I think Hume runs into problems when he assumes that everyone is looking for the same things in criticism. For example if I am a teenage girl in the middle of an identity crisis it's very possible that Stephanie Meyer will be a better author to me than Shakespeare. Of course this argument assumes that what really matters to people isn't technical prowess (which is the work in the context of other works like how difficult was it to paint that picture, have these sounds never been heard before etc) but the impact the work has on me. Likewise people are looking for different things in critics for example my roommate sometime watches movie reviews on youtube and is mainly interested in deciding whether or not he will enjoy a movie. Another person might be more interested in the technical side of the film (how certain shots were constructed etc) and yet another might be more interested in extracting meaning from the film. There's no reason to believe that what we value in the "ideal critic" isn't also an aesthetic decision.
That would be a case of bad taste....essentially having under-weighed opinions. Many people can't associate with what they enjoy: Classical music, Elton John, Victorian furniture. I think people with good taste have an intuitive sense of depth involved in literature, music, art. ect. They aren't even necessarily able to justify their likings - they just tend to 'get' there is something more going on than just scribbling on paper or banging on a keyboard. This likely involves mental specialization(s).
In my experience, when you encounter something for the first time you can know whether you like it or not before you can find reasons to explain your decision (liking or disliking). When I see a painting I immediately know if I like or not (or, sometimes, neither) and after I process the painting for a few seconds I can find the reasons why I like it or not. What do you think?
I agree whole heartedly. I absoluetly hate those paintings that are all like one large square divided with solid colors for no other reason than I hate them.
Oh gosh. This topic. For college, I read a book about the History of Beauty by Umberto Eco (among other things). Then I was prompted to write an essay that could be titled "What Is Beauty (from Plato to Hume)". Yeah. I have Reactions to this topic. My essay ended up discussing the different ways that people said they knew what "beauty" was (from Plato to Hume). It wasn't until the Renaissance that I got the feeling that personal experience or processing was even relevant to ideas about Beauty. At first, the answer is "there is A Beauty and it is a Form, and it shines out from beautiful things" which is, of course, paraphrasing Plato. It exists. It's out there. It doesn't need you to experience it for it to exist. In Neo-Platonism, it shifts to be less about the idea of a Form and more about proportion. This shift was easy because Plato himself said, "For measure and proportion are everywhere identified with beauty and virtue" (a quote). Vitruvius was a big proponent of Proportions = Beauty. During the Renaissance, people wanted to point to Nature to say, "beauty is when something imitates Nature," because Nature Is Scientific, You Know and has all kinds of layers we can't even see, but we can contemplate that supernatural level of perfection if we contemplate Nature. But don't worry too much about that separation of physical objects from supernatural ideas of beauty. The laws of Nature will produce Beauty. So those ideas were still appealing to an unreachable source for their definition, but at least this time it wasn't a Platonic Form, and you can kind of go out and see something like it in natural settings. Then during the Enlightenment, beauty shifts to being about how people EXPERIENCE those proportions. If you can't appreciate an application of measure and proportion - if you can't identify it or get any kind of experience from it - then it doesn't matter. If it can't affect you, then it can't BE beauty, because beauty is supposed to affect you. (Blondel's description of people who believe this) So here is a definite involvement of personal experience coming in to say, "I didn't get that at all". If people don't get it, they won't experience Beauty. They won't experience that object as having Beauty. And finally at the end of my essay, I quoted Hume saying, beauty is "not a quality of objects but only mark[ing] a certain pleasure taken in the structured relations between parts and wholes." So you're still allowed to like relationships between elements, but it's not all about prescribed proportions anymore. Beautiful things will affect you using their composition / relationship of parts. The definition is now that experience. That's why it's interesting to hear that he's proposing a Perfect Critic to discern which Experience is the Most Valid. So like. Somebody might have had a really strong reaction to the composition of Sharknado, but not Citizen Kane. Somebody might have liked that pacing in The Hobbit. Somebody might have felt Twlilight spoke to them more than Shakespeare. And are the elements in Citizen Kane and Shakespeare more valuable than the ones in Sharknado and Twilight if a person can't appreciate them? I suppose this is why he wants A Perfect Critic who has a sensitivity of taste to pick up on compositions from a wide variety of sources. If anybody wants to critique my nuances or correct my takes, please do. I obviously still have that college essay and I still enjoy the topic. Despite being scarred by having to write said essay in like two hours.
Hello I know it's been two years since this comment I just wanted to ask if you still have that essay and if I you cared to share it with me. Thank you very much.
Playing devil's advocate: From an egotistical standpoint you could Argue that if you cannot penetrate Shakespeare because of the language used, but you could understand Stephanie Mayer then she is superior as she is the only useful choice of the two from your perspective. (Unless you count the potential to understand Shakespeare where it would be superior). Personally I think that artistic beauty comes from what you take from the artwork and not the work itself.
this is like saying bikes are objectively better than cars for getting you places because you don't have a driving license. Yes, subjectively a bike serves your purposes better because you simply can't access cars, but this doesn't remove their superiority.
@@criticaledgepod I don't think the commenter was saying it's objective. Also, even if you do have a driver's license, there are still advantages that bikes have over cars. They're cheaper, they provide more physical exercise, they’re better for the environment, they take up less space, etc. And I think that's really what they were getting at. Judging art is subjective because different people get different things out of them, therefore saying that Shakespeare is better is not an objective statement.
I had a psychology text book in community college that discussed beauty in one of the chapters and examined beauty in a human face. As a specimen they used a photo of Denzel Washington. I remember the figure added a box and lines over his photo and pointed out his symmetry. The book said that having more symmetry in your face and a strong square jaw was what made a man's face attractive. They're probably right. There's probably a line that can be drawn between that which is required for beauty objectively and that which passes a test based on the values held by the individual. Not everyone holds the same values, tastes, interests, standards, etc. But there's probably a baseline standard that nearly everyone would agree on. If an attribute measures below the baseline then there'd be near certainty of rejection.
There is an art gallery near my favorite pub and I often go and look at the art through the window. I never really think about whether it is good or not. I just look at it for what it is. I see the labour that went into it and contemplate what it is trying to represent. I do a lot of art myself but I'm not an expert in any of it. If I'm an expert in anything, it's biology. I just try to take it in as is and appreciate what it is. I do the same thing for music. I play guitar and sing (although only after plenty of good drink) in our local open mic nights and some people screw up (including me), but I try to appreciate what the artist is trying to bring to the world and I appreciate their bravery for going on stage (especially since most of them drive and can't be as intoxicated as I always am at the pub). Some people get up and sing off key, but I see their passion for art and artistic expression. Then, I try to ask people philosophical questions if they seem too drunk to drive and the results are absolutely amazing! I've talked all night to people about philosophy and I only took a few classes in college and I've also played the blues all night long with homeless people. I think the appreciation of art is to appreciate the way things are at that moment and to appreciate the passion that went into creating something.
I find Hume's framework to be very useful in describing beer tastes. When I first started drinking beer it was common to begin with the most popular brands such as Coors or Molson Canadian (which is the standard corporate beer here in Canada). As I continued to expand my taste and try different items I moved towards better lagers such as Heineken. Than, having entered the craft beer rabbit hole, I entered a new era where I could no longer appreciate lagers for what they were because they were too simple. There are people who I've met who have never moved away from their coors, and since they lack any experience comparing and contrasting this taste with other tastes, they have a very limited view of the world of beer. I would much less likely take their opinion over the opinion of someone who has compared and contrasted their tastes with other items.
