Are We Snobs for Not Admiring a Forgery as much as an Original?

Christ and the Disciples at Emmaus

The philosopher Alfred Lessing says: “Considering a work of art aesthetically superior because it is genuine, or inferior because it is forged, has little or nothing to do with aesthetic judgement or criticism. It is, rather, a piece of snobbery.” Lessing maintains that “Pure aesthetics cannot explain forgery,” and that “...genuineness versus forgery is a non-aesthetic standard of judgement.”

Arthur Koestler, in demonstrating the intrinsic value of pure aesthetics, uses as an example the forgeries of the Gothic wall paintings by Lothar Malskat, who was hired by Dietrich Fey to restore the Lubeck frescoes in 1948. He supplemented them with paintings of his own, subsequently provoking a counterfeit scandal. When the forgeries were discovered, the paintings ceased to be valuable. Koestler asks: “…whether the Lubeck saints are less beautiful… because they had been painted by Herr Malskat and not by somebody else.” The key point of Koestler’s argument is: “…the principal mark of genius is not perfection, but originality, the opening of new frontiers; once this is done, the conquered territory becomes common property.”

The Vermeer Forgery “Christ and the Disciples at Emmaus" by Van Meegeren

Alfred Lessing claims that the Vermeer forgery Christ and the Disciples at Emmaus by Van Meegeren is a work of beauty. “The matter of genuineness versus forgery is but another non-aesthetic standard of judgement,” he says. He relegates the painting’s non-aesthetic authenticity to the same level as other non-aesthetic criteria, such as “biography” and “history of art,” etc.

The fact that a painting is a forgery may not detract from its pure aesthetic value in the common understanding of a work of beauty, but it is open to criticism due to what it may lack as a piece of deception, taken out of its historical and biographical context. Lessing describes the matter of originality as “a certain superficial individuality, which serves to distinguish it from all other works of art.”

Arthur Koestler agrees with Lessing that exact reproductions of existing paintings are not necessarily undermined merely because a painting is a forgery. However, Oswald Hanfling points out that the Van Meegeren forgeries, were not exact reproductions, but were: “in the style of Vermeer” and were of subjects different from those painted by Vermeer.” This suggests that the aesthetic value of the forgeries could be enhanced by aspects of originality.

The Contribution of the Perceiver

However, Nelson Goodman says that it is not enough to rely upon the act of merely looking. He uses the analogy of twins, who, initially look the same, but over time show perceptible differences. Further, the “now” of looking affects future looking. He says that he sees, “The present looking as a role of training.” Goodman believes the acceptance of a forgery as an original may colour the spectator’s understanding of an artist’s work. Even with these qualifications, Goodman claims that this does not prove the original is better than the forgery: “…a copy of a Lastman by Rembrandt may well be better than the original.”

For some critics, the ontology of the work and its originality add to its appreciation and therefore, to its aesthetic value Goodman’s assertion allows for the participation of the perceiver: “The aesthetic properties of a picture include not only those found by looking at it, but also those that determine how it is to be looked at.” If the perceiver’s contribution to the aesthetic value of a painting is admitted, it is a small step further to accept that he or she will bring their own understanding to the experience, as a valid contribution.

A Preference for Originality is not Snobbery

Oswald Hanfling asks: “But is it right to exclude such qualities as achievement and originality from the domain of aesthetic qualities and aesthetic appreciation?” (It should be pointed out, however, that this could also mean that snobbery may occur, when the perceiver is impressed by the label of greatness and lacks the knowledge or sensibility to discern.) Hanfling questions why these factors of achievement and originality should not make us value an authentic work above a forgery. “We may also be affected by the sheer antiquity of a work, or by knowledge about its original functions, for example, in a religious context.”

The Disciples at Emmaus – a Lack of Artistic Integrity

Lessing’s argument employs a narrower concept of the “aesthetic” which does not do justice to our natural response to, and assessment of, art, including originality. On the other hand, Lessing admits that there is a further consideration which is nothing to do with snobbery, that is, the issue of deception: “It seems to me … it is not so much against the spirit of beauty (aesthetics) as against the spirit of art. Somehow, a work such as 'The Disciples' lacks artistic integrity.”

