Philosophy Now Forum

Dubious wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:In my opinion artists are simply people who make music, films, paintings, sculptures, novels, choreography, etc.

In other words, I add absolutely no "extraordinary" or "gifted" or "mystical" etc. connotation to the word "artist."

Artists are simply people who make certain kinds of things, who perform certain types of activities, just like mechanics, accountants, farmers, etc.

Nice to know that Mozart, Milton and Michelangelo are no better than mechanics and accountants.

And some folks would likewise say, "Nice to know that (particular perhaps) mechanics and accountants are no better than Mozart, Milton and Michelangelo."

"Better" is subjective obviously.

A 'good' artist is outside (as much as it is possible) the system (of indoctrination, brainwashing, etc) but normally is an accountant buried deep within the systems' vaults (though not always). The artist knows that the system she is in, produces and defines him. And that that is a problem.

Terrapin Station wrote:

Dubious wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:In my opinion artists are simply people who make music, films, paintings, sculptures, novels, choreography, etc.

In other words, I add absolutely no "extraordinary" or "gifted" or "mystical" etc. connotation to the word "artist."

Artists are simply people who make certain kinds of things, who perform certain types of activities, just like mechanics, accountants, farmers, etc.

Nice to know that Mozart, Milton and Michelangelo are no better than mechanics and accountants.

And some folks would likewise say, "Nice to know that (particular perhaps) mechanics and accountants are no better than Mozart, Milton and Michelangelo."

"Better" is subjective obviously.

They'd have to be really good to be no better.

The virtue of consumerism is to discover objective quality inherent in the principle of the item. This is why the best seek the best and recognize the best. The designation of “best” does not confer or define “best,” for best is a recognition rendered into concept, rather than a creation by concept. Consumers on a budget seek the best bang for the buck. Virtuous consumers not on a budget and unbound from the cost/benefit principle simply seek the objective best with caution to the winds and price be damned.

Walker wrote:They'd have to be really good to be no better.

??? That just reads completely nonsensically to me. "Better," "worse," "no better" etc. are subjective judgments that people make. There isn't any such thing as "really good" (as in objectively or factually good). And the subjective judgments that people make in no way logically hinge on things being "really" some quality or another.

The virtue of consumerism is to discover objective quality inherent in the principle of the item.

There is no such thing as objective quality inherent in anything. "Virtues" are subjective assessments.

The proferred reasoning replete with example indicates otherwise.

Walker wrote:The proferred reasoning replete with example indicates otherwise.

There isn't objective quality just because you or any number of other people believe there is. I can pick apart your earlier comment more, but you didn't reply very directly to what I'd just said, so I'm not sure it would be worth the time.

Greta wrote:

Dubious wrote:Nice to know that Mozart, Milton and Michelangelo are no better than mechanics and accountants.

Perhaps no better than once-in-a-century genius mechanics and accountants.

Creative accounting! Isn't that something the artistic accountant may get fired for if practiced to assiduously?

Terrapin Station wrote: And some folks would likewise say, "Nice to know that (particular perhaps) mechanics and accountants are no better than Mozart, Milton and Michelangelo."

Nice to know that mediocrities at best are no better - at least not yet - than Mozart, Milton and Michelangelo. It wouldn’t be Constitutional in a democratic society to suppose there are actually superior individuals. What you describe as subjective, usually an individual response to the immediate present, future generations will decide upon much more objectively as filtered through time. That's only one function of the historical process where relatively few personalities manage to percolate through. Whatever your 'subjective' feelings, mine, or anyone elses become thoroughly insignificant in that respect.

Dubious wrote:Nice to know that mediocrities at best are no better - at least not yet - than Mozart, Milton and Michelangelo.

It's not objectively true that no one is better than anyone else, just like it isn't objectively true that some people are better than other people. The objective realm is a category error for such things.

It wouldn’t be Constitutional in a democratic society to suppose there are actually superior individuals.

There aren't actually superior individuals because such assessments have nothing to do with mind-independent facts. They have to do with what people value.

What you describe as subjective, usually an individual response to the immediate present,

It's an individual response to the past, too.

future generations will decide upon much more objectively as filtered through time.