I love how clear and intriguing your voice is ! AS far as the information you provided, it raised my eyebrow and makes me more excited to dive into my current Humanities course. My answer is YES, Hume's answer on how to critique two works of art, Experts should have a bigger impact on who we may ask this question versus a mechanic who has never thought about an artifact.Thank you (:
I don't think there is a way for any critic to remove bias. Experiences will always affect feelings. While some things can be objectively demonstrated as better than others by comparison, as in how well a piece conveys an idea or emotion. A problem arises when the the observer is unable to experience the aesthetic value due to a lack of relatable experiences. An example of this problem is contained in meta-works, where a big part of the value of the piece is with the audience having already had certain experiences and being aware of the internal commentary and allusions being presented.
I've already watched the following episode on whether time is real or not, so I feel reasonably confident saying it does exist. The episode has present-past-futurity.
As an artist it pains me to admit it but I'm pretty sure that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, or to use a more precise expression: the value attributed to a work of art is defined by its context. There is a limiting factor that restricts this subjectivity though, namely the fact that we, the beholders, are all human and share quite an amount of common traits. More so since we live in a connected society and share a certain amount of common values, concepts and ideas. So while the beholders are certainly different, they are not that different, which leads to widespread (but never complete) agreement in certain questions.
I don't usually post comments on videos, but I'd just like to thank you for making these videos and sharing them. I'm very interested in philosophy in general and there are very few places where I find it in this form (i.e. in easy to understand format while retaining some depth). I would also enjoy longer more in-depth videos but of course that's up to you and how much time you have :) Thanks again! Keep it up!
The problem of aesthetic judgment was one of the issues asked in my comprehensive exam back when i was an undergrad. watching this vid brings back good and as well as bad (reading kant T_T) memories haha thanks olly!
I've been looking for such a youtube channel as yours. :D You do a great job! Finally I can combine what I like the most- Philosophy and languages. Thanks! Greetings from Poland ^^
The question of whether something is beautiful is separate from the question of whether something is good art. Something is art at all if it's presenting some aesthetic experience to some audience with the aim of evoking some reaction in that audience, and it's good art, good at being art, if it succeeds at evoking that intended reaction. The subjectivity of intent can make that still a subjective thing: the artist may intend to evoke a different reaction than the audience is intending to experience. Objectivity can be reclaimed if there is some objective judgement possible of what reactions ought to be evokes in audiences, what art ought to be meant to do. Beauty on the other hand is just when something feels right, either in a descriptive or prescriptive sense: right as in true, or right as in good. The thing doesn't have to actually be true or good, but it has to feel like it's conveying some truth or goodness, and that feeling of it being "right" in one of those senses is beauty. Arguably, that feeling of rightness is what ought to be evoked by art, which would make beautiful art coextensive with good art, but beauty can nevertheless also exist outside of art entirely: naturally occurring things can be beautiful.
You have put my thoughts into a video! Thanks for that! :) For the next one you have given a hard choice. I can't chose. But I would go with the former "Is Time real?"
I used to be a winemaker and sommelier. The subjective objective debate was always on my mind and the conclusion I came to is that taste is subjective. It's just that our subjectivity can overlap and that makes it very easy to give into the illusion of an objective truth.
So helpful thank you! Have used many of your video's for help with essays. Current one is "Assess Hume's project in 'Of the Standard of Taste' so this was perfect! x
Reminds me of Camus' discussion of reason- It doesn't work for everything in the universe but its useless to forgo it completely and worship irrationality. Reason can coexist with irrationality, and so can, I believe, objective and subjective aesthetics.
Similarly to the issue of induction, it seems as though our linguistic and semantic reasoning behind the way we express our views will always limit our ability to be objective. There is the argument that removing prejudice is impossible and, therefore, so is objectivity, but taking such a skeptical view leaves little room for interpreting the function and formality of opinions especially on subjects such as art.
Being an artist (and also art trainer) myself, I actually follow a more scientific principles of observation, and I don't think art is "subjective", and I also don't think that "objectivity" is necessarily tied to "one better than the other". But even if art is subjective, there are countless ways to objectively quantify and critique art as necessary. One of the many ways is to "test" an art or an artist is -- as mentioned -- using the Hume's device but also expanding on it. You could inquire things like, "What is the art trying to say", and "If the artist has successfully managed to say it", and if not, "What does the art say regardless of the artist's attempt". Judgement on art is quite complex, I agree, but not to the extent most would argue. I have a LOT of students who make horrible drawings and try to get away with, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". True, their drawings could work on some kinds of illustrations, but their statement doesn't hold true because they delude themselves into thinking that their stumblings were "purposeful". In fact, they really COULDN'T express what they wanted to on paper.
I think it depends. But you might make some good points. I do think art is subjective, maybe, but there can be an objective way of judgement if possible, and if someone failed at what they were trying to draw, then it may be bad, as an attempt. But if someone said "this art sucks because I hate trees" in a work of art containing trees, then that's subjective for example.
Actually I think that your example of the trees would be more relative than subjective. There can be relative appreciations regarding the age, sex, culture of the espectator of the work of art... and according to me taste is relative as well.. subjective would have to do more with the perception of the message or the meaning of the work of art than taste. But dont mind me, im just doing my thesis in beuty and architecture but i am currently finding myself in a dead end.
As an exercise in thought, Hume seems to do a good job exploring the rabbit hole, but I think that's about as far as it can go. A practiced critic can be accepted as a subject matter expert fairly objectively, but if they, as established experts, reveal flaws in a piece of art, be it film or otherwise, and determine said piece of art as being either bad or good, for reasons quite understandable, their opinion still holds very little weight if someone else disagrees with them. Once you escape from judging the technical aspects of a piece of art is when you enter the subjective territory of art appreciation, which I would argue is the place the terms good or bad seem to have any relevance. A poorly executed piece of art can still be widely appreciated and vice versa. Take for example the elephant that someone gave a paint brush and people went "omg, how amazing".
I can see Hume's point, however I don't really like the idea of an "ideal critique" that all the "non-qualified" people would be somewhat forced to consider as the only one who truly knows what is bad and what is good. In the scenario you described (where two person would disagree and should, according to Hume, ask the opinion of an expert), I think they should instead debate beteween the two of them why said piece of art is good or bad. Through debating, they will both try to prove they are right and the other is wrong, and the one who will "lose" the debate will either be the one who lacks proper arguments (someone who enjoys something but could'nt say why is it better than something else) or, (and this is where it gets interesting) the "loser" will realize he was wrong, or misjudged the piece of art. No matter the outcome, there won't be a "loser" so to speak: Either you win the debate and were therefore right, or you lose it bu in doing so you have learned something, or at least experienced a point of view other than your own, which, in my opinion, can never be a bad thing.
StrasbergProtégé True, I may have chosen my words poorly ^^ What I meant to say by " being right" was "sucessfully show someone else your point of view regarding a work of art", which can be easier said than done.
Yes.You know when you're seeing something beautiful. A beautiful woman is universally accepted as beautiful. Subjective takes time and cohersion if you're aesthetically challenged. Includes charm, panache,and physical prowess, but time is still of the essence in determining staying power.
The point about the critic having to know what's the message of the work made me remember about a criticism I saw once of a movie that was saying that the movie wasn't good because the character development was shallow. The movie was one of those Fast and Furious, or XXX kind of films, so I was like "yeah, you criticising a hamburger because the ice-cream isn't cold enough".
Thank you so much for your videos, I really like them and have subscribed. I'm very much an amateur philosopher, I'm better at sociology. Your videos introduce philosopher at the right level and have given me much to think about, so thank you for that!
I'd say quality of art is like a bell curve. Generally speaking, some will be better than others, but there will still be a lot of disagreement between individuals depending where that person lies in the curve.
I'm doing a BA in philosophy at uni and I'm so fucking far behind in the course. Yet I'm watching this which has in no way any relation to the current philosophy I'm doing at uni. I love me.
