In his post on Friday, Paul makes the argument that beauty in art is objective. I maintain that beauty in art is subjective.

Paul writes:

“We have the same hardware and it works the same as the person next to you.”

It is extremely important to realize that all brains work in a similar manner to each other (e.g. all neurons receive and transmit their signals the same way, certain structures in the brain handle the same data, etc), but they do not work in the same way. It is dangerous to say that “everyone’s hardware works the same” since this statement is so vague. It is clear to see that different people think differently; something must be different.

But I see where Paul is coming from. It is not that there is variation in the world, but that there exists a state of normality. Things which deviate from the norm are “abnormal”, and how can such a concept exist without a “normal” to compare them to?

“The normalcy in the human condition is nothing more than the hump of the bell curve.”

The “normalcy” of humanity is not borne of some objectivity existing either inside or outside the brain. The normalcy in the human condition is nothing more than the hump of the bell curve. We define normal by looking at the traits that most people have. But the standard distribution itself yields extremes—which must also be considered normal. A world which did not have a standard distribution—where everyone is the same—would be the abnormal world. It wouldn’t correspond with our observations. To say that someone’s standards are abnormal because they fall outside the “normal” range (whatever that is) may be true in the semantic sense, but it certainly should not be used as leverage against them. These people will always exist, and the fact that they do exist in a certain percentage is normal. Furthermore, they must be taken into account, and not simply dismissed as abnormal.

Paul writes:

“Let us define beauty: Beauty is commonly defined as a characteristic […] that provides a perceptual experience of pleasure […] arising from sensory manifestations such as a shape, color, personality, sound, design or rhythm.”

I asked about the absolute standards of beauty, not beauty itself. While a working definition of beauty is helpful, it is not where the disagreement lies. Since Paul’s argument is that beauty in art is based on objective standards, we need to know what these objective standards are. Paul attempts to define one of them by saying, “Men find fertile women beautiful because we have a natural instinct to produce offspring.”

Initially this would seem to be an objective standard of beauty: traits exhibited by fertile women. Except that not all men find fertile women beautiful. Paul addresses this by saying that men who are not this way are a “problem” and their view is “a confusion and unhealthy.” He defends this viewpoint, saying, “If all men were conditioned to find infertile women attractive, that would be disastrous.” Indeed that may be so, but it’s hardly the case in life—and to base an argument on this is to disregard everything else these people have to offer. This is reductio ad adsurdum. People are good for more than making babies—and the fact that some person doesn’t make babies does not invalidate their opinions or world view.

Paul attempts to define an objective standard of beauty. When this standard does not apply to all people, he calls those who do not subscribe to this “objective” view a problem, confused, and unhealthy. He then maintains that his standard is objective. It is awfully convenient to simply dismiss those who don’t fit. Unfortunately, it illuminates nothing, and brings us no closer to truth. If anything, it inhibits understanding.

Furthermore, this view point could be argued to confirm my initial claim, not refute it. Whether or not you personally agree with other people’s standards is completely beside the point. Paul said, “Sure, we can say we believe everything’s subjective, but we sure don’t function that way.” Disregarding the fact that I made no such claim as “everything” being subjective—who sure doesn’t function that way? Obviously some people do; you just called them a problem! The standards must be subjective, otherwise we wouldn’t be having this “problem”.

When a premise leads to two possible, contradictory conclusions in this way, the premise is untenable. It cannot be valid as a defense of objectivity.

In response to my statement that I still recognize the artfulness of Albrecht Durer, Paul wrote, “Right here you momentarily agree with me. You are saying that his work adheres to some objective standard of beauty or artfulness.” I need to make this perfectly clear: I did not say the work adheres to some objective standard of beauty. I said there is no denying the artfulness of the work. “Artfulness” and “beauty” are not the same thing. “Arfulness” is defined as “a skilled achieving of a result, especially by craft.”

Here we return to the crux of the matter. Paul continually emphasizes the craft—always the execution—often to the point of ignoring the subject matter of the work he’s discussing. In support of this, he writes, “A carpenter may see an untrue angle that I don’t”, and even more telling: “When I train my ears to hear out of tune notes, does that mean that I am removing beauty from what was beautiful? No, I am recognizing an imperfection and an error….” Here is an admission of clear delineation between craft and beauty—something I’ve maintained from the beginning. The out-of-tune note does not detract from the beauty—but what is the beauty? This is never elaborated upon.

Paul emphasizes how a world without objective beauty is nonsensical. Statements supporting this include: “If not for the objective, we’d be quivering masses unable to relate to the world.” and “…with no ability to share an experience of beauty with another human, we’d be pretty lonely creatures….”. These claims are unsubstantiated. Why would we be quivering masses unable to relate? Couldn’t two people with subjective opinions of beauty still find some common ground, and thereby not be lonely? If these claims were true, perhaps a subjective world might be a problem. But Paul provides no lines of reasoning to support any of them. They are stated as truths but with no argument to back them up.

But most telling is when Paul writes:

“If imagination were subjective, we’d be able to do literally anything, and I’d bet no two people would find the same things beautiful.”

I don’t understand the claim that we’d be able to literally do anything. (We’d be able to do literally everything? Fly, perhaps? Why should this be true?) But I’ll take up that bet. I also bet there are no two people who find all of the same things beautiful. Paul and I don’t agree on what’s beautiful. I don’t agree with anyone I know on what’s beautiful. Because there are no two people who agree completely on what is beautiful, anywhere, that supports the idea that beauty is subjective. If beauty was objective, wouldn’t we see more consensus? You seem to imply that you don’t find Metallica beautiful, and yet they have legions of fans. Someone out there disagrees with you.

Finally, the question is asked, “If ugly becomes beautiful, and subjectiveness rules, then how can we make good art, or art at all?” The answer to this is quite simple: you make things which are beautiful to you. Why should you be concerned about what other people’s standards of beauty are? You will never be able to make everyone who sees your work like it, anyway. You will never be able to get everyone who sees your work to even agree that it’s beautiful. It doesn’t matter how much you study the masters, or drive for that “objective standard” because there is no objective standard. You can’t make work everyone likes. So you make work for you.

And that is what we see today. Most people make work for themselves. They post it on MySpace, Flickr, DeviantArt, and countless independent blogs like this one. Is there ugliness? Sure. Is it full of amateurish mistakes? Of course. Does some of this ugly, amateur work get picked up and make it big? Absolutely. This doesn’t mean there is a more noble standard to which we should all be striving, but it may mean that you find yourself unable rest until you get recognition for your not-ugly, not-amateur work. If you truly have great work, the ugly stuff shouldn’t bother you. But even if you have the greatest work of all, you will still have people who find your stuff ugly, boring, or trite.

The only world where it makes sense for this to happen is one where standards are subjective. We observe this happening in our world. Therefore, the standards of beauty in our world must be subjective.

-Ted