Dustin Messex
PHIL 3110
Dr. Christine James
16 Feb 2006

The Objective Truth: Everything Is Subjective

     The Philosophy of Aesthetics helps to guide our reasoning and appreciation of the objects in the world that we perceive.  Ideas on how to judge art and what exactly it is that we should value about art range from thinkers who believes that there is a certain objective form of evaluating art, like Clive Bell, and then there are those who feel as though art is a completely subjective experience and therefore anything can be deemed art, as Paul Ziff does.  I agree with Ziff that art and derivations of an art piece’s value is completely subjective and up to the individual perceiver. However, once you look past the individual and into communal critiques of a given piece, the more objective of an analysis you may be able to create on why a given piece of art is worth valuing.  So in part, you have the individual experience of a work of art, and then the shared experience of the same piece of art.  The shared experience helps us find what it is about a work of art that the entire group finds as valuable, and thus a shared aesthetic which is not completely objective, but more objective than an individual critique of a work of art.

     Clive Bell posits in his essay The Aesthetic Hypothesis that in order for an object to be worthy of aesthetic appreciation, it must possess “significant form.”  These significant forms are certain combinations of lines and colors that come together to stir aesthetic emotion.  He tells us that “All systems of aesthetics must be based on personal experience—that is to say, they must be subjective” (The Aesthetic Hypothesis 16).  However, he contradicts himself later when he says that “to appreciate a work of art we need bring with us nothing from life, no knowledge of its ideas and affairs, no familiarity with its notions” (The Aesthetic Hypothesis 19) To bring nothing with us from life in trying to evaluate a work of art, we would have nothing to compare it to, no way to place value upon it.  This would bring us to an objective truth, but Bell has already stated that there is no way to objectively evaluate art in the first place. His idea of “significant form” is just another word for an objective aesthetic. Just the process of thinking is an inherently human experience.  Therefore any opinion or critique given to a work of art is still subjective to the human experience, since any academic writer is going to be a human being.  

     If every human reality is a subjective one, then this agrees with Paul Ziff in his essay Anything Viewed.  He writes, “Modern works of art often call for prolonged continuous close attention if one is to appreciate them.  The same is true of a gator basking in the sun on a bud bank in a swamp.  Anything viewed makes demands” (Anything Viewed 28).  Each individual viewer of any scene whether in nature or depicted in a picture frame bring with them differing experiences of life and varying pieces of information that help guide them in creating an aesthetic appreciation for an object.  Also there are external conditions which can affect the aesthetic experience.  Paul Ziff writes about external conditions:
“If aesthetic attention to a floating clump of seaweed was not worthwhile that may be owing to the fact that while contemplating the clump one was being savaged by a school of sharks.  Here conditions may fairly be said to have interfered” (Anything Viewed 26).

     It is these factors of external conditions of the environment and the information and experiences that the individual brings that creates a unique aesthetic experience.  This flies in the face of Bell’s statement earlier that, “to appreciate a work of art we need bring with us nothing from life” (The Aesthetic Hypothesis 16).  

     As scholars and writers deposit more and more criticisms, reviews, critiques, and other forms of writing about an object that object may become more valuable as an aesthetic object, because more individuals wish to posses the artifact.  Also, this collection of information helps us to find certain attributes of a piece of art that many viewers share inside of a—to borrow from Stanley Fish—interpretive community.  These interpretive communities are as Ann Dobie writes, “groups of informed, linguistically competent readers who read and make meaning based on assumptions and strategies that they hold in common” (Dobie 126).  Fish goes on to say that there is no such thing as an individual.  I however, disagree.  We do have groups of people that we share common strategies with in deriving meaning from a given object, however we also have the individual mind and creativity of that mind as well as individual experiences to aid in the creation of an aesthetic experience.  

     Taking these individual experiences and entering them into academic discussion and debate through means of literary contributions gives us more information and provides us with a way to view a piece of art through the perspective of another individual.  This also provides us with information about similar experiences and responses to an aesthetic object.  Debate about the object can go on and on and may not ever reach a final conclusion that suits all of the individuals involved in perceiving the object.  This tells us that there is no way to locate an objective truth, however, by providing a multitude of meanings from varying viewers we can create a wide spectrum of the multitude of meanings that that one object is able to represent to an ever changing audience.  