I've heard a few movie critics argue, basically, that their experience makes them *less* qualified to tell you if a movie is good or not. They say that since a professional movie critic spends an order of magnitude more time watching movies, thinking about movies, analyzing movies, etc, than the typical person, they have a very different sense of what's merely a familiar and comfortable genre convention vs what is trite and cliche, what is a welcome twist vs what is a nonsense "asspull" what is subtle foreshadowing vs what is an insultingly obvious telegraph, and so on. The tone of it, when I've read this pieces doesn't usually feel "snobby." Their experience has changed all the criteria for them, and they can no longer assess something based on the criteria of someone who hasn't had the same experience. No so much a claim that they are better as a claim that they are lamentably different.
I would love to meet youuu! You are such an interesting person. This is the first time I watch one of your videos and I will keep watching them. You make me think so much haha. Great job in the editing part too!
I love your channel but I will have to strongly disagree with you on this video, because I think that you have your premises totally wrong on this issue. First you can not say that a piece of artwork is better or worse then another, simply because it all boils down to its relevance in a particular situation in time. It is because of this that certain works of art become important and then just fade away. Not to say that some some works of art don't reach that universal level, but even their meaning will fluctuate according to the Zeitgeist. And ultimately to say that a work of art is better then another one according to its absolute value, it is like saying that a person can br better then another one on an absolute value. And this is just wrong because you transform humans into means and art into just objects, instead of what they are - expression of ideas and values.
Art and Comedy what if the social & monetary value is based on the very subjective assessment of a somewhere like the Wildenstein Institute? I know it might not effect “the beauty” of the piece per se but it can mean that a piece disappears into obscurity.
Can you do a video on emotivism? I think you can also use emotivism with aesthetics as with ethics. Is it possible that our entire ethical and aesthetic taste is based on a *positive feeling* or *negative feeling* and our entire reasoning for preferring Mona Lisa or utilitarianism is inventions we make in order to justify our feelings. In other words: First comes feelings and then we justify our feelings.
I have actually been studying emotivism so this is one time I can probably say yes there will be a video on that at some stage. Might lump it in with some other noncognitivist theories too.
I can buy into experts that are better "qualified" to make judgement calls, but as you say at the end, it's still all subjective. Overcoming certain biases would require more than overlooking something morally objective. You'd have to be able to completely divorce yourself from all aspects of the art except for the art itself. Which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The ideal expert would look at myriads of art without really seeing any of it. As for stand up comedy, or comedy in general, you have to admit that there are some people or situations that by all objective reasoning should be unfunny, yet they are somehow hilarious. Edit: The study of what makes something humorous would probably explain much of it, but it's still so unpredictable as to make the theory useless. In conclusion, art is not art and pewdiepie is not funny ever.
What do you think of Marion's notion of 'quasi-concepts'? Where there is the aesthetic experience and then after the fact we make judgments regarding the aesthetic object. This is a phenomenological account of experience of beauty but it is also very Kantian just without the noumenal substratum that Kant suggests in the 3rd critique which gives a normative structure to nature
I think Hume's approach might run into some problems when regarding more nihilistic and minimalistic forms of art, such as the Merzbau, Saroyan's m (the "shortest poem"), Dadaism, Futurism, as well as the works of John Zorn, Boredoms and many many others. In some sense at least, these forms of art are reactionary, in particular to art critics. This interesting dynamic, as well as awareness of the opinion of other critics, are elements that I'm missing in his approach. Of course, a quick wikipedia search shows that Hume lived in the 1700s, way before any of this happened, but this criticism still stands. I wonder if there was something similar in his time, though.
Maybe, instead of having no prejudice, what we ought to expect of the ideal critic is right prejudice. The problem then is who to go to in order to figure out just what the "right" prejudice is--my vote goes to the philosopher.
Interesting comparison of *The Eternal Jew* and *Ender's Game* in this video. As a filmmaker, I've always defined art as being a presentation of one's identity or perspective. In that context, I think the fundamental difference is that propaganda films are art; in that they DO NOT present any self-originated or self-interpreted perspective from their experiences or feelings, they are merely a counterargument to someone else's perspective. *Birth of a Nation* is merely a counterargument to Black people's experiences and perspective, not a presentation of an perspective originating from the author's experiences. Likewise, *The Eternal Jew* and *Triumph of the Will* are not presentation of their author's perspective, originating from their author's feelings or experiences, they are merely counterarguments to the validity of Jewish people's feelings and experiences.
+Philosophy Tube As a fellow comedy expert (read: I live near a theatre and have poor financial restraint) that routine was definitely proper-guest-on-a-late-night-talk-show-worthy, well done.
As a full-time critic myself, this is a question I've struggled with more than a few times. I have a few really extreme opinions, but I have those because the works I tend to dislike strongly seem to haphazardly deal with their subject material. I try to do my best to maintain at the very least a level-head and, when all else fails I fall back on my literacy of the medium I work with. That aside, I think there is definitely a space for reviews and critiques that openly embrace personal bias. I'm also American Indian and I'm totally okay with dismissing certain works out of hand if they have a really grotesque representation of my culture (see: Custer's Revenge). That said, I at least try to make an effort to engage with those things I find objectionable (see also: Bioshock Infinite) because I'm just naturally curious. I don't totally discount the idea that a game I hate or have reviewed poorly or one that just makes me uncomfortable could have something really amazing to say.
I wonder, how can Hume at the same time believe that there is no correct answer and also that it is possible to prefer one answer over another? Is it possible to be “closer to the truth” of the truth doesn’t exist?
it seems that aesthetic values can be concerning almost everything, and they seem the most objective the more general your assessment is. for example you can say there's much beauty in nature and that's a relatively uncontroversial statement. this sort of indicates aesthetic values aren't exactly determined values, but approximate ones. all of our aesthetic judgements can be different, but they seem to be in the same ballpark so to speak. sort of like the preference of literal taste. everyone has their own taste when it comes to food, but we all can agree on things like ocean water tastes bad. likewise we can agree loud sounds in complete discord are noise, not music.
I view art as a tool, that artists use to "show" certain emotions or thoughts to their chosen public. The art is good, if the audience "sees" these emotions or thoughts. So one piece of art is better than another piece of art, if that piece of art does a better job of "showing" chosen emotions or thoughts to chosen audience. Judging piece of art seems to be subjective in some cases and objective in another cases depending on the situation. If we belong to the audience for which both of these works of art were created, we can judge which one of them did a better job of "showing" us the things that artist wanted to show. However, if two works of art were created for two different audiences and we belong to only one of them, we can not compare them. Even if there was an ideal critic who could compare all art from the point of every audience, it would be like saying that this sound is louder than that line is long. If I do not belong to a certain audience, it does not mean anything for me if a piece of art is good or bad for that audience, it is not for me anyway. So I guess what I am trying to say is that it makes sense to compare works of art made for the same audience and it makes no sense to compare art in general.
I'm writing a paper on this. I'm using C.S. Lewis' the Abolition of Man, the first chapter talks about this a lot. If you follow the idea that statements of value are subjective to it's extreme conclusion it...kind of falls apart. According to Lewis. I, uhhh can't really explain it bc I'm not as smart as him.
Unless you believe in Aphrodite, you don't have any objective basis for beauty and no standard by which to judge beauty and what is beautiful and what isn't.
Top notch, insightful videos! Thank you so much!! Can we suggest that if there is an absolute reality, then it should follow that there is a certain objectivity to beauty, as beauty is part of reality. Is beauty subjective or objective is a wrong question -is there an objective reality should be the question.
+Ohad Fedida Beauty being PART of objective reality does not necessarily entail that there is objective beauty. That would seem to imply that beauty is proportional to how similar to reality a thing is, which most people do not seem to think. Otherwise, by that logic, all photographs r objectively more beautiful than paintings. Correct me if I misinterpreted your comment. That was just the impression I got.
