Subjectivity

We discussed in our last class whether or not it is possible to have ‘bad art.’ My answer to this question is yes, it is very possible to have bad art. The problem we have with evaluating art comes from our insufficient understanding of art’s function. Because we do not truly understand what art is we cannot evaluate it, but this does not mean it is above evaluation. For example; we understand the function of a chair, and thus we can discriminate between good chairs and bad chairs. However, we did not always know the function of a chair. As infants we were probably bewildered by the four legged objects scattered on the floor. At this point in time we were unable to distinguish good chairs from bad chairs—however, the separation did still exist.
One might argue that the function of art is much more subjective that the function of a chair. In that case, consider the function of a chair for a child compared to an adult. A typical chair would be too small for the child, and a child’s chair would be uncomfortable for an adult. In this case, the function of chairs is also subjective. Different chairs are good for different people, but bad chairs still exist. One should not make the mistake of assuming that because the subjectivity of art is emotional or psychological as opposed to physical, it’s evaluation cannot still exist.

QUESTION: Does this analogy make sense?

Response to Kaitland

This is in response to Kaitland’s question, “How does Freud justify his reasoning for his beliefs that art doesn't exist unless unconsciously done?”
Freud justifies this by stating that art is a way of relieving the tension caused by shameful unconscious wishes. Thus, art cannot exist unless unconsciously done. However, Freud’s theory does not allow for anything to be consciously done because our conscience is strongly influenced by our unconscious. As stated by Prof. Johnson, Freud over-applies his theory and so I think this may be one of the cases where his theory is too inflexible. Although Freud does justify this claim in the context of this theory I do not think the application of his theory to art is justified.

QUESTION: According to Freud, humans repress their id (the unconscious desires we are afraid of) with the superego (conscience). Artists gain their talent by coming closer to their unconscious and expresses these wishes in art. Therefore, wouldn’t animals (who have no superego to repress the id) be better suited for artistic talent?