     It is important to point out that each individual consciousness or subjective reality is constantly in flux.  As we go through our day, we collect more and more information about the world around us which provides us with more data to apply when creating an aesthetic experience from the viewing of an object.  Having absolutely no information, as Bell seems to think is necessary, would render us absolutely no meaning.  It would be “undefined.”  Since the information that an individual has available to them varies over time, a person’s experience of a certain aesthetic piece may also change.  They may get more pleasure from its viewing or less depending on a vast majority of variables.  This is true for the collective experience of the same aesthetic object as well.  Ziff writes, “Aesthetic value is as it were a cooperative affair” (Anything Viewed 26).  As social, political, religious, institutional, etc. conditions change, so can opinions about the aesthetic value of an object.

     I believe this is why Ziff says, “anything that can be viewed can fill the bill of an object fit for aesthetic attention and none does it better than any other” (Anything Viewed 30).  I add to that though that if we are to try and locate an objective truth, that makes an object fit for aesthetic appreciation more so than another object, it should be done by locating the following:

1) Amount of literature, media, and other forms of communication that voice an appreciation of an aesthetic object.
2) Amount of time that an object has been around and has thus had the opportunity for more opinions as well as a way to trace the evolution of opinions of the object.
3) Amount of exposure to the world that the object has.  The more people that know of the object and find it to be aesthetically pleasing, the more valuable the object becomes.

     Locating these qualities about an aesthetic object tells us which objects have become a part of the lives of many individuals and which objects have had little chance to be enjoyed.  The more time, exposure, and writings that pertain to a piece of art that there is available the more valuable the object becomes.  I feel that locating these qualities is only necessary when trying to set a monetary value on a work of art.  As far as pure aesthetic appreciation of an object, these factors aren’t necessarily required.  As I’ve said before, it all depends on the individual.  

     Some people may find an episode of MTV’s Laguna Beach as aesthetically pleasing.  It may be that they share the same views and opinions as the characters involved, that they admire some traits of a character or characters, or a host of other things that help to reaffirm or shape the self to that individual.  I personally do not find Laguna Beach to be something that fits my aesthetic.  I would rather watch a documentary on The Discovery Channel that teaches me something new and interesting about the world.  But, maybe there is an experience to be had from enjoying an episode of Laguna Beach that I’m unaware of because I lack the knowledge of that kind of world.  Who am I to judge whether or not Laguna Beach is worth appreciating though?  I can only voice the opinion that it does not fit my aesthetic.  So since there is no objective truth about which is aesthetically superior, Laguna Beach or a documentary on the Discovery Channel, if I were debating it with someone, the only stance to take would be to agree to disagree.  This is the only response I can offer to those out there who feel as though they can absolutely locate objective truth.  

     So to Clive Bell and his essay The Aesthetic Hypothesis I say that his idea of “significant form” is another way to say objective truth.  Absolute objective truth is impossible to ascertain through the human experience, but a collective experience of the object can bring us closer to an objective truth than a single perception.  Bell does agree with this idea, he says,

“The ideas of men go buzz and die like gnats;  men change their institutions and their customs as they change their coats;  the intellectual triumphs of one age are the follies of another;  only great art remains stable and unobscure” (The Aesthetic Hypothesis 22).

     “Great art” remains great art because of a collective appreciation of an object.  But, unlike Bell, I as well as Paul Ziff feel as though any object is fit for aesthetic appreciation.  That doesn’t mean that any two individuals will find the same object worth appreciating, or appreciate that same object the same way.  Over time, if a large collection of responses to an aesthetic object has formed and the object is widely known it can be said to be more aesthetically valued, but that doesn’t mean that the object is superior to a gator basking on a mound of dried dung.  It simply tells us that there is something in the aesthetic object that multiple individuals perceive that reflects upon them some truth about themselves or the world around them.  
 
Works Cited
"The Aesthetic Hypothesis." Aesthetics. Ed. Susan L. Feagin and Patrick Maynard.  New York: Oxford UP, 1997. 15-22. Rpt. of Art. London and New York: Chatto & Windus / G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1958. 15-34.

"Anything Viewed." Aesthetics. Ed. Susan L. Feagin and Patrick Maynard. New York: Oxford UP, 1997. 23-30. Rpt. of Antiaesthetics: An Appreciation of the Cow with the Subtile Nose. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1984. 129-39.

Dobie, Ann B. "Reader-Response Criticism." Theory into Practice : An Introduction to Literary Criticism. Boston: Heinle, 2001. 124.