Introduction
The objectivist view of art, as advocated by Martin Gardner, suggests that there are objective criteria that can be used to evaluate works of art. This essay aims to clarify Gardner’s viewpoint and assess its merits and flaws. Furthermore, I will examine an artwork as an illustration and assess if it aligns with Gardner’s model. Finally, I will present my position on whether I agree with Gardner’s objectivist view of art, explaining my opinion throughout the paper.
Martin Gardner’s Argument for the Objectivist View of Art
Gardner’s theory suggests that art can be assessed using objective, unbiased criteria instead of subjective tastes and attitudes. His theory provides a clear framework for assessing art, which includes specific guidelines such as unity, complexity, and depth. This objectivist view includes different art forms, allowing for a wide range of works to be considered artistic (Vaughn, 2018).
Strengths
Gardner’s viewpoint may have the advantage of being more impartial, thereby removing possible bias in the art assessment. Personal preferences can sometimes skew one’s judgment of the quality of an art object, leading to an inconsistent evaluation. Consequently, Gardner’s standards can offer a more reliable and equitable method of assessing artworks. Nonetheless, despite its merits, the theory may overlook the subjective encounter of the spectator, which is usually at the core of the enjoyment of art.
The Object Gardner’s Theory Would Classify as Art
The painting “Starry Night” by Vincent van Gogh exemplifies a work of art that fits Gardner’s framework. The painting possesses unity, complexity, and depth, which are objective criteria for evaluating art.
Weaknesses
Still, some critics argue that Gardner’s theory is too restrictive in its definition of art and does not account for more abstract or conceptual forms and notions. Therefore, relying solely on Gardner’s standpoint may not be adequate. Despite concurring that some art forms may not fit into this framework, incorporating objective measures in assessing artworks holds significance. Gardner’s theory enables a more extensive array of creative expressions to be acknowledged as art, and it also furnishes distinct standards to evaluate diverse forms of art.
Another plausible flaw in Gardner’s argument is the possibility that it overlooks the social and cultural circumstances in which art is produced and appreciated. Artists’ works are often deeply intertwined with the social and cultural contexts in which they are produced. The historical, political, and cultural background associated with a piece of artwork can substantially influence its significance and worth.
Although Gardner’s standards for assessing art are beneficial, they do not incorporate these factors (Vaughn, 2018). For example, an essential artifact in one cultural milieu may not carry the same weight in another. Thus, to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the art object, it is essential to consider its social and cultural context.
Conclusion
Gardner’s art theory has advantages and disadvantages. Although the theory offers a precise and brief structure to assess art, it might not consider the spectator’s personal and individual experiences and perceptions. To a greater extent, I disagree with Gardner’s perspective on the objectivity of art. Other perspectives, such as expressivity or institutional views, should also be considered. Overall, a comprehensive understanding of the nature of art can only be attained by considering various views on the topic.
Reference
Vaughn, L. (2018). Philosophy here and now: Powerful ideas in everyday life. Oxford University Press.