Following on from this is Oswald Hanfling’s point that forgery on a large scale: “…may distort our knowledge of art history.” To object to deception or fraud, which, after all, may have far-reaching effects on our understanding of art history, cannot be labelled as snobbery. It is a natural human response.

Oswald Hanfling, in giving us a broader notion of the aesthetic, also shows that a preference for the original is not necessarily based on snobbery.

Sources:

• “Art and Authenticity,” Nelson Goodman, Art, Context and Value, edited by Stuart Sim, The Open University, 1992.
• “Aesthetic Qualities,” Osward Hanfling, Philosophical Aesthetics, edited by Oswald Hanfling, Blackwell Publishers in Association with The Open University, 1992.
• “The Act of Creation,” Arthur Koestler, Art, Context and Value, edited by Stuart Sim, The Open University, 1992.
• “What is Wrong with a Forgery?” Alfred Lessing, Art, Context and Value, edited by Stuart Sim, The Open University, 1992.

John Constable - A Picture as a Status Symbol to Impress Smart Society

By John Constable - The Yorck Project:
10.000 Meisterwerke der Malerei.  DVD-ROM, 2002. ISBN 3936122202.
Distributed by DIRECTMEDIA Publishing GmbH., Public Domain,

In this fine painting, Constable brings the countryside under control in a cultivated estate suggesting the wealth and status of the owners of Wivenhoe Park.

John Constable (1776-1837) imparted to the beautiful Stour Valley in Suffolk, the enduring legend, "Constable Country." His beautiful and fairly objective paintings of nature eschewed the idealised approaches to landscape paintings of his time. 

Constable left mythology and history to his contemporaries and, instead, he painted nature more or less as it was, painstakingly recording every detail of the glorious English countryside, animals, agriculture and labour, although, as discussed below, certain techniques he used may be considered a little contrived.

Wivenhoe Park, Essex

Wivenhoe Park, Essex, is painted in greenish, cool tones and its size, 55 x 100cm, suited it well for hanging on the wall of a large, impressive house, which was, in fact, its destiny, since it was commissioned as a country house portrait.  This might seem strange, since the house in the painting - although it is set at the important, central point of the picture - is actually indistinct through distance. Horizontally, it takes up less than 1/23 of the canvass. Only the careful composition of the painting leads the eye, via the fence, to the reflection across the lake, which guides it through the trees to the house itself. However, it should be borne in mind that the park is as important for advertising the status of the owners as the house itself.

E.H. Gombrich quotes in Art and Illusion, a well-known anecdote about Constable: "The story goes that a friend remonstrated with him for not giving his foreground the requisite mellow brown of an old violin and that Constable, thereupon, took a violin and put it before him on the grass to show the friend the difference between the fresh grass as we see it and the warm tones demanded by convention." 

In this painting of Wivenhoe Park, Constable is certainly making his point, and succeeds in achieving the feeling of depth required without resorting to the conventional process of using muted tones in the foreground, as had formerly been the practice, although it would be true to say the foreground does contain some brown tones. In most other respects, he observes carefully the conventions of the day in attempting to reproduce an impression that is close to nature. Constable carefully copied from a drawing book of Alexander Cozens his schemata for clouds and the sky in Wivenhoe Park is clearly of the style adopted by the artist.

Touches of Colour and Contrast 

Constable's painterly style suits his subject, bringing out the softness of the scene before him. Small touches of colour and contrast relieve the uniformity of the green and yellows, for instance, the dark and white hues of the cattle. The bright, red clothing of one of the figures in the boat echoes the warm reflection of the sun on the lake. The white swans also give some relief, carrying the eye across from the group of cattle to the small boat and figures. The smallness of the animals and human figures helps to make the painting tranquil and uncrowded; they are just incidental parts of nature's whole.

