Aristocracy of Taste v/s Democracy of Acquisitions (Reflections)

Yes, I am aware that this is your position. IMO it has not been fully supported.

Part of the issues lies in the lack of clear definitions if intrinsic value or qualities...earlier you said this:

"When I speak of "intrinsic" value I am never referring to monetary value."

I then asked this:

"Then what are speaking of specifically?"

That went unanswered. I subsequently said this:

"Until you define what "profound intrinsic differences in beauty and power" means, I agree coming to any real understanding is going to be difficult."

If you can define these terms, that may help us move forward.

How about: they tap into and evoke a significant emotional response; they join us and remind us of a common humanity and experience; they are transportive; there is a profound representation of either the joys or sadness in life; they are not common.

This again goes back to the idea that individual judgements have little value, but when the sum of these individual judgements align, are combined, amplified with time, and by people who have an interest, they somehow give some "extra" meaning and value to what is being judged. Not only that but even if we personally do not find the thing being judged to be to our taste, we must acknowledge the inherent "greatness" of the thing...

Thanks. I would say first that works of art can be, and typically are perceived in their entirety. In other words, the viewers (or listeners) respond to them, especially initially, as they are presented, unfiltered, and without much (if any) intellectual analysis. Such reactions are, in a sense, "gut" reactions. They may like or dislike, "love" or "hate" a work, but at first, the reaction wouldn't typically include thoughts about why they have reacted in any particular manner.

So it is, at least initially, typically not an intellectual exercise for most. The viewer/listener may be impacted in a big way, suggesting an emotionally powerful work, but as they themselves are not consciously breaking down the process, I'm not sure why it would be necessary to do so in order to explain such reactions.

Consider that it is also possible for people to respond in similarly extreme ways to the same work, yet for different reasons. One listener may find a Mozart work to be absolutely sublime because of its complexity, and the apparent genius required to create the composition. Another may react with similarly high praise, but simply because it relaxes him or her profoundly. Both listeners were impacted powerfully, and may consider the composer to be "great", but as they arrived at their conclusions for different reasons, I'm not sure that it would be helpful for me to attempt to define terms like "beauty", or "emotional power", etc.

Of course experts do, and anyone can attempt to destruct what makes a particular work so moving, or seemingly profound. And by sheer coincidence, I stumbled across this post (linked below) a few minutes ago. It is a scholarly essay on Beethoven, including this quote:

"The music is exquisitely beautiful in the mode of invigoration: no composer in history is more humanistic than Beethoven. As Leonard Bernstein once said:

No composer has ever lived who speaks so directly to so many people, to young and old, educated and ignorant, amateur and professional, sophisticated and naïve. To all these people, of all classes, nationalities, and racial backgrounds, this music speaks a universality of thought, of human brotherhood, freedom, and love."

The essay is well worth a read, as it touches on, or helps to illuminate, more than one of the things that we're attempting to parse out:

https://dissidentvoice.org/2020/10/the-revolutionary-beethoven/



While you are reading my basic view correctly, I would not say that any individual is required to consider an artist or work to be "great". But I do think that the dissenters would likely benefit from an understanding of why such a large majority of people hold them in such high regard. I've mentioned on this very thread my dislike of Twombly's work, but at least I did gain something of an understanding of why others consider him to be so important, and it has proven useful. I'm not an Opera fan, either, but I can understand why so many are moved emotionally by them, and find them to be beautiful.

I'm sure we can agree that even in the case of artists who are held in the highest regard, there is no reason whatsoever to attempt to convince dissenters to change their minds. I have no more interest in attempting to dictate what is "good", or "great art", than you.

But c’mon, Elvis and Jesus on velvet: it doesn’t get any better...

Now that is something that I believe we can all agree on. 😁

Well...

And lest we forget this guy!

People are moved, often deeply, by works of art. It is the reaction that can be uniform, not how individuals might specifically explain their reactions.

That such works evoke powerful reactions can be explained by their intrinsic qualities. Plural. Any outstanding, or "great" work, is certain to be appreciated for many different reasons, and on different levels.

That's fine, but I would argue that it actually has been proven, just not in the sense that you mean. The fact that such a high percentage of people who are exposed to such works are moved by them cannot be explained in any other way. Not by marketing, "the market", chance, or indoctrination, though any of those may play relatively minor roles.

There must be something intrinsic to the works that evoke such widespread, uniformly positive, and often deep reactions. Otherwise, what other possible, logical explanation might there be?

I would think that the magnitude and variety of reactions, or the uniformity, could be a sign of intrinsic quality. And the converse could be true as well: the general lack of reaction, emotion, contemplation or interest an art object inspires could be evidence of a work with little intrinsic value.

Just read this whole thing again; amazing the quality of interaction and discourse a pandemic can induce…