The Subjectivity of Artistic "Quality"

[RedFox742]

We tend to express our opinions on how "good" or "bad" music--or anything else--is as if they were provable facts. Especially online, people tend to argue over quality as if there was an objective standard for it to be held by.

Discuss: is there any objective standard to the concept of "quality" when it comes to creations like music, art, writing, etc.? Or is quality purely subjective to human foibles and personal taste?

I tend to lean towards the latter, but I'm curious what other people think.

 

[Blowtus]

Can some measure of objectivity be distilled from the summed average of human foibles and personal taste? I think so, given that there is never any other option

 

[ThereWasNoWay12]

We tend to express our opinions on how "good" or "bad" music--or anything else--is as if they were provable facts. Especially online, people tend to argue over quality as if there was an objective standard for it to be held by.

Discuss: is there any objective standard to the concept of "quality" when it comes to creations like music, art, writing, etc.? Or is quality purely subjective to human foibles and personal taste?

I tend to lean towards the latter, but I'm curious what other people think.

Wonderful topic, seriously. I look forward to hearing others reponses on this.

If everybody agrees on the same definition of "quality", then we could probably start to discern objectively what is low quality from what is high quality. Not all will agree on a given definition of quality though, so simpler terms might have to be used to describe music. One might think of musical quality as being a balance of both emotional and intellectual content.

I think it sort of comes down to what music means to each person, or what each person gets out of music. Some people may be innately "capable" or drawing more from music.

For example, two people listen to "Toxic" by Britney Spears. Person A gets excited and wants to dance because he hears the music. Person B might be annoyed and may want to decapitate all his brain cells.

Another example, two people listen to the first movement of Mahler's 9th symphony. Person A might find it too complex, boring, or a waste of time. Person B might find in it an absolutely brilliant masterpiece.

Personally, I love music, but I have preferences. I can be strongly moved (physically, emotionally, and intellectually) by music. When something fails to register on these scales, I find it lacking and it is put aside.

I will post more later...

 

[razoredge]

Its seems one should be able to recognize various levels of quality but not require any specific level to also find enjoyment or appreaciation. One being understanding and the other being preference. Preference varying by mood but recognizing quality being a constant.

 

[RedFox742]

Then how do you define quality, if not "producing of appreciation"?

I agree with NoWay, this discussion would have to begin with a definition of quality--if an objective one even exists other than the above.

Re: Blowtus: if you go by that standard, you would have to declare the Jonas Brothers or Nickelback to be "higher-quality" bands to, say, Slayer--and every pop song on the radio to be "higher-quality" to indie underground music. When "producing of appreciation in the most people" is the only standard, it can be hard for some to agree with the results. This is one of the the central problems with defining quality.

 

[razoredge]

Then how do you define quality, if not "producing of appreciation"?

How can I answer this question if someone can't see, hear or feel the level of various skills involved in someones craft ?

 

[RedFox742]

I'm asking for your objective definition of "quality".

Does it pertain to "level of skill"? And if so, you have to also define "skill" with regard to art.

As Socrates would tell Meno (this is the "philosopher" thread), a definition of quality must be unitary, not a list of properties of quality (like "skill"). Unless "skill" can be defined beyond being a property of quality, we're back where we began.

I am prepared to argue that there is no objective definition of "quality" in art, and thus everyone who calls music or literature objectively "good" or "bad" is purely basing such judgement on a subjective opinion--essentially, that all quality is in the eye of the beholder. Ergo, from an objective standpoint, Slayer is no "better," and no "worse," than the Jonas Brothers, because no objective standard exists.

But I would entertain any other theory.

 

[razoredge]

Well I for one dont go for "philopshers" need to defy that the sky is blue.

Quality has two basic definations...1. peculiar or essential character, nature or feature... 2. excellence or distinction

The first being a personal quality
The second being quality of work

Not sure your use of slayer whom I would never turn a ear toward or Jonas Brothers whom I have no idea who they are is anyplce to start digging for a definition of quality. While Im sure they both have some personal qualities Im not sure they approached it with any level of quality. I suppose garbage can have a quality... "thats some mighty fine smelling garbage." = quality garbage

 

[Blowtus]

Re: Blowtus: if you go by that standard, you would have to declare the Jonas Brothers or Nickelback to be "higher-quality" bands to, say, Slayer--and every pop song on the radio to be "higher-quality" to indie underground music. When "producing of appreciation in the most people" is the only standard, it can be hard for some to agree with the results. This is one of the the central problems with defining quality.