+Sideeq Mohammad Hey, can you repeat the last part I didn't understand. If there is an objective reality, then there must be objective beauty. All subjective comes into existence once humans interpret reality through HIS lenses. Thus, this human lives a subjective reality or interpretation of an absolute reality.
+Sideeq Mohammad Hey I apologize for the late response. For now I define Beauty as anything that enhances or affirms an aspect of Life. I may be totally wrong. Additionally, before we can delve into defining beauty, we must first define the most salient idea on which the whole discussion is based on, and that is "objectivity" and "subjectivity".
Ohad Fedida Sorry for my late response. Objectivity: There is a correct answer; correct regardless of who you ask. An example is "How many fingers do I have?" and the objective answer being "10" (given that we both agree on the definition of "finger"). That's indisputable. I can't look at my 10 fingers and say "nah, I think it's really 7". In that case, I'm objectively wrong. Subjectivity: There is no fact of the matter, even with an agreed definition. An example is "is 19 degrees celsius too cold?" This comes down to how tolerable one finds 19 degrees to be (i.e. it's a matter based purely on individual preferences, even though we both agree on a definition of "cold").
Hume's analysis is probably inadequate if only because Hume's analyses are generally inadequate. He tends to be limited to the obvious (what more can we expect from an empiricist?). His arguments were more effective at raising questions than they were at providing answers.
***** I think, being an empiricist, he would say that just because his arguments tend to be inadequate is no indication that his next one will be, haha!
Philosophy Tube Right. Clever. Whatever I said in my earlier post I do recognize that Hume's contributions can't be overstated. It's amazing how present Hume's ideas are today - especially but far from exclusively in the sciences. But still - Kant is King. GL and keep up the good work. I have subscribed.
This is interesting but I'm overly focused on the fact that he has the exact same accent used by Cameron in Ferris Bueller's Day Off
10 ปีที่แล้ว
When we are talking about beauty and an expert is needed (as suggested by Hume)... isn't the expert evaluating «quality» instead of «beauty»? Where is the line that separates both? I still remember the tour de force I went through reading «Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance». Art experts are normally hired to evaluate the «value» of art works, connected in some way with the «quality» and market, and partially with «beauty».
Two levels on which art affects us - emotional and intellectual. Evaluation on the emotional one can be only subjective, and on the intellectual, there can be both subjective and objective components.
its cause people dont wanna fucking admit that the shit that makes them laugh isn't some unique spontaneous moment, but some dull repetitive moment that has to be lived forever and forever
It seems like the "ideal critic" cannot exist because you could argue that critiquing is an art form so we would need to find someone to critique their critiquing. Who would be the critic critic? We'd need someone to judge them...............
As is often the case, I think the problem is in vagueness of language. In the question "Is X more beautiful than Y?" what is meant by "beautiful"? The term is far too vague to support a clear univocal answer. The fact that different people have different ideas of what "beautiful" means leads some to think it is subjective, when in fact it is not much more than equivocation, vagueness and insufficiently specific definitions. If two people could agree on what "beautiful" meant, as a specific set of criteria or necessary/sufficient conditions, then I'd wager there would be far less disagreement. As it stands, however, "beautiful" has little more than a very vague communal notion that is good enough for general use and yet breaks down in specific cases. The matter is worsened by the fact that, culturally, we generally have similar conceptions of "beauty" which are pretty similar overall, yet differ in certain ways. When A says to B "X is more beautiful than Y because of Z", A is trying to convince B that, according to B's conception of "beautiful", X beats Y. Hence we often hear B respond "That's irrelevant" or "No, Z makes Y more beautiful than X" or "Yes, but what about W?" etc. I am rather averse to any sort of model that allows facts to be settled by the opinions of "experts". Experts may be better than the average person at making certain judgements, better able to give better reasons and fuller background information, but it is the reasons and background that is of value, not its issuance from some person. The list of attributes Hume gives seems better suited as a list of how we can become better critics and connoisseurs, rather than what we should look for in a truth-creating person.
One thing I've noticed about professional critics is that, since they've seen so many works, that they tend to give negative reviews to otherwise good works, when they are similar to many works they've seen before (and perhaps seen better). Is this a form of bias?
Stephen5000 Hm, maybe they become desensitised, so as critics mature they start to drift out of touch with what moves ordinary people? Being immersed in something for so long might change your tastes I suppose.
If I made a "bad" drawing in my childhood and became a famous artist in adulthood, does it mean that my drawing becomes a national treasure after the fact? Or in another case, if I was already a famous artist, would an "ordinary" painting by my authorship still gain critical acclaim? Andy Warhol made paintings of soup cans, yet we see it as an art form. Beauty of art is derived individually. Kant, with his transcendental idealism, would argue that we can never know "things-in-themselves" only the "phenomenal world". If we cannot know what a "thing" really is, how are we supposed to judge its "beauty"?
If someone is found attractive by majority of people then they’re attractive. Everyone has a type but they can still tell if someone is attractive or not. Some people may find Dolan twins ugly because they don’t like their bicycle seat shaped jaws but can still tell they attract a lot of girls and some may find Kpop boys ugly because they like more masculine men but at the same time can tell they’ve got really pretty faces. So some people are just beautiful but it’s more of a matter of which type of beauty they prefer.
One thing you don't bring up is how ideas about what art is best is strongly tied to what is in vogue at the time, and how this is often mistaken for objective views. A famous example is how Van Gogh only sold one painting in his life because what he was doing was so far from the tastes of the time. It also made me think of one time at college when a classmate spent ages drunkenly explaining to me why life of Brian is objectively the best python movie, and I was like yeah, I know, but I still enjoy the holy grail more (he got quite angry about that and it was very funny)
I think Hume runs into problems when he assumes that everyone is looking for the same things in criticism. For example if I am a teenage girl in the middle of an identity crisis it's very possible that Stephanie Meyer will be a better author to me than Shakespeare. Of course this argument assumes that what really matters to people isn't technical prowess (which is the work in the context of other works like how difficult was it to paint that picture, have these sounds never been heard before etc) but the impact the work has on me. Likewise people are looking for different things in critics for example my roommate sometime watches movie reviews on youtube and is mainly interested in deciding whether or not he will enjoy a movie. Another person might be more interested in the technical side of the film (how certain shots were constructed etc) and yet another might be more interested in extracting meaning from the film. There's no reason to believe that what we value in the "ideal critic" isn't also an aesthetic decision.
this post is five years old but 6:38
That would be a case of bad taste....essentially having under-weighed opinions. Many people can't associate with what they enjoy: Classical music, Elton John, Victorian furniture. I think people with good taste have an intuitive sense of depth involved in literature, music, art. ect. They aren't even necessarily able to justify their likings - they just tend to 'get' there is something more going on than just scribbling on paper or banging on a keyboard. This likely involves mental specialization(s).
Great points, thank you!
Fuck sake needledrop why were you here too!
Ha! I was just thinking about you then.
Ayyyy it's Anthony
I'm a year late
heeeeeyyyyy
go away
I STILL WATCH YOUR OLD VIDEOS AND I LOVE THEM AND THEY ARE HELPFUL FOR MY PHILOSOPHY CLASSES THANKS OLLY!!
I'm so happy you have such a deep catalogue of videos because this helped me with another essay. So thank you lol
TH-cam started to recommend me your old videos, oh boi... its like a whole different Olly!
In my experience, when you encounter something for the first time you can know whether you like it or not before you can find reasons to explain your decision (liking or disliking). When I see a painting I immediately know if I like or not (or, sometimes, neither) and after I process the painting for a few seconds I can find the reasons why I like it or not.
What do you think?
+H. D. Afentoulidis true that . Judging something the first time is something I regret a lot
+H. D. Afentoulidis I could'nt agree more. Well said !
I agree whole heartedly. I absoluetly hate those paintings that are all like one large square divided with solid colors for no other reason than I hate them.
