Talk:Aesthetic relativism

message: This article reads mostly like an attack on relativism.  A complete rewrite is probably in order.  But if I get a chance I'll try to make it a bit more balanced.  (I'm not a partisan of either camp on the issue, BTW; the extreme relativist and absolutist positions are IMNSHO equally ridiculous.) Tkinias 10:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: Have deleted the following:
:Recent experiments in psychology seem to contradict aesthetic relativism. In studies of facial attractiveness there seems to be wide cross-cultural agreement as to what constitutes beauty in the human face. Whether this is down to symmetry or averageness is a matter of disagreement. Studies with infants, presumably too young to have been socialised, have shown that they consistently prefer the kinds of faces which adults judge to be "attractive" (Van Duuren, Kendell-Scott, & Stark, 2003; Langlois, Ritter, Roggman, & Vaughn, 1991; Samuels, Butterworth, Roberts, Grauper, & Hole, 1994; Samuels & Ewy, 1985; Slater, Bremner, Johnson, Sherwood, Hayes, & Brown, 2000) The judgement of beauty may be hard-wired in human beings, possibly fulfilling an evolutionary role.
The unattributed "seem to" is a dead giveaway that this is original research. And the logic of the "contradiction" is false: Even if "wide cross-culture agreement" means "total unanimity" (and a fiver says it doesn't) then just because everyone happens to hold a certain opinion, it doesn't follow that everyone must hold a certain opinion, or that anyone who doesn't hold that opinion is "wrong".  And as for it fulfulling an evolutionary role - algoirthymic evolutionary processes are, by definition, the most contingent, relativistic operands in nature: if it works, it'll fly. There's no "objective reality" propping this up. And who says aesthetics has to be functional anyway?
Here's the question: I say Reubenesque fatsos are the most beautiful. You say Twiggyesque rake-like ones are. I say you're wrong. And so it goes on. We're bored: we need to settle the argument and move on. On what basis do we do that? Against what criteria? How, in other words, can you falsify the adage "there's no accounting for taste"? ElectricRay 23:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Original Research

message: Hans Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method, would be a good place to start for arguments against that adage above: "there's no accounting for taste."  But the adage itself is a bit of a straw man.  One needn't ACCOUNT for taste - i.e., give a thoroughly back justification of its grounds, where it comes from, etc. etc..  All one must do is show that there ARE aesthetic values - whether or not they are "super duper absolute" or whatever criterion one is trying to work with here.  Those values themselves - ARE RELATIVE, of course!  They RELATE to art and how we experience it.  Having relations, they are relative.
What we need is a better DEFINITION of aesthetic relativism.  This article sort of sounds like we must all be ardent aesthetic relativists in order to stave off the position of aesthetic fascism ... or "absolutism" ... or something like that.
It is better to ask questions like: Can we say that art in some specific context has certain values another work of art LACKS?
What I see commonly is people throwing their hands up saying - "Well, art - it's all subjective, all relative!" And as a result - No Meaningful Discussion Ensues.
It is obvious that tremendously meaningful discussion of art is possible.  People who hate a certain piece of art, after a short discussion, sometimes come to understand it and love that piece of art.  SOMETHING there happened.  Artistic values were illuminated.  They may not be "absolute" or live up in the sky or be Platonic or made of some kind of superman titanium - but in some way they are very real and substantial.  For without values, no discussion IS possible.  If we acknowledge that a meaningful discussion took place regarding art - right then and there, we have PROVEN that there ARE aesthetic values - even if they are difficult to articulate or contextualize, or everyone in the world could be said to agree with them.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.26.188.198 (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Need Better Definition

message: This article seems informative but appears to be like an essay probably because it lacks enough citations! Trixie05 (talk) 09:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's like an essay because it tries to argue persuasively for contested points, rather than discussing them even-handedly. What's worse, the arguments it adduces are completely terrible, and actually descended at one point (until I went through with a razor just now) to the author calling feminists a bunch of jealous uggos. Not even joking. TiC (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations