A Thought:

[samnite]

The problem with criticism of art is that it tries to create objective ways of judging art. We have yet to develop any truly effective systems, and thus we end up obscuring what's actually good art in favor of what merely seems like good art.

Discuss.

Comments

[anonymous]

Kant solved all of these objections centuries ago.

First, a look at his theory of knowledge:

The object of science is detecting necessity, or determining the cause of something. Aristotelian logic says the mind is a blank slate, and observation of the outside world imposes knowledge on the mind. The only means to obtain information is through perception; however, perception cannot detect necessity. The mind, then, cannot bring the idea of necessity from the outside world into the mind. Similarly, if the mind is nothing but film upon which the outside world acts, it is impossible to assume mathematics and science-products of the mind-are universally applicable to the world.

Kant answers that there are categories within the mind that allow such a priori judgment to occur. Cognitive consciousness is a synthetic process. Before synthesis can occur, however, there must be an input of data, which enters the process subject to the form of times. Data, then, comes in via a timeline of bundles of data which then must be synthesized to create a coherent image. The entity responsible for the unity of time is the ‘I’ or apperception. When the I is conscious of itself and the fact that it stays the same through the data collecting process on the timeline, it can unify the timeline and the data on it into an image.
This image-making process is haw we understand the world. Understanding means seeing necessity, and recognizing a cause for an effect. In order for this to be true, there must be a connection between cognition and the image-making process. Cognition has the inner structure of logic, just as space has the inner structure of geometry. Logic is ruled by the categories. Apperception, or the I, is a thought and so is guided by logic, which is in turn is ruled by the categories. The unity of the I, then, provides for the unity of the timeline, which provides for the unity of the image making process. Because the I as a thought is also subject to the categories, it cannot create an image that is unintellectual. Judgments can then be considered objective, for the same categories that are making the judgments about an image are the ones that just constructed the image.

Scientific judgments are based on and restricted by conformity to the concepts, judgments of the good based on practicality, and judgments of that which gratifies us are guided by personal interests and idiosyncrasies. Judgments of taste, however, are completely free. They are independent of concepts, and because we do not want what is beautiful but only to look at it, it is free form all personal interests. All judgments other than those of taste are not free.
Judgments of taste are judgments about the subject, not the object. There must be an impetus for the judgment on this subject: this is a feeling. The aesthetic feeling is one of communicability-it can be shared and recognized with other minds. Only after this feeling and desire of communicability occurs can one say something is beautiful. It is not in the object itself that one recognizes beauty, but rather in the need and ability to communicate the feeling this object creates. Because knowledge is minds connecting with other minds, there is something intrinsically cognitive about beauty: it creates the same feeling as knowledge with the same communicability, but is not guided by the categories. Nevertheless, this feeling of communicability and its resemblance to that of knowledge allows for an expectation of universal agreement on what is beautiful.
Logic has three parts: concept, extension of subsets of the concept, recognition by minds of these subsets. Beauty is a judgment that only has the second two parts. Agreement shows the communicability of the feeling, but disagreement is inevitable for a subjective judgment not guided by objective concepts. The expectation of agreement resulting from the feeling of communicability, then, is natural but unreasonable.

[anonymous]

By the way, this is Amine. See you in a few days.

Ummm Amine

[smeddy]

was that your writing? If so I am quite impressed.

Re: Ummm Amine

[jumpman2345]

Haha, thanks Smeddy. It is indeed my writing.
Contrary to popular belief, I am not a complete dumbass - just a partial one.