Oh gosh. This topic. For college, I read a book about the History of Beauty by Umberto Eco (among other things). Then I was prompted to write an essay that could be titled "What Is Beauty (from Plato to Hume)". Yeah. I have Reactions to this topic. My essay ended up discussing the different ways that people said they knew what "beauty" was (from Plato to Hume). It wasn't until the Renaissance that I got the feeling that personal experience or processing was even relevant to ideas about Beauty.
At first, the answer is "there is A Beauty and it is a Form, and it shines out from beautiful things" which is, of course, paraphrasing Plato. It exists. It's out there. It doesn't need you to experience it for it to exist. In Neo-Platonism, it shifts to be less about the idea of a Form and more about proportion. This shift was easy because Plato himself said, "For measure and proportion are everywhere identified with beauty and virtue" (a quote). Vitruvius was a big proponent of Proportions = Beauty.
During the Renaissance, people wanted to point to Nature to say, "beauty is when something imitates Nature," because Nature Is Scientific, You Know and has all kinds of layers we can't even see, but we can contemplate that supernatural level of perfection if we contemplate Nature. But don't worry too much about that separation of physical objects from supernatural ideas of beauty. The laws of Nature will produce Beauty. So those ideas were still appealing to an unreachable source for their definition, but at least this time it wasn't a Platonic Form, and you can kind of go out and see something like it in natural settings.
Then during the Enlightenment, beauty shifts to being about how people EXPERIENCE those proportions. If you can't appreciate an application of measure and proportion - if you can't identify it or get any kind of experience from it - then it doesn't matter. If it can't affect you, then it can't BE beauty, because beauty is supposed to affect you. (Blondel's description of people who believe this) So here is a definite involvement of personal experience coming in to say, "I didn't get that at all". If people don't get it, they won't experience Beauty. They won't experience that object as having Beauty.
And finally at the end of my essay, I quoted Hume saying, beauty is "not a quality of objects but only mark[ing] a certain pleasure taken in the structured relations between parts and wholes." So you're still allowed to like relationships between elements, but it's not all about prescribed proportions anymore. Beautiful things will affect you using their composition / relationship of parts. The definition is now that experience. That's why it's interesting to hear that he's proposing a Perfect Critic to discern which Experience is the Most Valid.
So like. Somebody might have had a really strong reaction to the composition of Sharknado, but not Citizen Kane. Somebody might have liked that pacing in The Hobbit. Somebody might have felt Twlilight spoke to them more than Shakespeare. And are the elements in Citizen Kane and Shakespeare more valuable than the ones in Sharknado and Twilight if a person can't appreciate them?
I suppose this is why he wants A Perfect Critic who has a sensitivity of taste to pick up on compositions from a wide variety of sources.
If anybody wants to critique my nuances or correct my takes, please do. I obviously still have that college essay and I still enjoy the topic. Despite being scarred by having to write said essay in like two hours.
Hello I know it's been two years since this comment I just wanted to ask if you still have that essay and if I you cared to share it with me. Thank you very much.
Playing devil's advocate: From an egotistical standpoint you could Argue that if you cannot penetrate Shakespeare because of the language used, but you could understand Stephanie Mayer then she is superior as she is the only useful choice of the two from your perspective. (Unless you count the potential to understand Shakespeare where it would be superior). Personally I think that artistic beauty comes from what you take from the artwork and not the work itself.
this is like saying bikes are objectively better than cars for getting you places because you don't have a driving license. Yes, subjectively a bike serves your purposes better because you simply can't access cars, but this doesn't remove their superiority.
@@criticaledgepod I don't think the commenter was saying it's objective. Also, even if you do have a driver's license, there are still advantages that bikes have over cars. They're cheaper, they provide more physical exercise, they’re better for the environment, they take up less space, etc. And I think that's really what they were getting at. Judging art is subjective because different people get different things out of them, therefore saying that Shakespeare is better is not an objective statement.
I had a psychology text book in community college that discussed beauty in one of the chapters and examined beauty in a human face. As a specimen they used a photo of Denzel Washington. I remember the figure added a box and lines over his photo and pointed out his symmetry. The book said that having more symmetry in your face and a strong square jaw was what made a man's face attractive. They're probably right.
There's probably a line that can be drawn between that which is required for beauty objectively and that which passes a test based on the values held by the individual. Not everyone holds the same values, tastes, interests, standards, etc. But there's probably a baseline standard that nearly everyone would agree on. If an attribute measures below the baseline then there'd be near certainty of rejection.
There is an art gallery near my favorite pub and I often go and look at the art through the window. I never really think about whether it is good or not. I just look at it for what it is. I see the labour that went into it and contemplate what it is trying to represent. I do a lot of art myself but I'm not an expert in any of it. If I'm an expert in anything, it's biology. I just try to take it in as is and appreciate what it is. I do the same thing for music. I play guitar and sing (although only after plenty of good drink) in our local open mic nights and some people screw up (including me), but I try to appreciate what the artist is trying to bring to the world and I appreciate their bravery for going on stage (especially since most of them drive and can't be as intoxicated as I always am at the pub). Some people get up and sing off key, but I see their passion for art and artistic expression. Then, I try to ask people philosophical questions if they seem too drunk to drive and the results are absolutely amazing! I've talked all night to people about philosophy and I only took a few classes in college and I've also played the blues all night long with homeless people. I think the appreciation of art is to appreciate the way things are at that moment and to appreciate the passion that went into creating something.
I find Hume's framework to be very useful in describing beer tastes.
When I first started drinking beer it was common to begin with the most popular brands such as Coors or Molson Canadian (which is the standard corporate beer here in Canada). As I continued to expand my taste and try different items I moved towards better lagers such as Heineken. Than, having entered the craft beer rabbit hole, I entered a new era where I could no longer appreciate lagers for what they were because they were too simple.
There are people who I've met who have never moved away from their coors, and since they lack any experience comparing and contrasting this taste with other tastes, they have a very limited view of the world of beer. I would much less likely take their opinion over the opinion of someone who has compared and contrasted their tastes with other items.
I love how clear and intriguing your voice is ! AS far as the information you provided, it raised my eyebrow and makes me more excited to dive into my current Humanities course. My answer is YES, Hume's answer on how to critique two works of art, Experts should have a bigger impact on who we may ask this question versus a mechanic who has never thought about an artifact.Thank you (:
I don't think there is a way for any critic to remove bias. Experiences will always affect feelings. While some things can be objectively demonstrated as better than others by comparison, as in how well a piece conveys an idea or emotion.
A problem arises when the the observer is unable to experience the aesthetic value due to a lack of relatable experiences. An example of this problem is contained in meta-works, where a big part of the value of the piece is with the audience having already had certain experiences and being aware of the internal commentary and allusions being presented.
I've already watched the following episode on whether time is real or not, so I feel reasonably confident saying it does exist. The episode has present-past-futurity.
As an artist it pains me to admit it but I'm pretty sure that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, or to use a more precise expression: the value attributed to a work of art is defined by its context.
There is a limiting factor that restricts this subjectivity though, namely the fact that we, the beholders, are all human and share quite an amount of common traits. More so since we live in a connected society and share a certain amount of common values, concepts and ideas. So while the beholders are certainly different, they are not that different, which leads to widespread (but never complete) agreement in certain questions.
Olly! I loved this!
Thought this comment was on a different video so got confused for a second. Thanks!
I don't usually post comments on videos, but I'd just like to thank you for making these videos and sharing them. I'm very interested in philosophy in general and there are very few places where I find it in this form (i.e. in easy to understand format while retaining some depth). I would also enjoy longer more in-depth videos but of course that's up to you and how much time you have :) Thanks again! Keep it up!
so easy to understand - thanks!
you single handedly have saved my theory of knowledge oral. bless you.
+Madie Rae You're welcome!
