ (Baghramian 7), which can be used every time that an object or an event has to be evaluated in terms of its aesthetic status or quality (Baghramian 7). Among the three forms of relativism presented above, the one that most reflects the role of relativism in aesthetic evaluation is the first one, the subjective relativism. This form of relativism is clearly opposed to objectivism, as a concept also reviewed in this paper, especially as of its use in aesthetic evaluation. At the same time, relativism can result to the different evaluation of aesthetic properties. More specifically, in the context of relativism the value of aesthetic properties is estimated using different criteria; however, moral properties of the works of art are not threatened (Dickie 1988). In this context, a different level of risk is established, leading to the limitation of the validity of the aesthetic evaluation referring to a particular work of art. On the other hand, Wollheim (1980) notes that relativism can be problematic when used for aesthetic evaluation; the above view is based on the following fact: relativism ‘seems to have a problem with authority’ (Wollheim 1980 p.237). Also, relativism can refer to the social conditions of a particular society; the social relativism, as mentioned above, can be characterized as inappropriate for supporting aesthetic evaluation, mostly because the personal assumptions of members of the public are avoided. In the context of subjective relativism, as described above, views related to aesthetic evaluation cannot be similar. Indeed, since the personal perceptions and beliefs of individuals in terms of art and aesthetics are different, the evaluations of these individuals in regard to a specific piece of art are also expected to be different, even if certain similarities may exist. Indeed, as noted in the study of Dziemidok and McCormick (1989), subjective relativism is based on ‘the divergence of aesthetic evaluations concerning the same work of art’ (Dziemidok and McCormick 91). The key rule of subjective relativism, as described above, is often negatively criticized in the literature, because of the following reason: the individuals who evaluate a work of art based on the principles of subjective relativism, are likely to make different assumptions regarding the value of the specific work of art. In this way, they ignore the fact that a work of art ‘may have a series of different concretizations that are equal’ (Dziemidock and McCormick 92). Dickie (1988) notes that relativism cannot be easily accepted as a framework for controlling key operational failures. The limitation of the power of objectivism, compared to subjectivism has been considered as an important initiative, ensuring that individuals across the country are carefully reviewed and examined so that accurate assumptions in regard to the aesthetic value of a work of art to be produced. On the other hand, objectivism, as another concept used in aesthetic evaluation needs to be fully described; in accordance with Bacci and Melcher (2010) the objectivist theory is based on the view that ‘the perceptual system of an observer tends to treat all aesthetic properties of our environment equally’ (Bacci and Melcher 530). However, such perspective cannot be accepted in aesthetic evaluation, a process that is highly based on the different views of people, as part of the local population. In the context of the above view, objectivism is not effective for explaining the different characteristics of a work of art, as individuals tend to evaluate them using different criteria. In terms of aesthetic evaluation, objectivism is ‘based on the character of an experience of a work of art’ (Davies, Higgins and Hopkins 599). In other words, objectivism is based on the view that the value of a work of art should be decided by referring to the characteristics of the work of art, as they are made clear to the public; objectivism does not refer to the value of a work of art for the public, as such issue is highlighted by the supporters of relativism. In the study of Compagnon (2004) reference is made to the following fact: neither relativism nor objectivism can offer a complete view of a piece of art; reference is made to the aesthetic evaluation of pieces of art. Specifically for objectivism, the following issues are highlighted: objectivism is likely to promote the reduction of the importance of evidence when developing aesthetic evaluation. Such fact would not be accepted by the initiators of relativism, a concept that allows different views to be published, meaning those in relation to the status or the quality of a piece of work) (Compagnon 2004). Moreover, because of the existence of evidence in regard to different views on art, the role of objectivism as a concept for developing aesthetic evaluation is significantly decreased. The key difference between relativism and objectivism in aesthetic evaluation seems to be the following one: the above concepts cannot equally contribute in aesthetic evaluation; subjective relativism seems to be more effective in evaluating pieces of art, meaning that the assumptions made on works of art using the subjective relativism reflect the significance of a work of art for the public. Because of the characteristics and the role of aesthetic value, as described above, it is explained that ‘aesthetic value is not objective’ (Young 2003, p.117). As of its relationship with relativism, aesthetic value can be characterized as independent; society, in its broad area, can incorporate a wide range of activities/ ideas, being closer to subjectivism rather than to objectivism; the latter can be used only when specific characteristics of a work of art have to be described – for example, the color of a work of art. In aesthetic value no such perception can be used since the above concept is based on the potential effects of works of arts on individuals and not on the characteristics of works of art (Young 2003). Works Cited Bacci, Francesca & David, Melcher. Art and the Senses. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Baghramian, Maria. Relativism. London: Routledge, 2004. Bunnin, N. & Jiyuan, Yu. The Blackwell dictionary of Western philosophy. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2004. Compagnon, Antoine. Literature, theory, and common sense. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2004. Davies, Stephen, Higgins, Kathleen & Robert, Hopkins. A companion to aesthetics. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons, 2009. Dickie, George. Evaluating art. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1988. Dziemidok, Bohdan & Peter, McCormick. On the aesthetics of Roman Ingarden: interpretations and assessments. New York: Springer, 1989. Stecker, Robert. Aesthetics and the Philosophy of Art: An Introduction. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2010. Wollheim, Richard. Art and its objects: with six supplementary essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980. Young, James. Art and Knowledge. London: Routledge, 2003. Read More