Quote:
Originally Posted by Penforhire
I see no way to define art objectively. Even if you wire up my brain and categorize my responses to objects (paintings, statues, literature, songs, ...) they may not apply to any other person's responses to the same objects.
|
One needn't define art objectively, i.e. agree on what art is and isn't, in order to make an objective study of art. For example, one might discover that there is an "art" area of the brain which, when stimulated, causes us to appreciate something as art, but whose stimulation was different between individuals, hence leading to disagreement about what counted as art. I'm not suggesting that there really is an "art" area of the brain, just pointing out that there doesn't need to be a right answer about what art is in order to make an objective study of our experience of art. Similarly with morality - there need be no woo in morality, it can be objectively studied, even though there is not one right answer about what constitutes morality (or even what a moral question is).