Objectivity and Subjectivity in Entertainment
by Daniel Zancola
The subject of judgement within creative outlets has interested me for a number of years. Can art be judged from an objective standpoint? It's one of those grey area questions most people tend to avoid. The majority who don't linger on this question see the idea as somewhat of a given. If whatever is being judged cannot be proven through factual means, usually mathematics or science, it is entirely based on one's interpretation. When I was younger, this logic seemed to make sense. Everyone sees things differently, so there must be no measurable way to judge art as true or correct. It was not until I dipped my feet into examining creative works when I realized this idea cannot be any more untrue. Many people have figured out ways to measure objectivity in art through bar graphs and color wheels, but this post is not meant to highlight that. This post is for a philosophy class after all, so instead I am going to attempt to breakdown my line of thinking via explanation.
It is borderline impossible for myself to believe art is purely subjective. This goes for basically every form of art I've been exposed to: illustration, writing, music, acting, cooking, etc. When it comes to creativity, the world has always found ways to have specific works stand above the rest. Like most judgement structures in our society, determining the value of art is hierarchical. Objectively well-made works will naturally become the cream of the crop. It is commonly said that everyone has a different view on what makes something "good". Even works that are acknowledged and highly regarded have their fair share of opposition, right? If that is unarguably the case, then how could you say a work of art is objectively good? Well, let's start by breaking this idea down bit-by-bit. What is "good"? A lack of proper elaboration on what is being judged initiates discourse towards what many deem a matter of opinion. In the case of all things, whether it's telling a good story or painting a good picture, there are always background rules to follow when valuing the worth of a piece. Art has existed for almost as long as we have, at some point it becomes hard to deny why certain works are vastly easier to appreciate than others. Themes and patterns form when comparing timeless works in any field. That within itself should prove we hold unanimous standards regardless of our own experiences.
 |
| An example of minimalist art |
Then how do you explain the outliers? What about the individuals that enjoy minimalist art or abstract music? Personal enjoyment cannot exclusively define what we deem as objective. At some point, one has to draw a distinct line between what they enjoy and what is accepted as objectively well-made. If one does not facilitate this mental line, reason soon becomes obsolete. If everything based on reason is subjective, how do we decide the difference between right and wrong? No matter what specific facet of a work is being discussed, I guarantee that the objectivity behind it falls back on our instincts as human beings. So what you're saying is that popularity solely defines something as objectively good? No. All of us have at some point seen something beloved by many that we cannot stand. Modern popularity regarding certain types of art has become far too personal and a lot less objective. From my own perspective, popular by today's standards is all about reminding ourselves of the past and banking off of what makes us feel good. A concrete precedent for labeling something popular as objectively good is to see if it remains a trend. Timeless entertainment is always objectively good, hence why it's timeless. If a work is respected enough to stick around way past its intended lifespan, there is without a doubt some sort of objective value tied to it. That value rubs off onto new material and eventually spawns additional timeless works.
We should all start being a tad more skeptical towards the things we like. Delving deep into why certain things are better than others is a great way to develop a reasonable perspective. People do not always know what they want, it is up to creators to surprise audiences with a work they themselves deem objective. The biggest requirement that comes with this is to provide logical explanations for its objectivity. I'd like to finish this post with a quote from an article I recently found. Its elaboration on objectivity reflects my reasoning adequately.
"Whatever the reason for accepting subjectivity in art, it's still a dismissal of objectivity, a primary tenet of Objectivism. It also abandons art as a topic of rational thought. It's like saying that you think rationality should guide your life in all things, except art. Fundamentally, this approach is dead wrong. Once you accept the premise of subjectivity, you close your mind to the possibility of objective knowledge. Even if you don't understand art, your basic position should be that the Law of Identity applies, and you just need to look to reality and integrate what you see."
Quiz Questions:
- Is the judgement of art hierarchical by nature?
- Is objectivity based of off how much we enjoy something?
Discussion Questions:
- What work of art do you find to be objectively good? Why?
- Do you enjoy something that you would consider objectively bad? What is it?
Links to Reports I Commented On:
"Personal enjoyment cannot exclusively define what we deem as objective" - no, but if enough of us enjoy the same things we can affirm an inter-subjective consensus, which is intermediate between pure subjectivity and objectivity. That's where art curators and critics and other "inluencers" come in, with an outsized voice in establishing what's "good"... but in the end, what matters is that a work of art in whatever medium speaks to something in your experience and evokes a sense of recognition. My favorite philosopher of art is thus John Dewey, check out his "Art as Experience" sometime. The sources of art, arguably the better or more expressive art, are often to be found in everyday life.
ReplyDelete