I see the rational for both sides of the “fallacy”. I guess we would have to define what art is and it’s what is its purpose before we decide how to judge it.
I’m not sure that art has a purpose outside of what each artist has decided to accomplish with their particular work of art. We might be able to say that some artist’s goals for a particular art piece are more ambitious or accomplishes more. But I’d find it hard to believe that art has a purpose.
@@idanzigm I agree with what you are saying. Art can be abstract or technical. If it is abstract I can’t see a criteria made up for it for us to judge it by. If it were technical only then I can easily imagine a certain criteria for it.
@@ClutchxPotato even if it’s technical, technical to what end? Like classical music is incredibly technical and accomplishes a lot. But Taylor swift is technical is a different way, much less difficult to execute, but much more effective in its own way. Simple art can be better than technically complex art because they capture some idea powerfully and directly. You see this all the time in nursery rhymes, like ring around the rosy captures the black plague. I would say that song is an incredible work of art, and it’s simplicity is what has made it so effective. It’s intentional simplicity, which difficult to create, difficult in a different way, but difficult.
What makes something art is that it embodies an essence, rather than just having it's function. It's essence is or means what it is. A house just needs to serve as shelter but an artistic painting of a house can represent an essence important to all houses. So you you could paint a house without a roof, for instance, and that would still be art even if it didn't provide shelter, if it contained other important essence like structure, color, and shape of houses.
@@ClutchxPotato Yes, but it's a one-way function and not the reverse, since that would break the thought process. So, for instance the painting is of a house which is a habitation, but then, not all habitations are houses.
I think it is true that some people just have bad taste lol, therefore I wouldn't rely on them as gauges for what is considered good and bad art. I wonder if we could establish a universal set of criteria that makes a work good. But as in morality, if it is universal, means the list would represent a bare minimum for a good work of art considering the cultural diversity of what is considered aesthetically pleasing (or moral). Also I think the nature of art since modernity has been to transcend the notion of "good" or "beautiful" art, to challenge what those criteria are; yet we always establish a new set of criteria by doing so. At the very least, I think we always fail to liberate ourselves from transcending or ridding ourselves of norms, we always just redefine them somehow. Perhaps this is a basic need in humans; that is, to evaluate. (thank you for this video and this space to think out loud, fun questions to think about)
Philosophical thought process wants to dichotomize statements into true and false. This method of thinking fails in many ways, but especially with subjective statements like "this is a good price of art". People have unique preferences and are affected by art differently. This leads to a vibrant society with many different approaches to art being made. If artists all followed the same objective method of making art, everything would be formulaic, and ironically bad art.
Agreed, it in of itself is a sort of dichotomy fallacy, an attempt to categorize things as true or false when the reality may be, both, neither, or it depends. The most technical and difficult music does not often hit the top 100 and may be valued differently relative to the observer
Both the Intentionality and Affective Fallacies bring Wittgenstein to mind for me. They both seem to want to talk art and remove it from reality, like taking a pawn off a chessboard and then asking what the meaning of the pawn is. I believe art, like language, only derives meaning from its use. So the art only derives its meaning from how it is used (ie the emotions, etc.) it elicits from people. When critics, etc. take art outside of the environment it is in to criticize it free of its impact I believe they are murdering art, or, taking art 'on holiday.' By doing this, the critic gains the ability to have power over the domain of art without having to actually be an artist. It essentially makes them landed Lords to the artist peasantry, working the "land" and producing while the "Lords" hold ll the power. Imagine sitting down to a dinner which taste fantastic and nourishes you and being told by a food critic that, in fact, this food is trash, absolute rubbish, as it doesn't matter how the food taste or that it nourishes you, it doesn't fit in the guidelines established for what culinary excellence is. This is the end result of Platonism, of viewing life as a series of stagnant rules to be discovered once one "leaves the cave" and then has the ability, from on high, to judge the merits of those "chained" to the wall, those who could know nothing of reality regardless of how they feel about any given topic. It goes beyond sublimating senses to abandoning them for some esoteric guidelines theoretically prescribed and codified over countless years of isolated thought "in the sun." It's antisocial grandiosity, gaslighting, and gatekeeping,
Arts value is in the experience of that art and in the totality of the witnesses it has. Therefore it can't be judged by any one individual as good or bad, but rather, once it's created, its value is only given by it in relation to humanity as a whole. (At least the possible human units that happen to experience it before it breaks down.) That would mean the only bad art is the art that was never witnessed or if witnessed, only passively, causing no change in thought or action within the one witnessing. And even then it's only bad because it's value was not gleaned while it existed. Because there's value in everything, it's the observers job to find it. Not judge it.