Well, you take what I said too far, I didn't suggest anything as blunt as 'what is currently popular is objectively high quality'. Much better off just saying 'what is currently held to be high quality is objectively high quality', which 'might' not be as horribly tautological as it sounds, but is still likely to be subject to such massive swings throughout time and cultures that calling it 'objective' seems a little off - I guess at the least one would hope for 'objectivity' to have a vaguely stable nature. I think with effort and care you could sift through the morass of opinions on quality and come up with some relatively fundamental principles. Technical skill, innovation, depth, cultural fit, passion... just ideas off the top of my head. And yes, I think such concepts are a step along the path to defining quality - technical skill, although beyond my ability / desire to put into words, is a much tighter, more coherent concept than the broad one of 'quality'. Essentially I guess I think music quality is a multi faceted concept that could, with effort, be broken down into individual single scaled components and objectified to at least some vaguely effective degree. But then, I study psychology, I'm used to taking an optimistic view regarding breaking down and objectifying vague concepts

 

[razoredge]

America had a high quality of life. "I want to have a high quality of life", this generally does not refer to living on food stamps or struggling, barely getting the job of living done. "I have lots of good friends but little means to do much"... yes there is a quality in humble, but everything falling to shambles in the meantime does not represent a higher quality of life.

There is a balance here somewhere.

 

[Silver Incubus]

Well just as a response to the original. When it comes to music you can always judge it by, Technique, Creativity, Originality, Structure and Emotional Content.

 

[RedFox742]

Well just as a response to the original. When it comes to music you can always judge it by, Technique, Creativity, Originality, Structure and Emotional Content.

If everyone agreed on those five things, everyone would listen to the same "good" music.

But people don't. Look anywhere on this forum. Everyone is always calling each other wrong, even in a metal subcommunity.

Everyone interprets all those things differently. Just like NoWay said, Britney Spears does different things for different people. Some hear it as very emotional with a technically proficient voice, thus, "good". Some hear a vapid whining, thus, "bad".

There's no objective standard to determine who is right, and nobody's really made a case for one yet.

 

[ThereWasNoWay12]

Well just as a response to the original. When it comes to music you can always judge it by, Technique, Creativity, Originality, Structure and Emotional Content.

Yes, we can all judge it by Technique, Creativity, Originality, Structure, and Emotional Content. But there are two things to consider further:

1. Each of these five descriptors carries some degree of subjectivity. For example, how does one define creativity or originality?

2. Even if each of these five descriptors had definitions that everybody agreed on, the extent to which different people appreciate each of these in music is different.

 

[Blowtus]

If everyone agreed on those five things, everyone would listen to the same "good" music.

You're assuming that people want to listen to 'good quality' music, and not just music that is appealing / catchy / their friends listen to / they can dance to.

 

[RedFox742]

So according to you, the appeal, catchiness, and dance-ability of music are all independent of its quality? What is the purpose of a music's quality, if not to be pleasant? Should "quality" music hurt, or be unpleasant? Or does it inherently have to be somehow more than pleasant? Is no song that does not promote a certain level of introspection "high-quality"? (And introspection in who?)

An all-encompassing definition of "quality" that holds true for anyone--that's an "objective" definition. If one cannot be given, then the entire concept is inherently subjective and varies from person to person. You can define a "bird" by certain factual parameters that do not vary between rational-thinking people, thus you can say what is and is not a bird. Under looser parameters, you can even define a "god," one of the most controversial concepts in human history. You can define "yellow" by a certain set of wavelengths; you can define "tall" and "short," if only in a relative sense.

But it seems to me that you can not define "quality". Everyone will have their own opinion of what is "quality" and what constitutes the various facets of "quality". One person believes the song is too fast, his brother says it is too slow. Multiply the examples to infinity.

Thus reaching my overall point: declaring anything cultural to be "good" or "bad" is always only one's personal opinion. Nothing is inherently one or the other. Popularity (and popularity among sub-groups) is the only metric possible, and this will mean nothing to someone outside that sub-group, or who does not like the popular thing. By this reasoning, I've concluded that artistic "quality" is completely subjective.

A quick Google search brings me this first result, someone who disagrees and believes "quality" is an intrinsic concept: http://www.fingertipsmusic.com/quality.htm . However, the argument is short and weak. I would need to read the Pirsig book itself for more.

NoWay, are you still on board with me?

 

[razoredge]

and your talking about current popular music following various cultural trends, hardly an area to define quality in. Like the guy that threw gobs of paint at a giant canvas, only displaying a quality of insanity.

Please refer to the two definations for quality and realize you are trying to confuse the two into one singular meaning. Too late to re-write the dictionary. A person or object may contain many qualities all this summed up does not equal a quality person or object.

 

[Blowtus]

Yeah, the relativist position is too easy and boring though

I think there are many people who have some recognition of music that is 'good quality' that they personally find unappealing.

If you're expecting a singular metric that fits 100% with every individual surveyed then you're just propping up a poor objective straw-man and beating the piss out of him for no good reason Obviously taste and opinions vary from person to person, this is hardly news... what causes some music to be recognised as great, even hundreds of years later? Mere cultural phenomenon, and any old random noise could have done the job, or is there an underlying substance to interpretations of quality? I'll go with the latter.