This is a true-to-life representation, although, maybe, slightly contrived. For example, pastures are not normally, quite so perfectly, uniformly, green and sunlit yellow. There would be, somewhere, a small scruffy patch of scrub wherever there are cattle grazing. 

The lighting and colours indicate that this may be a morning scene, with the sunlit patch across the middle of the lake and the clouds shown against the blue backdrop of the sky. With the horizon line about half-way up the painting, it is as though the viewer is standing directly in front of the scene.

This painting is exactly what it seems to be, a self-contained, comfortable, grand, but nonetheless, domestic scene, representing nature as it is, yet somehow, under the control of powerful human influences.

Sources:

• Grombrich, E.H. Art and Illusion, Phaidon Press Ltd, 1993 (First Published 1960)

• www.metmuseum.com

Must We Understand Before We Believe or Disbelieve in a Work of Art?

An actress representing the philosopher Hypatia
Public Domain

The "No Truth" theory asserts that to question the truth of a work of art is to cease to engage with its aesthetic qualities. The moment we question the truth of the artwork, the moment of disengagement with reality, essential to experience, is lost.

In her essay "Truth and Representation", Rosalind Hursthouse explains the argument of the "No Truth" theorists: "When one reads a poem or a novel, and thinks about it as a poem or novel, all one's beliefs about the real world should be held in abeyance." Hursthouse explains that the "no truth" theorists believe that the inclusion of language which interferes with this detachment, reduces the impact and quality of the experience.


Our Beliefs are Essential to a Full Aesthetic Experience


Hursthouse continues by disputing this claim, citing several examples, one of which is as follows: [T]he upholders of the "no truth" theory have reached the conclusion that none of one's beliefs should play a part in one's engagement with a work of art." She shows this conclusion to be absurd, by quoting two lines of a poem: 

"Their meeting made December June, 
Their every parting was to die."

Hursthouse points out that she grew up in New Zealand, where the seasons are reversed, and if she had not understood that in Europe the summer was in June, she could not have understood those lines. Therefore, our beliefs must be engaged when we are experiencing any work of art.


We must Understand Before we Believe or Disbelieve


All the same, we need to address the question of whether our conscious judgement about the truth of a statement in a work of art or literature is relevant to our evaluation from an aesthetic viewpoint. The "no truth" theory draws a distinction between understanding a statement, and decided whether or not we believe it to be true. Arnold Isenberg believes that understanding is "a priori" to believing. "When something is said to us, we understand before we can assent, and to accept or reject must take further steps in search of evidence."

Isenberg presents this example: "If I say to you, "Tout est pour le mieux dans le meilleur des mondes possibles," you cannot begin to ask yourself: "Do I believe that?" if you do not understand French... And if I say to you, "My dog is remarkably intelligent," you will understand me perfectly well, but, quite possibly, pending my producing some evidence, neither believe nor disbelieve what I say." 

Therefore, Isenberg decides it is possible to understand without considering truth or falsity, which leads to his conclusion:

"[T]he understanding of a poem is something independent of any belief..." and that verification has no part in poetry criticism, only meaning.


The Case for Truth and the Leap of the Imagination


R.K. Elliott claims that truth, elegantly put, is, indeed, aesthetically pleasing. He says, "[W]hat we can imagine vividly is not always unconnected with what we know to be the case or what we are able to believe." It is a mistake to assert that because accurate description is not always aesthetic, that it can never be aesthetic. Elliott refers to the "leap of the imagination" required by aesthetic evaluation: 

"The better the poetry, the more spontaneous the leap will be and the greater the "revelatory" character of the passage."


Sources:"Truth and Representation" by Rosalind Hursthouse, Philsophical Aesthetics, The Open University, Oxford UK, Cambridge, USA, 1992."The Problem of Belief" by Arnold Isenberg, Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, vol. xiii, 1954."Poetry and Truth" by R.K. Elliott, Theories of Art and Beauty, The Open University, UK,

Lucky Dube – Tragic African Icon

South Africa Flag - Public Domain

Lucky Dube, pronounced “Doobay,” South African reggae singer, was born on 3 August, 1964 in Eastern Transvaal. He was named Lucky by his mother, Sarah, after she had suffered several miscarriages. Lucky Dube worked as a gardener and a security guard before he began to achieve his phenomenal success as a mbaqanga (Zulu pop) and reggae singer. He started his first band while still at school, known as “The Skyway Band.”

