Quote:
Originally posted by Kworb
Yes we have had this discussion before.
The intangible value of art cannot be objectively quantified. No person is more qualified than another to assess this intangible value. It is indeed all personal taste. Becoming more "informed" might cause you to appreciate some things more than others, but this process is also completely subjective, and so it does not make your taste "better".
 |
But that can be said of almost anything. And it's not like everyone agrees that there is no absolute sense of beauty. That's just your opinion, and who's to say it's any more valuable than anyone else's? It's like the debate about absolute morality.
I know you want things to be quantified, but if we were unable to assign value or make large-scale decisions on issues that aren't quantifiable, where would society be? We love the idea of true democracies, but how often do they work out or even exist? Assigning weight to small groups of decision makers is pretty how much how society has always functioned.
But even beyond that, there is a tangible value to art that can be assessed. Is that novel good? Well, that's a matter of opinion. Was it innovative and impactful with respect to the direction of the art form? Well, that's a question that theorists and historians are probably well-positioned to assess.
I generally argue in favor of the latter idea of value in criticism.
>>>>>
