High Artworks and Mass Artworks

In Search of the (Non-existent) Difference in Aesthetic Value

Tibor BÁRÁNY„Reading Seminar”

Central European UniversityFebruary 6th 2014

Everyday intuitions(I) (i) There is a genuine difference between (the

nature of) high artworks and popular artworks, and (ii) this difference creates difference in their respective aesthetic value= For all artworks: if x is a high artwork (x belongs to the domain of high culture), then(i) x has a property F (or bundle of properties F&G&H&...) which is an essential property of x-as-high-artwork, and(ii) possession of F (or of F&G&H&...) is the major source of x’s aesthetic value

(II) Historical fact: artworks can migrate between high art and popular art

Our philosophical taskPart 1: Clarify these vague intuitions, restate claims

(I) and (II) in an appropriate form

Part 2: Try to resolve the inconsistency between (I) and (II)

Conservative strategy: It’s not an important question, so we don’t need to resolve the inconsistency – The best we can do is to try to live with it!

Anti-essentialist strategy: (I) is false, the (II) is true – there is no substantive metaphysical and aesthetic difference between high artworks and popular artworks

Realist strategy: F (or F in the bundle of F&G&H&...) is a relational property

Our philosophical taskPart 1: Clarify these vague intuitions, restate claims

(I) and (II) in an appropriate form

Part 2: Try to resolve the inconsistency between (I) and (II)

Conservative strategy: It’s not an important question, so we don’t need to resolve the inconsistency – The best we can do is to try to live with it!

Anti-essentialist strategy: (I) is false, the (II) is true – there are no substantive metaphysical and aesthetic differences between high artworks and popular artworks

Realist strategy: F (or F in the bundle of F&G&H&...) is a relational property

Our philosophical taskRealist strategy: F (or F in the bundle of F&G&H&...) is

a relational property

Moderate Realism: (i) is true, but (ii) is false

→ There is an ontological difference between high artworks and popular artworks (namely: there is a relational property which is possessed only by popular artworks) – but it does not establish any aesthetic difference between them

Value-Realism: (i) and (ii) is true

→ The ontological difference between high artworks and popular artworks establishes their difference in aesthetic value

1. Clarification(I) (i) There is a genuine difference between (the

nature of) high artworks and popular artworks, and (ii) this difference creates difference in their respective aesthetic value

BUT: There are aesthetically bad (boring, empty, feeble etc.) high artworks

REPLY: The possession of F (or F&G&H&...) is not a sufficient, but only a necessary condition

1. Clarification(I) (i) There is a genuine difference between (the

nature of) high artworks and popular artworks, and (ii) this difference potentially creates difference in their respective aesthetic value

BUT: There are aesthetically bad (boring, empty, feeble etc.) high artworks

REPLY: The possession of F (or F&G&H&...) is not a sufficient, but only a necessary condition

1. ClarificationArtwork

Having F (or F&G&H&...)

High artwork (valuable as high artwork)

Having K (or K&L&M&...)

High artwork (valuable on its own right)

1. Clarification(I) (i) There is a genuine difference between (the nature of)

high artworks and popular artworks, and (ii) this difference potentially creates difference in their respective aesthetic value

BUT: There are aesthetically bad (boring, empty, feeble etc.) high artworks

REPLY: The possession of F (or F&G&H&...) is not a sufficient, but only a necessary condition

≈ ‘Two-stage theory’ of aesthetic value

BUT: The Value-Realist owes us an account on (a) whether popular artworks can or cannot have K, and if they can (b) why we should think that anything hinges on (with regard to aesthetic value) whether the artwork has or has not F

1. Clarification(I) (i) There is a genuine difference between (the

nature of) high artworks and popular artworks, and (ii) this difference potentially creates difference in their respective aesthetic value

1. Clarification(I) (i) There is a genuine difference between (the

nature of) high artworks and popular artworks, and (ii) this difference potentially creates difference in their respective aesthetic value

‘Artwork’ is used here in a descriptive sense

→ Popular art is a subspecies of art – the metaphysical question of artworks (≈ definition of ‘artwork’) is conceptually prior to the question of differences in value between high art and popular art

1. Clarification(I) (i) There is a genuine difference between (the

nature of) high artworks and popular artworks, and (ii) this difference potentially creates difference in their respective aesthetic value