He was an arresting presence on stage, with his wild Rastafarian hairstyle, as he sang in three languages, Zulu, Afrikaans and English. He composed many of the soul-searching, politically arousing lyrics that inspired, and still inspire, people across the whole of the continent of Africa and globally.

The Outrage at Rosettenville

He died suddenly and unexpectedly on 23 October 2007, at the hands of car-hijackers, who wanted to steal his Chrysler 300C. The attack happened as he was dropping off two of his children at a relative's house in Rosettenville, Johannesburg. Lucky Dube was shot and fatally wounded, dying almost instantly.

This was a devastating blow for all people who knew and loved this man, universally acknowledged both as a truly charming and delightful man as well as a fine musician. Dube had just secured a deal with Warner Music International for his album, " Respect ."

According to BBC News on 31 October, 2007, police in South Africa who were hunting his killers, said that they had arrested five suspects. Two unlicensed guns and four cars had been seized, including the VW Polo believed to be the one used in the crime. Lucky Dube was only 43 years old. It was an ironic death, since it was “… of a musician who sang about his country’s crime problem,” said BBC News.

AYahoo News report on 31 March 2009 confirmed that five men had been arrested as suspects. Two were eventually released and the remaining three were found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Artist, Father, Husband and Friend

The press release on Lucky Dube's memorial site quotes his close friend, Ivor J. Haarburger, CEO of Gallo Music Group, (formerly Teal Records.) Mr. Haarburger says: “Lucky was not just an extraordinary artist, he was a personal friend. We go back over twenty years and had both a business and personal relationship. It’s so sad to lose such a great friend and so tragically, why?”

Lucky Dube left a wife, Zanele and seven children Bongi, Nonkululeko, Thokozani, Laura, Siyanda, Philani and baby Melokuhle.

The Songs that made Lucky Dube an Icon

Woman from "Together as One": A few people have assumed Dube is saying that women should be submissive. On the contrary, this is a message, delivered in Dube’s ironic voice, representing the stance of masculine dominance adopted by many of his countrymen, juxtaposed, as it is, with the female chorus that is crying out for freedom and equality.

The beautiful song, " Prisoner " has evoked a number of responses, including this posting by "poteetang" which seems to sum up the very essence of this fine musician:

"Lucky Dube’s music had a message. But most people don’t realise it. Africa is where civilisation began. That is home to all the human beings in the world.”

Sources:

Lucky Dube Memorial Website.

BBC News, 31 October, 2007.

Yahoo News, 31 March, 2009 and 2 April, 2009.

Youtube.com

Gambia’s Sacred Nile Crocodiles – A Site of Supernatural Power

Fortunately, the crocodiles are well-fed. Image Copyright Janet Cameron

The Kachikally Sacred Crocodile Pool and Museum is just ten miles from the capital of The Gambia, Banjul. The pool is used as a site for fertility rituals and believed to have supernatural powers. Infertile Gambian women travel from far distances to wash in its holy waters. Some women take away a bottle of the water to bathe their bodies every night and morning. There are many other sacred pools in the country but not all are crocodile breeding areas.

Ancient Connections with the Sacred Pool

The pool is said to have been discovered by a Bojang wine palm tapper about one hundred years ago. Another claim is that the Bojang have had connections with the pool for about 500 years. Because the pool is sacred, Bonjang people are not permitted to exploit the site or make any financial profit, otherwise it might lose its sacred status. Visitors are expected to make a cash donation, while some Gambians offer a gift, from which elderly Gambians benefit.