Ah, all the number of times I've had this exact argument with pompous man-children, and now I finally know the word for it. No, your feelings do not matter. No, your feelings are not a barometer of quality. This unfortunately seems to become more and more the current mode of thinking, that 'oh, I like this rubbish personally and subjectively, so that instantly puts it on the same level as The Godfather, Ok Computer, Gravity's Rainbow and the Mona freakin' Lisa!' This is how sophistication declines. Those last couple minutes, about evaluating a work in its cultural context, were especially stupid. Take for example Battle Royale (2000). The movie, from what I read, is meant to be a criticism of Japanese society. Or something. I didn't get any of that. Almost any and all cultural dissection went over my head, but I (and most audiences, Japanese and none-Japanese) still appreciate the movie purely as a fun piece of pulp action. It's entertaining, even for a westerner on whom the "social commentary" is lost. Relatability is not quality. Connection is not craft. And the truly great works are not tethered to their culture or time, but largely hold wherever you exhibit them. What an insane thing to say, that a philistine's opinion is just as valid as the well-rounded because, PERSONAL FEELINGS somehow trump measured assessment. At the very least, you can empirically gauge the work presented by comparison to better works, or on technical craft, or how well it embodies the medium it's presented in. So yes, there are largely measured anchors you can weigh most things against. Enough with this subjectivity drivel. This is how the arts decline.
Well, it should be judged based on just what I, Matthew Martin, think. Duh. Anyhow, whatever answer, it is still discussing culture and culture objects which humans made up out of nothing. We could have made up other stuff.
I think the downfall of this supposed fallacy lies in the very way it's defined in terms of what something "is" rather than what it "does". In general, even far outside of this specific context, things are what they do, the function of a thing is the essence of that thing. So a thing that fails to do its essential function is a thing that fails to be a thing of that kind. A chair that cannot be sat upon is just not a chair at all. And there's not even a tension between perfectly exemplifying some form and successfully executing some function, because form and function (and for that matter structure) are all just different perspectives on the same thing: the form is the interface of the function, its inputs and outputs by which it interacts and relates with things outside it (and the structure is just the interior of the function, the interactions and relationships between its parts). So something that fails to successfully execute its essential function simply cannot be exemplifying the essential form of the thing it's supposed to be. It's failing to be that kind of thing, because it's failing to do as that kind of thing does. And of course the successful function of anything is always relative to other things outside of itself. There's no sense in which a Phillips head screwdriver or a flat head screwdriver is inherently better or worse than the other, but for driving a particular kind of screw, one is objectively better than the other (or else they're equally bad).
A piece of art's internal merit isn't measurable, while its impact more or less is. The notion of Affective Fallacy is getting caught up in abstract hair splitting without providing a blueprint for applicability sounds more like someone needed to publish a doctor's thesis more than they wanted to actually make a meaningful contribution to the world.
"There is a right and wrong about whether a particular piece of art is `good` or not." There's your problem in a nutshell with this argument. What does `good` mean in that context? Who decides the parameters? I'm big into music for example, and I've heard pieces that are technically amazing, but sound like nails on a chalkboard. So, what `should` my opinion of that piece be? It's technically good, therefore it's a good song? No. Art appreciation is far from objective, and this argument seems more like a way of criticizing the critics, than a valid argument.
By calling their theory of art a fallacy they tried to give it more weight than it deserves. The implication of such a name is that their theory is right, and anyone who criticizes it is wrong. The whole thing smacks of critical theory, an attack on Western culture through a scientific facade.
Put them around art that is ‘problematic’ and suddenly ‘it is not a falacy!’ And they demand censorship. Art that promotes free speech and expression= bad Art that advocates censorship and calling people monsters= good Ironically i actually include this in my stuff because it drives off a lot of people who would attack me anyway
@@trucid2 ok then I’ll pretend that we’re in a bubble completely separate from the political polarisation and you just have some genuine completely original concerns about critical theory and its analysis of 👻power structures 👻 and find it an 👻attack on western culture 👻 and the scientific facade of art analysis??? Calling a theory that art should be criticised based on its objective merits instantiated into the art obviously has nothing to do with critical theory and obviously isn’t attacking western culture. It is just an idea that I can totally see people believing, and if you’re going to criticise it don’t hallucinate a bunch of meaning into it that has nothing to do with the idea itself.
@@trucid2ok then I’ll pretend that we exist in a bubble complete separate from the political polarisation and that you have completely original thoughts on 👻critical theory👻 and its analysis of power structures, 👻attacks on western culture👻 and the scientific facade of art analysis??? Literally this is just a plausible idea, stop hallucinating a bunch of baggage onto it has nothing to do with the idea itself.
Deeply appreciate you, Carne 🎉
I see the rational for both sides of the “fallacy”. I guess we would have to define what art is and it’s what is its purpose before we decide how to judge it.
I’m not sure that art has a purpose outside of what each artist has decided to accomplish with their particular work of art. We might be able to say that some artist’s goals for a particular art piece are more ambitious or accomplishes more. But I’d find it hard to believe that art has a purpose.