The problem of aesthetic judgment was one of the issues asked in my comprehensive exam back when i was an undergrad. watching this vid brings back good and as well as bad (reading kant T_T) memories haha thanks olly!
2:16
What are the names of your two favourites? Would like to look them up.
The first guy is Stewart Lee. Don't know the other.
my first time here. Totally sold on. thank you.
Congrats on 4,000 subscribers! Also, alternate realities please.
She's come so far🥺
I enjoy the way you make eye contact and present the information on criticism.
I've been looking for such a youtube channel as yours. :D You do a great job! Finally I can combine what I like the most- Philosophy and languages. Thanks!
Greetings from Poland ^^
Apocalypse Niksa Cool, welcome to the community!
I thought you might like to know that I just saw your video as part of the curriculum in a college class. Pretty cool, huh?
Cool!
The question of whether something is beautiful is separate from the question of whether something is good art. Something is art at all if it's presenting some aesthetic experience to some audience with the aim of evoking some reaction in that audience, and it's good art, good at being art, if it succeeds at evoking that intended reaction. The subjectivity of intent can make that still a subjective thing: the artist may intend to evoke a different reaction than the audience is intending to experience. Objectivity can be reclaimed if there is some objective judgement possible of what reactions ought to be evokes in audiences, what art ought to be meant to do.
Beauty on the other hand is just when something feels right, either in a descriptive or prescriptive sense: right as in true, or right as in good. The thing doesn't have to actually be true or good, but it has to feel like it's conveying some truth or goodness, and that feeling of it being "right" in one of those senses is beauty.
Arguably, that feeling of rightness is what ought to be evoked by art, which would make beautiful art coextensive with good art, but beauty can nevertheless also exist outside of art entirely: naturally occurring things can be beautiful.
You have put my thoughts into a video! Thanks for that! :)
For the next one you have given a hard choice. I can't chose. But I would go with the former "Is Time real?"
I used to be a winemaker and sommelier. The subjective objective debate was always on my mind and the conclusion I came to is that taste is subjective. It's just that our subjectivity can overlap and that makes it very easy to give into the illusion of an objective truth.
Good luck on the exams man. You'll do great! :D
As a hobbyist critic, I like the idea that I decide what's beautiful
Where exactly is your boards for debates?
So helpful thank you! Have used many of your video's for help with essays. Current one is "Assess Hume's project in 'Of the Standard of Taste' so this was perfect! x
+Holly Miller My pleasure! Good luck with the essay!
Symmetries are objective.
Who are the two comedians that are your favourite? don't know them ( yet)
Reminds me of Camus' discussion of reason- It doesn't work for everything in the universe but its useless to forgo it completely and worship irrationality. Reason can coexist with irrationality, and so can, I believe, objective and subjective aesthetics.
Similarly to the issue of induction, it seems as though our linguistic and semantic reasoning behind the way we express our views will always limit our ability to be objective. There is the argument that removing prejudice is impossible and, therefore, so is objectivity, but taking such a skeptical view leaves little room for interpreting the function and formality of opinions especially on subjects such as art.
Being an artist (and also art trainer) myself, I actually follow a more scientific principles of observation, and I don't think art is "subjective", and I also don't think that "objectivity" is necessarily tied to "one better than the other". But even if art is subjective, there are countless ways to objectively quantify and critique art as necessary. One of the many ways is to "test" an art or an artist is -- as mentioned -- using the Hume's device but also expanding on it. You could inquire things like, "What is the art trying to say", and "If the artist has successfully managed to say it", and if not, "What does the art say regardless of the artist's attempt".
Judgement on art is quite complex, I agree, but not to the extent most would argue. I have a LOT of students who make horrible drawings and try to get away with, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". True, their drawings could work on some kinds of illustrations, but their statement doesn't hold true because they delude themselves into thinking that their stumblings were "purposeful". In fact, they really COULDN'T express what they wanted to on paper.
I think it depends. But you might make some good points.
I do think art is subjective, maybe, but there can be an objective way of judgement if possible, and if someone failed at what they were trying to draw, then it may be bad, as an attempt. But if someone said "this art sucks because I hate trees" in a work of art containing trees, then that's subjective for example.
Actually I think that your example of the trees would be more relative than subjective. There can be relative appreciations regarding the age, sex, culture of the espectator of the work of art... and according to me taste is relative as well.. subjective would have to do more with the perception of the message or the meaning of the work of art than taste. But dont mind me, im just doing my thesis in beuty and architecture but i am currently finding myself in a dead end.
all experience is subjective mr. scientist
Tushant Mirchandani people are often very deluded.
As an exercise in thought, Hume seems to do a good job exploring the rabbit hole, but I think that's about as far as it can go. A practiced critic can be accepted as a subject matter expert fairly objectively, but if they, as established experts, reveal flaws in a piece of art, be it film or otherwise, and determine said piece of art as being either bad or good, for reasons quite understandable, their opinion still holds very little weight if someone else disagrees with them. Once you escape from judging the technical aspects of a piece of art is when you enter the subjective territory of art appreciation, which I would argue is the place the terms good or bad seem to have any relevance. A poorly executed piece of art can still be widely appreciated and vice versa. Take for example the elephant that someone gave a paint brush and people went "omg, how amazing".
I can see Hume's point, however I don't really like the idea of an "ideal critique" that all the "non-qualified" people would be somewhat forced to consider as the only one who truly knows what is bad and what is good.
In the scenario you described (where two person would disagree and should, according to Hume, ask the opinion of an expert), I think they should instead debate beteween the two of them why said piece of art is good or bad.
Through debating, they will both try to prove they are right and the other is wrong, and the one who will "lose" the debate will either be the one who lacks proper arguments (someone who enjoys something but could'nt say why is it better than something else) or, (and this is where it gets interesting) the "loser" will realize he was wrong, or misjudged the piece of art.
No matter the outcome, there won't be a "loser" so to speak: Either you win the debate and were therefore right, or you lose it bu in doing so you have learned something, or at least experienced a point of view other than your own, which, in my opinion, can never be a bad thing.
In all fairness, none of them can be right and none of them can be wrong; art is not science
StrasbergProtégé True, I may have chosen my words poorly ^^ What I meant to say by " being right" was "sucessfully show someone else your point of view regarding a work of art", which can be easier said than done.
This reminds me of the idea that not everyone should be able to vote.
Yes.You know when you're seeing something beautiful. A beautiful woman is universally accepted as beautiful. Subjective takes time and cohersion if you're aesthetically challenged. Includes charm, panache,and physical prowess, but time is still of the essence in determining staying power.
The "No prejudice" question is very interesting! Please make a video only about that!
The point about the critic having to know what's the message of the work made me remember about a criticism I saw once of a movie that was saying that the movie wasn't good because the character development was shallow.
The movie was one of those Fast and Furious, or XXX kind of films, so I was like "yeah, you criticising a hamburger because the ice-cream isn't cold enough".
Thank you so much for your videos, I really like them and have subscribed. I'm very much an amateur philosopher, I'm better at sociology. Your videos introduce philosopher at the right level and have given me much to think about, so thank you for that!
Both of the proposed topics for next week seem amazing.
I'd say quality of art is like a bell curve. Generally speaking, some will be better than others, but there will still be a lot of disagreement between individuals depending where that person lies in the curve.
I'm doing a BA in philosophy at uni and I'm so fucking far behind in the course. Yet I'm watching this which has in no way any relation to the current philosophy I'm doing at uni. I love me.
I've heard a few movie critics argue, basically, that their experience makes them *less* qualified to tell you if a movie is good or not. They say that since a professional movie critic spends an order of magnitude more time watching movies, thinking about movies, analyzing movies, etc, than the typical person, they have a very different sense of what's merely a familiar and comfortable genre convention vs what is trite and cliche, what is a welcome twist vs what is a nonsense "asspull" what is subtle foreshadowing vs what is an insultingly obvious telegraph, and so on.