Petting the Crocodiles

The crocodiles mostly prefer to eat fish to meat and are amazingly tame. The guide said they had no need to attack, as they were so well-fed and lazy, and many visitors were brave enough to pet the animals, although most jumped back in alarm if an animal moved even a little. One guide, in a mischievous mood, crept up behind a young woman and pinched the back of her leg. She spun around in alarm, but he just laughed at her. No doubt scaring the female visitors was his special party trick.

Tourism and Conservation

At the time of visiting, it was September, just before the start of the rainy season the following month. The crocodiles had been breeding and it was wonderful to see many tiny baby crocodiles at various stages of their development at the side of the pool. The pool is set in around six acres of a forested nature trail and is claimed to be the nearest jungle-type environment to the Atlantic. Sites like this are important, not just for the animals, the reptiles, tropical birds and mammals, but also for the future of the Gambian people. Tourism is a major contributor to the Gambian economy and environmental conservation and development is now a key issue in the country.

Gambian Beliefs and Fertility Rituals

The site's museum is fairly small but contains some fascinating window displays and information about The Gambia and its traditions.. The guides love to talk to visitors about this very special project, and, of course, it's customary to give them an additional small fee for this service. You can also buy a little paper book about the crocodiles from the souvenir shop. Visit the Kachikally website if you would like to see more images.

Tolstoy on Art, Morality, Sincerity and the Counterfeit

 

Tolstoy in 1908 at almost 80. Wikimedia Public Domain

Tolstoy’s position on what gives value to works of art rests on the theory that universal feeling is a necessary condition of genuine art. Art that does not satisfy this condition is counterfeit: “It is not a work of art if it does not invoke that feeling of joy and spiritualism with another.”

Definitions of Necessary and Sufficient Conditions

A “necessary condition” is a quality without which the work would not meet the requirement of being judged as art. It is applied, in common, to all works described as art, for example: X is a necessary condition of Y (if, and only if) Y cannot be without X.  (A “sufficient condition” specifies a quality that may be present in a work of art and is sufficient in itself to justify the label of art. If not sufficient, this could be because it occurs in other artifacts or works of nature that are not art.)

Although Tolstoy believes, unlike Plato, that art can improve us morally, he asserts that most art is bad and has a negative moral effect. In addition, some professed works of art are trivial and perform no moral function.

A United Brotherhood of Man

Tolstoy’s philosophy strives for a brotherhood of man united in moral values, he deplores the elitism of much art. This abuse he blames on the upper classes, from whom

“…a conviction arose that art may be art and yet be incomprehensible to the masses.”

However, most people understand: “…

"...the very best art; the epic of Genesis, the Gospel parables, folk-legends.”

From this, it follows that all can gain morally from such art because, “

"…every man’s relation to God is one and the same”.

Tolstoy stresses the value of art as a means of universal morality through communication.

“Art, like speech, is a means of communication and, therefore, of progress, that is, of the movement of humanity forward towards perfection.”

The counterfeit art of the upper classes inhibits this ideal concept.

“Universal art arises only when some one of the people, having experienced a strong emotion, feels the necessity of transmitting it to others.”

Sincerity, Tolstoy believes, is another necessary condition of artwork that is morally valuable; it must transmit feeling, clearly, so that the recipient can experience for him/herself.

Tolstoy’s Necessary Conditions and the Upper Classes

The upper classes fail to meet these necessary conditions; their art does not derive from sincerity.

“The upper classes demand amusement and pay well for it.”

This counterfeit art may be borrowed from former works, thus excluding his necessary condition of sincerity. Secondly, it may be produced through imitation, using fine detail:

“…disconnectedly, and with interruptions and omissions.”

Thirdly, it may be produced through “striking,” which means the bringing together of contrasts, for example, “pornographic details” and the “presentation of the horrible.”

The fourth method is that of occupying the mind, for example through plot or by showing a different way of life that the reader

“…mistakes for artistic impression.”

These methods do not transmit feeling, and, therefore, lack universal moral values, by not showing us how people should live. They can be reproduced easily through learning techniques, contrary to sincere art, which furthers the cause of brotherhood through moral improvement. For a man to produce a morally-improving artwork, “… he should stand on the level of the highest life-conception of his time.”