@@idanzigm I agree with what you are saying. Art can be abstract or technical. If it is abstract I can’t see a criteria made up for it for us to judge it by. If it were technical only then I can easily imagine a certain criteria for it.
@@ClutchxPotato even if it’s technical, technical to what end? Like classical music is incredibly technical and accomplishes a lot. But Taylor swift is technical is a different way, much less difficult to execute, but much more effective in its own way. Simple art can be better than technically complex art because they capture some idea powerfully and directly. You see this all the time in nursery rhymes, like ring around the rosy captures the black plague. I would say that song is an incredible work of art, and it’s simplicity is what has made it so effective.
It’s intentional simplicity, which difficult to create, difficult in a different way, but difficult.
What makes something art is that it embodies an essence, rather than just having it's function. It's essence is or means what it is. A house just needs to serve as shelter but an artistic painting of a house can represent an essence important to all houses. So you you could paint a house without a roof, for instance, and that would still be art even if it didn't provide shelter, if it contained other important essence like structure, color, and shape of houses.
@@Bit-while_going can you say that the function of art is it’s essence?
@@ClutchxPotato Yes, but it's a one-way function and not the reverse, since that would break the thought process. So, for instance the painting is of a house which is a habitation, but then, not all habitations are houses.
I think it is true that some people just have bad taste lol, therefore I wouldn't rely on them as gauges for what is considered good and bad art. I wonder if we could establish a universal set of criteria that makes a work good. But as in morality, if it is universal, means the list would represent a bare minimum for a good work of art considering the cultural diversity of what is considered aesthetically pleasing (or moral). Also I think the nature of art since modernity has been to transcend the notion of "good" or "beautiful" art, to challenge what those criteria are; yet we always establish a new set of criteria by doing so. At the very least, I think we always fail to liberate ourselves from transcending or ridding ourselves of norms, we always just redefine them somehow. Perhaps this is a basic need in humans; that is, to evaluate. (thank you for this video and this space to think out loud, fun questions to think about)
interesting video, thanks.
Philosophical thought process wants to dichotomize statements into true and false. This method of thinking fails in many ways, but especially with subjective statements like "this is a good price of art". People have unique preferences and are affected by art differently. This leads to a vibrant society with many different approaches to art being made. If artists all followed the same objective method of making art, everything would be formulaic, and ironically bad art.
Agreed, it in of itself is a sort of dichotomy fallacy, an attempt to categorize things as true or false when the reality may be, both, neither, or it depends. The most technical and difficult music does not often hit the top 100 and may be valued differently relative to the observer
This is an oversimplification. Informal logic concerns arguments not evaluating dichotomy
Both the Intentionality and Affective Fallacies bring Wittgenstein to mind for me. They both seem to want to talk art and remove it from reality, like taking a pawn off a chessboard and then asking what the meaning of the pawn is. I believe art, like language, only derives meaning from its use. So the art only derives its meaning from how it is used (ie the emotions, etc.) it elicits from people. When critics, etc. take art outside of the environment it is in to criticize it free of its impact I believe they are murdering art, or, taking art 'on holiday.' By doing this, the critic gains the ability to have power over the domain of art without having to actually be an artist. It essentially makes them landed Lords to the artist peasantry, working the "land" and producing while the "Lords" hold ll the power.
Imagine sitting down to a dinner which taste fantastic and nourishes you and being told by a food critic that, in fact, this food is trash, absolute rubbish, as it doesn't matter how the food taste or that it nourishes you, it doesn't fit in the guidelines established for what culinary excellence is. This is the end result of Platonism, of viewing life as a series of stagnant rules to be discovered once one "leaves the cave" and then has the ability, from on high, to judge the merits of those "chained" to the wall, those who could know nothing of reality regardless of how they feel about any given topic. It goes beyond sublimating senses to abandoning them for some esoteric guidelines theoretically prescribed and codified over countless years of isolated thought "in the sun." It's antisocial grandiosity, gaslighting, and gatekeeping,
Arts value is in the experience of that art and in the totality of the witnesses it has.
Therefore it can't be judged by any one individual as good or bad, but rather, once it's created, its value is only given by it in relation to humanity as a whole. (At least the possible human units that happen to experience it before it breaks down.)
That would mean the only bad art is the art that was never witnessed or if witnessed, only passively, causing no change in thought or action within the one witnessing.
And even then it's only bad because it's value was not gleaned while it existed. Because there's value in everything, it's the observers job to find it. Not judge it.
I say both criteria can be used at the same time.