The tone of it, when I've read this pieces doesn't usually feel "snobby." Their experience has changed all the criteria for them, and they can no longer assess something based on the criteria of someone who hasn't had the same experience. No so much a claim that they are better as a claim that they are lamentably different.
I would love to meet youuu! You are such an interesting person. This is the first time I watch one of your videos and I will keep watching them. You make me think so much haha. Great job in the editing part too!
I love your channel but I will have to strongly disagree with you on this video, because I think that you have your premises totally wrong on this issue. First you can not say that a piece of artwork is better or worse then another, simply because it all boils down to its relevance in a particular situation in time. It is because of this that certain works of art become important and then just fade away. Not to say that some some works of art don't reach that universal level, but even their meaning will fluctuate according to the Zeitgeist. And ultimately to say that a work of art is better then another one according to its absolute value, it is like saying that a person can br better then another one on an absolute value. And this is just wrong because you transform humans into means and art into just objects, instead of what they are - expression of ideas and values.
Art and Comedy what if the social & monetary value is based on the very subjective assessment of a somewhere like the Wildenstein Institute? I know it might not effect “the beauty” of the piece per se but it can mean that a piece disappears into obscurity.
But what qualifies Hume to define the ideal critic, doesn’t this create a cycle that can’t be fulfilled?
You have interesting ears my friend. Thanks for your efforts.
ty for the last part
Can you do a video on emotivism? I think you can also use emotivism with aesthetics as with ethics.
Is it possible that our entire ethical and aesthetic taste is based on a *positive feeling* or *negative feeling* and our entire reasoning for preferring Mona Lisa or utilitarianism is inventions we make in order to justify our feelings.
In other words: First comes feelings and then we justify our feelings.
I have actually been studying emotivism so this is one time I can probably say yes there will be a video on that at some stage. Might lump it in with some other noncognitivist theories too.
I can buy into experts that are better "qualified" to make judgement calls, but as you say at the end, it's still all subjective. Overcoming certain biases would require more than overlooking something morally objective. You'd have to be able to completely divorce yourself from all aspects of the art except for the art itself. Which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The ideal expert would look at myriads of art without really seeing any of it.
As for stand up comedy, or comedy in general, you have to admit that there are some people or situations that by all objective reasoning should be unfunny, yet they are somehow hilarious.
Edit: The study of what makes something humorous would probably explain much of it, but it's still so unpredictable as to make the theory useless.
In conclusion, art is not art and pewdiepie is not funny ever.
What do you think of Marion's notion of 'quasi-concepts'? Where there is the aesthetic experience and then after the fact we make judgments regarding the aesthetic object. This is a phenomenological account of experience of beauty but it is also very Kantian just without the noumenal substratum that Kant suggests in the 3rd critique which gives a normative structure to nature
I think Hume's approach might run into some problems when regarding more nihilistic and minimalistic forms of art, such as the Merzbau, Saroyan's m (the "shortest poem"), Dadaism, Futurism, as well as the works of John Zorn, Boredoms and many many others. In some sense at least, these forms of art are reactionary, in particular to art critics. This interesting dynamic, as well as awareness of the opinion of other critics, are elements that I'm missing in his approach. Of course, a quick wikipedia search shows that Hume lived in the 1700s, way before any of this happened, but this criticism still stands. I wonder if there was something similar in his time, though.
I am doing a paper on what is beauty, and this helped me so much
+AmbooChan Oh great, I'm glad!
+AmbooChan , me too :))
I did it before Christmas and got an A! (And this was on the University)
I mean "at the University"
Maybe, instead of having no prejudice, what we ought to expect of the ideal critic is right prejudice. The problem then is who to go to in order to figure out just what the "right" prejudice is--my vote goes to the philosopher.
imma fail this essay LMAO
Interesting comparison of *The Eternal Jew* and *Ender's Game* in this video.
As a filmmaker, I've always defined art as being a presentation of one's identity or perspective. In that context, I think the fundamental difference is that propaganda films are art; in that they DO NOT present any self-originated or self-interpreted perspective from their experiences or feelings, they are merely a counterargument to someone else's perspective. *Birth of a Nation* is merely a counterargument to Black people's experiences and perspective, not a presentation of an perspective originating from the author's experiences. Likewise, *The Eternal Jew* and *Triumph of the Will* are not presentation of their author's perspective, originating from their author's feelings or experiences, they are merely counterarguments to the validity of Jewish people's feelings and experiences.
Who decides it is objective? No one can seem to answer that question.
is there any videos of you doing stand up online?
+Reptikrook Gaming Right here: th-cam.com/video/qXpDv1JlSmw/w-d-xo.html
+Philosophy Tube
As a fellow comedy expert (read: I live near a theatre and have poor financial restraint) that routine was definitely proper-guest-on-a-late-night-talk-show-worthy, well done.
As a full-time critic myself, this is a question I've struggled with more than a few times. I have a few really extreme opinions, but I have those because the works I tend to dislike strongly seem to haphazardly deal with their subject material. I try to do my best to maintain at the very least a level-head and, when all else fails I fall back on my literacy of the medium I work with.
That aside, I think there is definitely a space for reviews and critiques that openly embrace personal bias. I'm also American Indian and I'm totally okay with dismissing certain works out of hand if they have a really grotesque representation of my culture (see: Custer's Revenge). That said, I at least try to make an effort to engage with those things I find objectionable (see also: Bioshock Infinite) because I'm just naturally curious. I don't totally discount the idea that a game I hate or have reviewed poorly or one that just makes me uncomfortable could have something really amazing to say.
This comment didn't find its way into the script for the next episode but I do wanna just tell you that I love it.
What were the names of his two favorite comics?
I wonder, how can Hume at the same time believe that there is no correct answer and also that it is possible to prefer one answer over another? Is it possible to be “closer to the truth” of the truth doesn’t exist?
it seems that aesthetic values can be concerning almost everything, and they seem the most objective the more general your assessment is. for example you can say there's much beauty in nature and that's a relatively uncontroversial statement. this sort of indicates aesthetic values aren't exactly determined values, but approximate ones. all of our aesthetic judgements can be different, but they seem to be in the same ballpark so to speak. sort of like the preference of literal taste. everyone has their own taste when it comes to food, but we all can agree on things like ocean water tastes bad. likewise we can agree loud sounds in complete discord are noise, not music.
So objectivity might not be the case, but being the least subjective is the best opinion?
I view art as a tool, that artists use to "show" certain emotions or thoughts to their chosen public. The art is good, if the audience "sees" these emotions or thoughts. So one piece of art is better than another piece of art, if that piece of art does a better job of "showing" chosen emotions or thoughts to chosen audience. Judging piece of art seems to be subjective in some cases and objective in another cases depending on the situation. If we belong to the audience for which both of these works of art were created, we can judge which one of them did a better job of "showing" us the things that artist wanted to show. However, if two works of art were created for two different audiences and we belong to only one of them, we can not compare them. Even if there was an ideal critic who could compare all art from the point of every audience, it would be like saying that this sound is louder than that line is long. If I do not belong to a certain audience, it does not mean anything for me if a piece of art is good or bad for that audience, it is not for me anyway. So I guess what I am trying to say is that it makes sense to compare works of art made for the same audience and it makes no sense to compare art in general.
I am honestly surprised you included nothing about the youtube comments section in this.
Really good video! i have a question tho, one that's not relevant to the topic
Who are those guys?I mean your 2 favorite comedians.
Olly, I’ll give it to you straight-like a pear cider that’s made from 100% pears. This was an enjoyable video.