The Hypocrites of Art and the Counterfeit

Tolstoy’s conviction that much of art is bad, elitist and difficult to understand, leads him to dismiss formal art training and professional critics.

If a real artist has transmitted his feelings: “What is there then to explain?” asks Tolstoy. “Every false work extolled by the critics serves as a door through which the hypocrites of art at once crowd in.”

The lack of genuine religious perception and, therefore, a morality available to all, cannot occur in these counterfeit works of art. Only sincerity can convey the moral message in a society that is undivided. Beethoven, on becoming deaf, was unable to perfect his work.

“But criticism, having acknowledged him to be a great composer, seizes on just these abnormal works with special gusto.”

Tolstoy says that this has the effect of “perverting the meaning of musical art.” Beethoven’s work is counterfeit, says Tolstoy, unlike the real art of the song of a peasant woman. This comparison shows “…infection with another’s feeling, compelling us to rejoice in another’s gladness, to sorrow at another’s grief.”

Christianity

Good art, for Tolstroy, is Christian art: “…religion is a superstition humanity has outgrown.” People “…intentionally or unintentionally confuse the notion of a religious cult with the notion of religious perception.” His point is that religion serves as a guide to the progress of humanity:

“Its… widest and most practical application is to the consciousness that our well-being lies in the growth of brotherhood – in their loving harmony with one another.”

Even the Pickwick Papers fail Tolstoy’s criteria for moral improvement: “These feelings are not common to all men.” Tolstoy says that Dickens compensates with an abundance of detail that makes the stories difficult to comprehend.

The Dismissal of Interpretation

In conclusion, Tolstoy states that art is the communication of sincere, clear and individual emotion, and that good art must involve either: (a) Christian emotion, or (b) universal emotions of a unifying, non-divisive kind. This is where the moral emphasis enters the argument.

However, Tolstoy’s dismissal of interpretation is problematic. Apart from the fact he himself criticises and interprets, interpretation helps to truly involve the receiver of the work of art. If, for example, formal unity, design and originality of style are excluded from aesthetic evaluation, this narrows the theory of the evaluation of art. Tolstoy’s theory could not easily be applied to an abstract sculpture, for how would this improve us morally?

Subtlety and depth are not valued in Tolstoy’s theory. In addition, Tolstoy’s narrow framework of Christian art contains an anomaly. Bible stories can be understood on more than one level. Besides their simple stories, they contain non-literal, allegorical truths recognised by sophisticated adults, as well as passages of poetic brilliance.

Sources:
“Art,Society and Morality,” Tom Sorrell, Philosophical Aesthetics, Ed: Oswald Hanfling, Blackwell, The Open University, 1992.
“What is Art?” Leo Tolstoy, Theories of Art and Beauty, Ed: Robert Wilksinson, The Open University (Set Book) 1991.
“The Problem of Definition,” Osward Hanfling, Philosophical Aesthetics, Ed: Oswald Hanfling, Blackwell, The Open University, 1992.

Comparisons in Art are Odious - Stuart Hampshire Explains Why

Copyright: Janet Cameron

Art is gratuitous, demands our attention and does not require us to theorise about it.

Are criticism and evaluation relevant to works of art in the same way that they are relevant to, for example, ethics or morality?  Stuart Hampshire, in his essay "Logic and Appreciation" believes that it is possible to be consistent with regard to ethics, which, he says: "...are needed to meet common human predicaments."

Art, on the other hand, he regards as individual and unrepeatable and from this, he concludes: "One does not need a formula or a recipe unless one needs repetitions." This seems fair comment. Why should there be a formula for evaluation if the object in questions is not in competition with any other similar object? As Hampshire asserts, art is about the particular, and there is no limit to the number of beautiful things that are specific and not in need of generalisation.

Art is Gratuitous

On the other hand, art is gratuitous, demands our attention, and does not ask us to theorise about it This doesn't mean we may not prefer one work to another, admits Hampshire, but we do not need to grade artworks one against another. "The critic may reject the work done without being required to show what the artist ought to have done..."  However, moralists are expected to decide what should have been done in place of a condemned action.