1. Clarification(I) (i) There is a genuine difference between (the

nature of) high artworks and popular artworks, and (ii) this difference potentially creates difference in their respective aesthetic value

‘Popular art(work)’ is an umbrella term – It might be more useful to work with a more narrowly defined term: ‘mass art(work)’

1. Clarification(I) (i) There is a genuine difference between (the nature

of) high artworks and mass artworks, and (ii) this difference potentially creates difference in their respective aesthetic value

Mass artwork =df. X is a mass artwork if and only if 1. x is a multiple instance or type artwork, 2. produced and distributed by a mass technology, 3. is intentionally designed to gravitate in its structural choices (its narrative forms, symbolism, intended affect, and even its content) toward those choices that promise accessibility with minimum effort for the largest number of untutored (or relatively untutored) audiences.

(Carroll 1998, 196)

1. ClarificationX is a mass artwork if and only if

1. x is a multiple instance or type artwork,

→ Ontological condition

2. produced and distributed by a mass technology,

→ Structural condition

3. is intentionally designed to gravitate in its structural choices (its narrative forms, symbolism, intended affect, and even its content) toward those choices that promise accessibility with minimum effort for the largest number of untutored (or relatively untutored) audiences.

→ Aesthetic condition

1. Clarification(I) (i) There is a genuine difference between (the

nature of) high artworks and mass artworks, and (ii) this difference potentially creates difference in their respective aesthetic value

1. Clarification(I) (i) There is a genuine difference between (the

nature of) high artworks and mass artworks: mass artworks – unlike high artworks – are 1. artwork-types with multiple instances, 2. that are produced and distributed by a mass technology, and 3. these artwork-types are designed to be accessible for the largest number of untutored audiences, and

(ii) this difference potentially creates difference in their respective aesthetic value

1. Clarification(I) (i) There is a genuine difference between (the

nature of) high artworks and mass artworks: mass artworks – unlike high artworks –are designed to be accessible for the largest number of untutored audiences, and

(ii) this difference potentially creates difference in their respective aesthetic value

2. Resolving the inconsistency

(I) (i) There is a genuine difference between (the nature of) high artworks and mass artworks: mass artworks – unlike high artworks –are designed to be accessible for the largest number of untutored audiences, and (ii) this difference potentially creates difference in their respective aesthetic value

(II) Historical fact: artworks can migrate between high art and mass art

→ Realist: accessibility is (partly) a matter of being acquainted with the artistic conventions applicable to the given artwork

Standards of accessibility in interpretive communities are changing over time – thus, mass artworks can loose their property of ‘being accessible to large number of actual interpreter’, while high artworks can acquire it

3. Value-RealismIn order to establish (ii) the Value-Realist needs a property

which is incompatible with accessibility and can be the source of aesthetic value→ ‘Not being accessible’ / ‘demanding effort from the audience’BUT: It is unclear why difficulty would create aesthetic value. „What’s so great about difficulty in and of itself?”→ ‘Underdetermining the interpretations’BUT: It is not incompatible with accessibility→ ‘Not being formulaic’ / ‘originality’ / ‘abetting active spectatorship’BUT: Most (if not all) art is formulaic to some degreeBUT: Active spectatorship is not incompatible with accessibility

3. Value-Realism→ ‘Not being formulaic’ / ‘originality’ / ‘abetting active

spectatorship’

(A) The free play of our interpretative capacities brings us immense aesthetic pleasure

↔ Sure, but it is highly implausible to maintain that we get aesthetic pleasure only when the artwork forces us to suspend our automatic interpretive mechanisms

(B) The free play of imagination and our powers of reflection are necessary for aesthetic autonomy, which is in turn necessary for moral and political autonomy

↔ It is not true that aesthetic autonomy is necessary for moral and political autonomy

↔ Mass art does afford the opportunity to exercise imagination

3. Value-Realism→ ‘Not being formulaic’ / ‘originality’ / ‘abetting

active spectatorship’

(C) Epistemic (cognitive) value: original works of art afford us insight, genuine knowledge or understanding

↔ Why should we think that accessible (= partly conventional) artworks cannot do the same?

Thank you!

barany.tibor@gmail.com