I'm writing a paper on this. I'm using C.S. Lewis' the Abolition of Man, the first chapter talks about this a lot. If you follow the idea that statements of value are subjective to it's extreme conclusion it...kind of falls apart. According to Lewis. I, uhhh can't really explain it bc I'm not as smart as him.
who are those two stand up comedians?
Who were those comedians?
And any links to your stand up?
The first was Stewart Lee, the second was Jonny Lennard (my brother).
Unless you believe in Aphrodite, you don't have any objective basis for beauty and no standard by which to judge beauty and what is beautiful and what isn't.
Top notch, insightful videos! Thank you so much!!
Can we suggest that if there is an absolute reality, then it should follow that there is a certain objectivity to beauty, as beauty is part of reality. Is beauty subjective or objective is a wrong question -is there an objective reality should be the question.
+Ohad Fedida Beauty being PART of objective reality does not necessarily entail that there is objective beauty. That would seem to imply that beauty is proportional to how similar to reality a thing is, which most people do not seem to think. Otherwise, by that logic, all photographs r objectively more beautiful than paintings.
Correct me if I misinterpreted your comment. That was just the impression I got.
+Sideeq Mohammad Hey, can you repeat the last part I didn't understand. If there is an objective reality, then there must be objective beauty. All subjective comes into existence once humans interpret reality through HIS lenses. Thus, this human lives a subjective reality or interpretation of an absolute reality.
Ohad Fedida Well lets just get something straight first.
How do u define "beauty"?
+Sideeq Mohammad Hey I apologize for the late response. For now I define Beauty as anything that enhances or affirms an aspect of Life. I may be totally wrong.
Additionally, before we can delve into defining beauty, we must first define the most salient idea on which the whole discussion is based on, and that is "objectivity" and "subjectivity".
Ohad Fedida Sorry for my late response.
Objectivity: There is a correct answer; correct regardless of who you ask.
An example is "How many fingers do I have?" and the objective answer being "10" (given that we both agree on the definition of "finger"). That's indisputable. I can't look at my 10 fingers and say "nah, I think it's really 7". In that case, I'm objectively wrong.
Subjectivity: There is no fact of the matter, even with an agreed definition. An example is "is 19 degrees celsius too cold?" This comes down to how tolerable one finds 19 degrees to be (i.e. it's a matter based purely on individual preferences, even though we both agree on a definition of "cold").
Hume's analysis is probably inadequate if only because Hume's analyses are generally inadequate. He tends to be limited to the obvious (what more can we expect from an empiricist?). His arguments were more effective at raising questions than they were at providing answers.
***** I think, being an empiricist, he would say that just because his arguments tend to be inadequate is no indication that his next one will be, haha!
Philosophy Tube Right. Clever. Whatever I said in my earlier post I do recognize that Hume's contributions can't be overstated. It's amazing how present Hume's ideas are today - especially but far from exclusively in the sciences. But still - Kant is King. GL and keep up the good work. I have subscribed.
3:00- every philosophy student's inner rant against Kant. Seriously the, guy was brilliant but everything is ten times harder with him
This is interesting but I'm overly focused on the fact that he has the exact same accent used by Cameron in Ferris Bueller's Day Off
When we are talking about beauty and an expert is needed (as suggested by Hume)... isn't the expert evaluating «quality» instead of «beauty»? Where is the line that separates both? I still remember the tour de force I went through reading «Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance». Art experts are normally hired to evaluate the «value» of art works, connected in some way with the «quality» and market, and partially with «beauty».
Justin Lin mugged my heart with the most recent Star Trek.
Two levels on which art affects us - emotional and intellectual. Evaluation on the emotional one can be only subjective, and on the intellectual, there can be both subjective and objective components.
its cause people dont wanna fucking admit that the shit that makes them laugh isn't some unique spontaneous moment, but some dull repetitive moment that has to be lived forever and forever
It seems like the "ideal critic" cannot exist because you could argue that critiquing is an art form so we would need to find someone to critique their critiquing. Who would be the critic critic? We'd need someone to judge them...............
imagine having the time to do this stuff
imagine
As is often the case, I think the problem is in vagueness of language. In the question "Is X more beautiful than Y?" what is meant by "beautiful"? The term is far too vague to support a clear univocal answer. The fact that different people have different ideas of what "beautiful" means leads some to think it is subjective, when in fact it is not much more than equivocation, vagueness and insufficiently specific definitions. If two people could agree on what "beautiful" meant, as a specific set of criteria or necessary/sufficient conditions, then I'd wager there would be far less disagreement.
As it stands, however, "beautiful" has little more than a very vague communal notion that is good enough for general use and yet breaks down in specific cases. The matter is worsened by the fact that, culturally, we generally have similar conceptions of "beauty" which are pretty similar overall, yet differ in certain ways. When A says to B "X is more beautiful than Y because of Z", A is trying to convince B that, according to B's conception of "beautiful", X beats Y. Hence we often hear B respond "That's irrelevant" or "No, Z makes Y more beautiful than X" or "Yes, but what about W?" etc.
I am rather averse to any sort of model that allows facts to be settled by the opinions of "experts". Experts may be better than the average person at making certain judgements, better able to give better reasons and fuller background information, but it is the reasons and background that is of value, not its issuance from some person. The list of attributes Hume gives seems better suited as a list of how we can become better critics and connoisseurs, rather than what we should look for in a truth-creating person.
Beauty is a mapping from observer-object pairs to the real numbers.
One thing I've noticed about professional critics is that, since they've seen so many works, that they tend to give negative reviews to otherwise good works, when they are similar to many works they've seen before (and perhaps seen better).
Is this a form of bias?
Stephen5000 Hm, maybe they become desensitised, so as critics mature they start to drift out of touch with what moves ordinary people? Being immersed in something for so long might change your tastes I suppose.
Stephen5000 Aren't we biased from the very first moment we exchange ideas with another human being? :)
...actually....most people say " I liked it" ....."or I didn't like it" - or if you know the artist you say " it was interesting".
Quite helpful for my Humanities class. I don't think that there is truly a way to judge beauty or art.
When you put up a clip to represent an idea, how do you find the clip? Do you look up "clip of . . ." or is there an archive of clips, or what?
+SockTaters III I just decide what I want to go there and search for it. Lots of clips are on TH-cam, or are in archives.
i'm working on a project on BEAUTY. Any sources to be given?
That's just like your opinion man
If I made a "bad" drawing in my childhood and became a famous artist in adulthood, does it mean that my drawing becomes a national treasure after the fact? Or in another case, if I was already a famous artist, would an "ordinary" painting by my authorship still gain critical acclaim? Andy Warhol made paintings of soup cans, yet we see it as an art form. Beauty of art is derived individually. Kant, with his transcendental idealism, would argue that we can never know "things-in-themselves" only the "phenomenal world". If we cannot know what a "thing" really is, how are we supposed to judge its "beauty"?
If someone is found attractive by majority of people then they’re attractive. Everyone has a type but they can still tell if someone is attractive or not. Some people may find Dolan twins ugly because they don’t like their bicycle seat shaped jaws but can still tell they attract a lot of girls and some may find Kpop boys ugly because they like more masculine men but at the same time can tell they’ve got really pretty faces. So some people are just beautiful but it’s more of a matter of which type of beauty they prefer.
Good luck on your exams Olly! I vote for is time real.
stewart lee is my fav comedian too :) but who was the second guy?
I mentioned it when discussing the comments of the episode that came next :P But it's my brother, Jonny Lennard.
One thing you don't bring up is how ideas about what art is best is strongly tied to what is in vogue at the time, and how this is often mistaken for objective views. A famous example is how Van Gogh only sold one painting in his life because what he was doing was so far from the tastes of the time.
It also made me think of one time at college when a classmate spent ages drunkenly explaining to me why life of Brian is objectively the best python movie, and I was like yeah, I know, but I still enjoy the holy grail more (he got quite angry about that and it was very funny)