The critic is not a judge, but a spectator of the object, "exactly as it is," and "precisely this unique object... individual and unrepeatable." Stuart Hampshire allows that the critic may be analytical, helping people to perceive certain features that lead them to appreciate what they are observing. The difficulty is when the spectator-critic observes certain features as good, and then tries to proclaim other works good for displaying the same features. "Then," says Hampshire," "one looks away from the particular qualities of the particular thing."

Moving from the Particular to the General

The originality discovered from an arrangement of elements "may bear little analogy to originality found elsewhere."  Yet, can this argument be a valid means of defending Hampshire's position? To say something is original is already to compare it to previous works, and further, to find that it contains something new and different.  To make choices and exclusions involves grading. This necessarily involves comparison and evaluation, even though the work remains as it is, with its own particular features.

Monroe Beardsley's Criteria for Evaluating Artworks

Monroe Beardsley, as quoted in Colin Lyas' essay "The Evaluation of Art" defines three general criteria of merit in evaluating an artwork. These are: "unity, complexity and intensity." If the hearer or reader of the work can be persuaded to agree that the work displays one or more of these qualities, then the claim is proved by a general rule that there is something good about the work. Other descriptions, such as "it is humorous," or "it is graceful," might be apt descriptions of the work, but they do not necessarily show that it is good, unless linked to the basic criteria set out above. If they cannot be linked, it may be that there is something wrong about the work.

Stuart Hampshire says, "The common vocabulary obstructs any disinterested perceptions of things."  Beardsley appears to demonstrate this failing. Colin Lyas points out that what is not art may still have unity, and art may have unity that is not necessarily aesthetic.  A painting that has a unity in pale colours may be seen as insipid and banal." The same argument can be made against intensity and complexity; they may show ugliness. Monroe Beardsley's attempt to form general principles upon which to base value judgments fails due to the inadequacy of his premises.

The Critic Should Help Us to See, Hear and Feel

In his essay, Colin Lyas says we cannot deduce an aesthetic description from a non-aesthetic quality. Discrimination and judgement in the arts is a matter of perception, which is a point also emphasised by Hampshire. As Lyas says, "If, in seeking an ability to discriminate aesthetically, we are seeking to see, hear and feel, then it is difficult to see how proof or demonstration... can be any part of what we want from criticism...all the critic can do is help us to see something she or he has seen by directing our attention..."

However, Hampshire is convinced that creative feeling that produces truly individual aesthetic experience with its particularities defies value judgements. He says, "Where the logician's framework of problem and conclusion does not apply, the notion of "reason" loses some of its meaning also; it is unnatural to ask: "Why is that picture or sonata good?"

Evaluation is Inevitable and Inescapable

Yet, we all evaluate films, books, music and plays that we experience. It is natural. A critic should evaluate particular works, for instance:

1. When a new novel appears, critics should try to say whether it is any good.
2. Evaluation is inevitable.  If a critic perceives and then discusses the aesthetic qualities of a work, some kind of evaluation is inescapable.
3. Surely the critic must use some ordinary language, for example: "Hamlet is indecisive" or "Lady Macbeth pressures Macbeth into killing the King."

I remember once, going to a private garden party. One of the band stood up and made an announcement. "I have to say," he said, "that comparisons are odious. Even so, I just want to say the young lady in the trouser suit stands out above all the others."  It was true. The rest of us were in our standard jeans and T-shirts and, there she was, stunning in contrast, in a flecked tweed trouser suit with a tailored jacket and sharp, creased pants.

Odious or not, comparisons are here to stay. It's our nature.

Sources:

Hampshire, Stuart, "Logic and Appreciation," Art, Context and Value, Ed: Stuart Sim, The Open University, 1992.

Lyas, Colin, "The Evaluation of Art," Philosophical Aesthetics, Blackwell Publishers in Association with The Open University, 1992.