On The Idea that the quality of Art is Completely Subjective
Theories as to how to determine quality in art have their seasons, they rise in popularity and fall again.
One theory that was popular with the late Boomers and Early Generation X, was that Art is completely subjective. Again as always I use the term Art to mean anything from the Graphic Arts, the Plastic Arts, Literature, Music and so forth. This is an essay of general observations, but the observations will focus heavily on literature.
As for why it became popular to believe art completely subjective, there are multiple reasons. I suppose it was in some ways a reaction against all the argumentation of the early and mid-twentieth century having caused a sort of tiredness in those who appreciated Art when growing up; at some point one wants a break from squabbling over theory.
Another reason was the rise of the Moral Majority, against whom it was convenient to argue that Art was subjective and had no worth other than entertainment and how silly it would be to censor things that didn’t matter.
Of course when an idea falls out of fashion those who grew up with it probably still carry it around, the same way you might see people wearing the clothes that were cool when they were in High School.
What is currently replacing the idea of art being completely subjective is art as having some moral component to it, and thus good art is somehow enabling of a moral response in people and generally made by people who are good, and bad art does not have a moral center to it and is often made by ‘problematic’ people, whose problems infect their art, and give it a suspicious odor in some way.
Periods of morality often follow periods of nihilism which is what subjectivity represents in discussions of artistic quality, — to be replaced in their own turn by a rebellion against morality which after a phase of épater le bourgeois should lead into art for its own sake, which is where I’m at as I enjoy being so far ahead of the curve that I’m quite behind it.
But this is not about any of the wonderful cycle of memetic fashion, its about the the very specific idea that the value of art is completely subjective which while no longer the completely fashionable view is still quite widespread, perhaps awaiting a great die-out of those it has infected.
Among many people who claim to hold to a subjective view of the value of art, there always seem to be some backsliding and hypocrisy though, so it can be that American movies will get talked down, or Soap Operas, or Heavy Metal and the people who like those things will get some remote snobbishness directed their way, and then some minutes later it gets stated that all matters of opinion on the quality of literature or comic books or whatever has crossed someones threshold is purely subjective. But some folks just contain multitudes I guess.
Hypocrisy from some who claim to hold a belief does not render the belief untrue however, even if it is not truly held.
But if we are to think quality of art is truly subjective then it isn’t just that If you like Lord of The Rings or if you like Smiley’s People it is subjective and we cannot say anything about their quality, we also have to admit that The Eye of Argon is as good as Madame Bovary.
The Memetic Limits of the Subjective Argument
Subjectivity has some benefits that help its transmission between people — one is the famous Latin aphorism De gustibus non est disputandum which translates to In matters of taste, there can be no disputes, believe me when you can pull out a Latin quote in support of whatever silly argument you’re pushing it’s a real power move.
Also as noted there was some benefit for those profiting off of art to claim that it was subjective when the censors came for them; they realized that subjectivity and no such thing as ‘quality’ was a better defense than ‘quality’ — quality of art implies meaning and importance the very things the censor is worried about, subjectivity implies meaninglessness and disposability. Disposable culture may be profitable but it is not dangerous — why censor something of no import?
Subjectivity also has some real drawbacks however, for example It is difficult for people to admit that something they love is of equal quality to something they hate, thus for any person arguing the art is totally subjective line that also has some favorites out there the aforementioned hypocritical traps are always waiting. Either that or you can be someone who does not step up for the value of what you like, or not like anything at all, which either makes one a coward or a bore.
Bores and cowards are unlikely to pass their ideas on to others in any great amount, in the same way that the asexual and timid are unlikely to get a lot of sex.
It should be noted that the Subjectivist cannot follow the rules laid out in To Speak Meaningfully About Art, and as such the Subjectivist is also hampered in polite conversation.
The Subjective Argument in an Age of Morality
The Subjective Argument is the worst situated to defend against a moralist valuation of art because the subjective view is a reaction against arguments that art has intrinsic worth, whereas the moralist view is that art is valuable due to extrinsic factors.
The Faulkner quote ‘If a writer has to rob his mother, he will not hesitate; the “Ode on a Grecian Urn” is worth any number of old ladies.’ is instructive, to a moralist it is not worth robbing even one old lady because robbing old ladies is wrong. The subjectivist doesn’t have any point to defend the robbing of old ladies, since art is all subjective it follows that art that required the robbing of old ladies was worse than that which did not, and with the simple logic the subjectivist is forced to agree that for moral reasons art can be ranked extrinsically.
Extrinsic arguments against Subjectivity
Morality is not the only extrinsic valuation of art possible that makes subjectivity problematic. For example let us suppose we have a book that has racist language and a lot of egregious grammatical errors — I’m speaking of course about Huckelberry Finn — sure the racist language is a moral argument (for the record I do not believe Huckelberry Finn is a racist book, which I will address at another time) but the grammatical errors! If the book were to be read by school age children, and we were to show that after reading it they exhibited grammatical errors in their writing, then it might be argued that the book is a bad book because it makes its readers worse writers.
When that argument is made the subjectivist has nothing with which to defend Huckelberry Finn from censorship for bad grammar, because the subjectivist can only say there is no intrinsic quality that matters so why censor what is meaningless, but if you wish to censor for something extrinsic (bad grammar makes students worse writers) then how can the absolute subjectivity of any intrinsic value help?
Extrinsic Qualities link to Intrinsic Qualities
So we suggested earlier that morality is extrinsic, which is true, but there is also what morality is found in the book. We started off stating our belief that subjectivity was in some measure a response to the Moral Majority, because if nothing means anything and it’s all equal then how can you censor.
But when we bring in extrinsic morality -let us say a writer is against transgender people, then we can argue that supporting that writer’s books gives the writer financial support and thus supports a morally reprehensible stance. Fine enough, the subjectivist cannot argue about extrinsic values.
Once we have established the moral value exists extrinsically we are in an age of morality. The subjectivist has ceded the low ground and that was the only ground they held, from there the moralist can proceed to find objectionable views in the art itself; for example, this quote by Faulkner advocates robbing old ladies and as we have already established robbing old ladies is wrong! Let’s get rid of Faulkner!
Basically there was a belief in the primacy and importance of art, and to protect against censorship subjectivity was deployed, undermining that belief, ironically allowing morality to march in unopposed to triumph over the forces of subjectivity. Subjectivity in the end lacks a philosophy strong enough to allow it to survive against determined attacks — to quote Alfred North Whitehead
Philosophy is the self-correction by consciousness of its own initial excess of subjectivity.
Subjectivity is in the end destroyed by the human need to find meaning and importance in things.
This article was written by IG Agent 84