No, they won't. People can't assess or value anything objectively. Again, that's a category error. They assess/value things subjectively. That a bunch of people agree with each other doesn't make anything objective. "Objective" doesn't refer to "agreement," and to say that people are correct because they agree is to forward an argumentum ad populum.

That's only one function of the historical process where relatively few personalities manage to percolate through. Whatever your 'subjective' feelings, mine, or anyone elses become thoroughly insignificant in that respect.

What you're talking about IS subjective feelings.

Pluto wrote:An artist is someone who sits outside or on the edge of the system.
An artist is someone who works inside the system using its tools to climb up the ladder.
An artist is someone who says I'm an Artist and means it.

I do not think this is satisfactory, except the last one. The first two points are neither sufficient nor necessary criteria for artisthood.

An artist is a person who creates things which are more than purely utilitarian.

That is not to say that artistry cannot be found in a maker of utility. I've seen bricklayers who go about their tasks with such enthusiasm that we can say they are artists in their field.

A pure artist creates objects of aesthetic quality; and a good artist is a craftsman.
Poor artists are lazy and use little or no craft.

Art without craft is like sex without love.

Walker wrote:The proferred reasoning replete with example indicates otherwise.

Are you talking like a knob head to make a point or are you actually a knob head?

Terrapin Station wrote:

Dubious wrote:Nice to know that mediocrities at best are no better - at least not yet - than Mozart, Milton and Michelangelo.

It's not objectively true that no one is better than anyone else, just like it isn't objectively true that some people are better than other people. The objective realm is a category error for such things.

It wouldn’t be Constitutional in a democratic society to suppose there are actually superior individuals.

There aren't actually superior individuals because such assessments have nothing to do with mind-independent facts. They have to do with what people value.

What you describe as subjective, usually an individual response to the immediate present,

It's an individual response to the past, too.

future generations will decide upon much more objectively as filtered through time.

No, they won't. People can't assess or value anything objectively. Again, that's a category error. They assess/value things subjectively. That a bunch of people agree with each other doesn't make anything objective. "Objective" doesn't refer to "agreement," and to say that people are correct because they agree is to forward an argumentum ad populum.

That's only one function of the historical process where relatively few personalities manage to percolate through. Whatever your 'subjective' feelings, mine, or anyone elses become thoroughly insignificant in that respect.

What you're talking about IS subjective feelings.

It's a consensus of future generations that decide what sinks and swims. Simple as that. Don't like it, too bad. Nothing subjective here!

Dubious wrote:It's a consensus of future generations that decide what sinks and swims. Simple as that.

Without a doubt. If only that had anything to do with aesthetic valuations being objective. It doesn't. Those valuations are subjective. People agreeing with each other--so that there's a consensus, in no way makes the valuations objective. To suggest otherwise is to suggest an argumentum ad populum.

Terrapin Station wrote:

Dubious wrote:It's a consensus of future generations that decide what sinks and swims. Simple as that.

Without a doubt. If only that had anything to do with aesthetic valuations being objective. It doesn't. Those valuations are subjective. People agreeing with each other--so that there's a consensus, in no way makes the valuations objective. To suggest otherwise is to suggest an argumentum ad populum.

Obviously it must be decided upon some kind of evaluation whether called aesthetic or not. Otherwise upon what premise would the consensus take place? Objectivity is in one way inverse to subjectivity. The greater the distances that pool individual subjectivities, creating what amounts to consensus, the more objective and likely precise the outcome. Is any of it really, truly objective? Of course not! Nothing humans do can be qualified as truly objective outside the context of its own self-interest.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:An artist is a person who creates things which are more than purely utilitarian.

That is not to say that artistry cannot be found in a maker of utility. I've seen bricklayers who go about their tasks with such enthusiasm that we can say they are artists in their field.

A pure artist creates objects of aesthetic quality; and a good artist is a craftsman.
Poor artists are lazy and use little or no craft.

Art without craft is like sex without love.

That's the balance I wanted but didn't achieve in prior posts. An artist in a non-artistic field like Dubious's creative accountants.

I only disagree with your last statement, which seems backwards. Art without craft is like sex with only love - like two clumsy virgins naively loving and with little clue what they are doing. Their efforts are all "art". In time they will develop the craft / technical aspects that's often (but not always) required to make great art.