 

[RedFox742]

The dictionary here is technically correct, but woefully inadequate for a philosophical discussion. In fact, it only supports my point.

Take:

"1. peculiar or essential character, nature or feature..."

This refers to "quality" in the sense of "a personal quality," as you said. It has nothing to do with "quality" in terms of being a positive or a negative thing, and can therefore be completely disregarded. I am referring to the second definition:

"2. excellence or distinction"

Here our definition consists of two words. To take them in order:

"Excellence" is just a synonym for "quality". The exact same thing applies: what you see as "excellence," I may see as absurdity or wretchedness. Since we're playing with a dictionary, let's see how "excellence" is defined: "the fact or state of excelling". Okay, so to "excel" is to: "surpass others or be superior in some respect or area." Now we have "superior", also subject to personal opinion. We're just going in circles. This word does nothing for us.

"Distinction"--now we're getting somewhere. "Distinction" seems to imply uniqueness. Is quality inherently tied to uniqueness? Perhaps this argument could be made, but again, you would have to quantify "uniqueness"--one man's ripoff could be another's homage. I won't provide examples, since I don't know what people like and don't (see? subjective!), but there's much film, art, and music that is highly derivative and yet considered by many to be very high "quality". So uniqueness or "distinction" alone can not wholly define "quality".

I thus have to consider the dictionary definition largely dismantled and worthless to our discussion, except where it pertains to "uniqueness," and even that is a line of argument you would need to flesh out heavily for it to have any impact.

EDIT: Blowtus, mind expanding on your thoughts? You state that only the test of time is the true metric of quality. So is it the popularity not of the present, but of the future, that determines quality? If so, please explain how the many, many underground bands who will not be remembered in 50 years, let alone 500, are of inherently low quality.

Also, I understand that the relativist position is easy, but I do believe in it here. I have complete admiration for anyone willing to stand up to me thoughtfully and argue for the other side, which is definitely tougher (but by no means wrong for being tougher).

 

[razoredge]

redfox - Im sorry but you are actually surrounding your idea of quality around the first defination of the word.

"Her face had a quality of beauty to me, as well the quality of her figure appealed to me.... within three months I discovered she was nothing but a total attention whore, manipulative bitch only out for what she could get"

Yes, said individual contained many qualities, even her selfish dark side may still appeal to someone into the game. However as a sumed whole this does not represent a quality person.

This applies to all objects and IS subjective.

The second definition you can twist in any direction you want, I dont believe writters of the dictionary felt the need to spend the time or space in multiple paragraphs simply in order to appease those that refuse to get the point. "Quality in workmanship" should be something that is self explainatory and understood by all.

Seems you added the word "quality" to your topic quandry simply so you could beat the word to death simply within the boundries of its two definations... which have a contradiction within themselves if someone wants to "not get the point".

Back to the poor area of searching for quality(2) in modern music. Would you be one to deny that punk rock was not based on lack of quality(2) as a "rebel" cry against all that might be "good" "decent" about trying to excel in musical skill, tonality, coherance ?

 

[RedFox742]

Razor, since you seem to like word reference materials, let me present two thesaurus entries on the word "quality":

Here's the first:

Main Entry: quality
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: characteristic, feature
Synonyms: affection, affirmation, aspect, attribute, character, condition, constitution, description, element, endowment, essence, factor, genius, individuality, kind, make, mark, name of tune, nature, nature of beast, parameter, peculiarity, predication, property, savor, sort, trait, virtue, way of it

That is not what I am asking to discuss (and is what your first definition is referring to). Features (aspects, attributes, natures, parameters, traits) of music are indisputable facts. It's the value of different assemblages of those features that I am contesting is inherently subjective.

With me so far? Okay, here's the second entry:

Main Entry: quality
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: value, status
Synonyms: arete, caliber, capacity, character, class, condition, distinction, excellence, excellency, footing, grade, group, kind, merit, perfection, place, position, preeminence, rank, repute, standing, state, station, stature, step, superbness, superiority, variety, virtue, worth

This is what I am referring to. "Quality" as a measure of value, not as a measure of physical condition. I'm not saying that a song's time signature, a quality (or, as your definition put it, essential character) of the song, is subjective. I'm saying that the quality (value) of different time signatures (and all other musical elements) is subjective.

Also, as an aside, if you're letting Random House define your entire existence, then you'd be relating heavy metal to nothing more than "aggressive and heavily amplified rock music, commonly performed by groups that wear spectacular or bizarre costumes." Look beyond a bit, man. Your own mind is just as good as some dictionary.

Back on subject, can anybody objectively define--if "quality" is becoming too contentious--"value" of music? Or what makes some music "superior"? They're all synonyms for the same concept: what makes one band or song inherently "better" than another? Blowtus mentioned "time", and I'd like to hear him expand on that.