Jandy's Meanderings - Latest Comments in Objective and Subjective Aesthetics

Re: Objective and Subjective Aesthetics

Jandy — Mon, 05 May 2008 01:29:24 -0000

I know what you're saying regarding the relationship between focusing on consciousness and being told what to think, and I actually thought about that while I was writing it, but the people I have in mind when talking about consciousness are Henry James and Virginia Woolf. Take Mrs. Dalloway for example. Woolf is relentlessly focused on consciousness in that book - everything we read is filtered through some character's consciousness - but it isn't limited to only one. We get some parts from Clarissa Dalloway's point of view, some from Peter, uh, whathisname, and some from Septimus Smith, as well as various random bystanders. So the overall effect is that there are many voices and Woolf doesn't dictate to us who to listen to or what to think about each character. You're perfectly free to think that Clarissa did the right thing marrying Richard or that she should've married Peter. There are some things Woolf clearly has a bee in her bonnet about, notably the big fat FAIL of the medical industry, but she doesn't pull out of the narrative to tell you, in an authoritative narratorial voice, that the medical industry is BAD, the way Dickens does about the school system or the factories. That's the sort of "telling you what to think" I don't like.

Plus, I could be wrong, but I never feel like Woolf would diss me for disagreeing with her, while I think Dickens or (George) Eliot might. She makes me feel like I have agency as a reader, while a lot of earlier writers just want me to passively accept what they're saying. Which of course makes me much less likely to do so, because I'm just rebellious that way.

I suspect that if I had read enough Raymond Chandler, I would know why you're invoking him, but I don't.

Hee. I have to say, if that's Nietszche it kind of makes sense. At least in a "here's how it works" sort of way if not in a "here's how it ought to work" sort of way. Which ties back to the prescriptive/descriptive thing you already said. I'm tired.

Don't worry, I didn't think you meant it was too long. Though it might've been, and this comment is also probably too long.

Re: Objective and Subjective Aesthetics

Mark — Mon, 05 May 2008 00:59:16 -0000

#8 aargh Not #5: #6

Re: Objective and Subjective Aesthetics

Mark — Mon, 05 May 2008 00:58:20 -0000

PS. #5 the "triumph" means I'm really swamped, not that your post was too long.

Re: Objective and Subjective Aesthetics

Mark — Mon, 05 May 2008 00:56:58 -0000

"Still, when it comes to contradictory criteria, I’m not sure how choosing between them is not subjective. You mention philosophy; I suppose the argument there is that your choice of criteria is going to depend on your overall worldview."

But is it not obvious that cause and effect work in exactly the opposite way? Really it comes down to a prescription: you *ought* to think out a world view and then allow it to dictate your subjective preference for criteria. And this imperative is made by certain types of people who obviously *enjoy* thinking and talking about thinking or thinking about talking. Their subjective tastes are dictating their world view and criteria just like everyone else, but they have found a way to impose this as a universal good by which to judge all others.

Just channeling Nietzsche for fun.

Re: Objective and Subjective Aesthetics

Mark — Mon, 05 May 2008 00:49:39 -0000

"Narrators/authors who let the reader decide what to think = good. Ones who tell the reader what to think = bad. Books that focus on consciousness and the inner life = good. Ones that focus on detailed physical descriptions and events = bad"

This combination caught me by surprise. I associate focusing on consciousness and "inner life" (quotation marks are to point to my skepticism about such a thing) with being tolde what to think.

I'm way pressed for time right now to be more specific (I consider it a triumph that I actually read this entry), but maybe you can figure out what I'm getting at despite my lack of explanation...

(Read any Raymond Chandler?)

Re: Objective and Subjective Aesthetics

Jandy — Sun, 04 May 2008 09:03:42 -0000

Dad - hee! That would certainly save on publishing costs, wouldn't it? Think of all the now-classic literature that wouldn't exist, therefore that we wouldn't study, therefore that academics wouldn't write about...oh yes, we'd save a bundle on paper.

Re: Objective and Subjective Aesthetics

Dad — Sun, 04 May 2008 08:44:08 -0000

You write the question: "and who has the authority to choose that criteria?"

My answer: "It should be a centralized, government appointed panel of 5 experts. After they establish the criteria, all written material must be submitted to this panel for review and determination, and they must determine how well each submitted article matches the criteria, with a scoring. Only those articles that have a score of 95 or higher are licensed for publication, if the author hasn't died yet." :-)

Re: Objective and Subjective Aesthetics

Jandy — Sun, 04 May 2008 01:06:55 -0000

Dr. Veith commented on the Livejournal duplicate of this post (everything here is automatically crossposted there; why he found that one instead of this one, I don't know, but oh well); I'm going to copy his comment and my response over here as well.

-----
[his comment]

Fine thinking about aesthetics. Yes, judgments will vary, but notice that you are applying criteria, and they are objective, not subjective. We can value different criteria. This has some to do with (subjective) taste but also one's (objective) philosophy about things. I'm thinking that the breakthroughs and new styles in literature and the other arts have to do with calling our attention to other criteria and making us appreciate them too. You are studying aestheticism--check out Ruskin's aesthetic. I found him very helpful on lots of levels. (Gene Veith @Cranach)

-----
[my response]

Thanks for the comment, Dr. Veith. I definitely agree with being able to appreciate multiple criteria; perhaps you could say that works that meet a lot of different criteria are objectively better than works which only meet a few. Still, when it comes to contradictory criteria, I'm not sure how choosing between them is not subjective. You mention philosophy; I suppose the argument there is that your choice of criteria is going to depend on your overall worldview. That makes sense. I'm currently working through that, too, since my aesthetic taste runs to Modernist and Postmodernist works, but I'm not sure what that means in relation to my conservative Christian doctrines.

Thanks for the Ruskin tip. I've been reading about Ruskin a bit, but haven't delved into his original texts yet.

Re: Objective and Subjective Aesthetics

Jandy — Sat, 03 May 2008 20:57:45 -0000

Oh, yeah, they say it's a singing contest, but it isn't. I mean, how many times does Simon say no to someone in auditions because he doesn't think they're marketable enough? He doesn't always say that, but that's what he means. Ultimately, they're giving the winner a million dollar contract, so "who can sell records" is always more important to the show than "who is good." I suspect this year, that's one of the Davids. Plus, if they were going just by singing, they wouldn't be dogging Syesha (and lots of other people over the years) for being "too Broadway." Some of the country's best singers are on Broadway. It's a "singing+personality+charisma+record-selling+pop-style" contest.

Re: Objective and Subjective Aesthetics

Debbie — Sat, 03 May 2008 20:41:15 -0000

You are going way deep here, but here is a thought I had regarding AI and the decisions we make about liking one contestant over the other. The judges are always harping that it is a singing contest, however, by Ryan always saying, "Don't let your favorite one go home: VOTE!" The show is also telling us that likability and favoritism regardless of how the contestants did that week do matter.

So. yeah. THe fact that Taylor beat Katherine proves that the good don't always win over the ones that are liked.