Western philosophers take statements as contradictory if it was an olympic sport
true
Ah, all the number of times I've had this exact argument with pompous man-children, and now I finally know the word for it. No, your feelings do not matter. No, your feelings are not a barometer of quality. This unfortunately seems to become more and more the current mode of thinking, that 'oh, I like this rubbish personally and subjectively, so that instantly puts it on the same level as The Godfather, Ok Computer, Gravity's Rainbow and the Mona freakin' Lisa!' This is how sophistication declines. Those last couple minutes, about evaluating a work in its cultural context, were especially stupid. Take for example Battle Royale (2000). The movie, from what I read, is meant to be a criticism of Japanese society. Or something. I didn't get any of that. Almost any and all cultural dissection went over my head, but I (and most audiences, Japanese and none-Japanese) still appreciate the movie purely as a fun piece of pulp action. It's entertaining, even for a westerner on whom the "social commentary" is lost. Relatability is not quality. Connection is not craft. And the truly great works are not tethered to their culture or time, but largely hold wherever you exhibit them. What an insane thing to say, that a philistine's opinion is just as valid as the well-rounded because, PERSONAL FEELINGS somehow trump measured assessment. At the very least, you can empirically gauge the work presented by comparison to better works, or on technical craft, or how well it embodies the medium it's presented in. So yes, there are largely measured anchors you can weigh most things against. Enough with this subjectivity drivel. This is how the arts decline.
what happened to the long form videos 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭
Another is coming, it just takes time.
Well, it should be judged based on just what I, Matthew Martin, think. Duh. Anyhow, whatever answer, it is still discussing culture and culture objects which humans made up out of nothing. We could have made up other stuff.
I think the downfall of this supposed fallacy lies in the very way it's defined in terms of what something "is" rather than what it "does". In general, even far outside of this specific context, things are what they do, the function of a thing is the essence of that thing. So a thing that fails to do its essential function is a thing that fails to be a thing of that kind. A chair that cannot be sat upon is just not a chair at all.
And there's not even a tension between perfectly exemplifying some form and successfully executing some function, because form and function (and for that matter structure) are all just different perspectives on the same thing: the form is the interface of the function, its inputs and outputs by which it interacts and relates with things outside it (and the structure is just the interior of the function, the interactions and relationships between its parts).
So something that fails to successfully execute its essential function simply cannot be exemplifying the essential form of the thing it's supposed to be. It's failing to be that kind of thing, because it's failing to do as that kind of thing does.
And of course the successful function of anything is always relative to other things outside of itself. There's no sense in which a Phillips head screwdriver or a flat head screwdriver is inherently better or worse than the other, but for driving a particular kind of screw, one is objectively better than the other (or else they're equally bad).
A piece of art's internal merit isn't measurable, while its impact more or less is. The notion of Affective Fallacy is getting caught up in abstract hair splitting without providing a blueprint for applicability sounds more like someone needed to publish a doctor's thesis more than they wanted to actually make a meaningful contribution to the world.
"There is a right and wrong about whether a particular piece of art is `good` or not." There's your problem in a nutshell with this argument. What does `good` mean in that context? Who decides the parameters? I'm big into music for example, and I've heard pieces that are technically amazing, but sound like nails on a chalkboard. So, what `should` my opinion of that piece be? It's technically good, therefore it's a good song? No. Art appreciation is far from objective, and this argument seems more like a way of criticizing the critics, than a valid argument.
Art is not objective.
Subjectivity values art, not intention
Art cannot generate a fallacy.
By calling their theory of art a fallacy they tried to give it more weight than it deserves. The implication of such a name is that their theory is right, and anyone who criticizes it is wrong. The whole thing smacks of critical theory, an attack on Western culture through a scientific facade.
Put them around art that is ‘problematic’ and suddenly ‘it is not a falacy!’
And they demand censorship.
Art that promotes free speech and expression= bad
Art that advocates censorship and calling people monsters= good
Ironically i actually include this in my stuff because it drives off a lot of people who would attack me anyway
The term “affective fallacy” was coined in 1949 way before the modern culture war. Get ur mind out of the gutter.
@@idanzigm I never mentioned the modern culture war.
@@trucid2 ok then I’ll pretend that we’re in a bubble completely separate from the political polarisation and you just have some genuine completely original concerns about critical theory and its analysis of 👻power structures 👻 and find it an 👻attack on western culture 👻 and the scientific facade of art analysis???
Calling a theory that art should be criticised based on its objective merits instantiated into the art obviously has nothing to do with critical theory and obviously isn’t attacking western culture. It is just an idea that I can totally see people believing, and if you’re going to criticise it don’t hallucinate a bunch of meaning into it that has nothing to do with the idea itself.
@@trucid2ok then I’ll pretend that we exist in a bubble complete separate from the political polarisation and that you have completely original thoughts on 👻critical theory👻 and its analysis of power structures, 👻attacks on western culture👻 and the scientific facade of art analysis???
Literally this is just a plausible idea, stop hallucinating a bunch of baggage onto it has nothing to do with the idea itself.
First!
Sus lefty channel
Sus anti-education right wringer.