Daily Philosophy: If beauty is subjective, is “The Shawshank Redemption” no better than “Sausage Party”?
Daily Philosophy: If beauty is subjective, is “The Shawshank Redemption” no better than “Sausage Party”?
By Jonny Thomson | Published: 2024-12-06 15:46:00 | Source: Thinking – Big Think
Sign up for Big Think on Substack
The most surprising and impactful new stories delivered to your inbox every week for free.
Almost everyone I meet tells me that beauty is subjective. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But does this mean that there are no good and bad films? Does this mean that The Shawshank Redemption is no better than a sausage party?
– Chiara, USA
This is a great question because I think we can all relate to it. I’m sure most people have debated which art forms are “better” or “worst” at some point in their lives. Are The Beatles better than the Rolling Stones? What is Meryl Streep’s best performance? Is Van Gogh’s “Starry Night” better than my four-year-old drawing for me? I’m sure you have your opinions. In almost any society with any form of culture, you are bound to find a cultural critic. The first time a Paleolithic cave dweller drew a tree with a stick, his cousin might have been there to say, “It doesn’t look like it.”
But Chiara is right. It is often said that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” I would find what you find repulsive; You will find beautiful what I find disgusting. If you put three people in a room, you’ll get four opinions. It is common to hear that beauty is not something in the body—a basic structural property, such as shape or texture—but rather a “relational property.” It is something that exists between me, the observer, and the subject I observe. It’s subjective.
(Leave) ” my father“Written by Freddie Thompson, 4 years old. (Right)”Starry nightBy Vincent Van Gogh, 36 years old.
So, how do we settle this? How can we have discussions and debates about beauty while also saying “it’s completely subjective”? Or must one give? To explore this issue, we’ll pull out some of the staples of philosophy—two of the biggest names in Western aesthetics: David Hume and Immanuel Kant (the latter of whom was very familiar with the former’s work).
Easel and mixing boards are ready, we’re getting artistic.
Kant: The Way to Discuss Art
When we say, “This thing is beautiful,” or “This is a great piece of art,” we are doing two seemingly contradictory things. We are expressing a private, subjective feeling (“This makes me happy”), but we are also expressing a statement of universality—others should feel this way, too. Aesthetics is different from mere “taste”. With taste, we happily accept that everyone has their own individual preferences. But when we make aesthetic judgments, we’re saying, “You should enjoy this, too.” You have to agree that this thing is beautiful.
As Kant claims elsewhere, “ought” means “can” – if someone “ought” to do or feel a certain way, then he or she must be able to do so. Therefore, others should be able to find joy in the same artwork that I do. Therefore, when dealing with beauty (rather than preferences), we resort to argument, proof, and appeal to get others to endorse our position. Critics and experts will point out the things that “should” give us pleasure. It highlights the great things about something so you can enjoy it too.
Kant’s aesthetics was mostly concerned with aesthetic experience. When we encounter some truly fine art, it is not a matter of using our rational and intellectual faculties. It is an interaction between our understanding and our imagination. The aesthetic experience is unique.
So, if you want to discuss art, you have to put someone in a certain way to elicit their own experience. You can talk about your feelings when you watched Shawshank for the first time. You can talk about some details that you may have missed. One can refer to the many allusions, metaphors, and poetic implications. Or you might be talking about some formal elements. We can say, “Look at the color transitions here,” or “This scene was shot with an Arriflex 35 BL4S.” While these rational elements alone will not convince anyone of beauty, they can be part of what Kant calls the “free play” of our imagination and understanding of aesthetic judgments.
So, for Kant, yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder – but that doesn’t mean you can’t set people’s eyes to see new beauty.
Hume: The test of time
David Hume took a very different approach from Kant. Hume claimed, first, that some people are better or worse at identifying beautiful things, and that we can define great works according to criteria “the test of time.”
Hume argued that appreciating beauty in anything does not mean indulging in a pleasant feeling, but requires a mental ability or talent to see, feel, or taste things that others cannot see. It is judging from afar and seeing what only one who senses or immerses can see. We’re all born with the basics of discrimination, whether it’s regarding ice cream flavors or a favorite Disney movie. But to be a critic is to recognize the beauty that others miss – to highlight Tarantino’s film references, the delicate plum tones of Shiraz, the harmonious harmonies of Bach, or the clever wordplay of James Joyce. This ability needs practice to cultivate. Like any experience, it takes time and investment.
But what about the thing that gives him the “favour”? What are “taste standards”? And why He does Plum notes make good wine…?
Hume believed that standards of beauty are determined by standards of good taste. These experts know what is good or beautiful, and set the standards. The longer these critics view something as beautiful, the more reliable our acceptance of that standard will be. Therefore, Iliad It has stood the test of time longer than The Handmaid’s Taleand so it has a better claim to beauty.
So, returning to Chiara’s question, if we believe Hume, we can still have discussions about art, but they are certainly less interesting than in the case of Kant. Hume’s argument leads us to be data-driven rather than opinionated. We have to collect Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes scores all the time. We have to see how many worthy critics describe the artwork as good. But, of course, we must be prepared to re-evaluate the “greatness” of art if critics of today or tomorrow begin to re-evaluate those works. If every critic calls between now and 2742 The Shawshank Redemption Garbage and Sausage party “Classical art” then it would be.
Art is important
At the heart of Chiara’s question is an assumption that has not always been so clear in the philosophy of art. The idea that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” remains controversial. As we have seen, while both Kant and Hume may see beauty as a “relational property” between witness and object, they do not want to completely equate beauty with taste or preference.
It is difficult to talk about aesthetic experiences, not only because they are very difficult to articulate, but they are also very important. Most people reading this will agree that a moment of deep aesthetic enjoyment—a favorite song, book, movie, anything—is qualitatively much better than the pizza toppings you love. Aesthetic experiences are important, which is why it is difficult to say that they are completely subjective. The idea that Shakespeare might be seen as having as much merit as a 7-year-old’s holiday memoir seems almost offensive.
This passion, this importance, is why we continue to have discussions. That’s why we watch the Oscars and read the reviews. This is why we mock people’s opinions and see them as close to madness. Art is important to who we are as a species and who I am as a person.
Sign up for Big Think on Substack
The most surprising and impactful new stories delivered to your inbox every week for free.
ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
