"The value of an artist's work is determined not, as was traditionally the case, by the consensus of experts, but increasingly by a small number of affluent buyers who are drawn to purchase works for their potential investment value."
aest...@hotmail.com
Mani Deli
>http://www.rand.org/news/press.05/08.11.html
> "The value of an artist's work is determined not, as was traditionally the case, by the consensus of experts, but increasingly by a small number of affluent buyers who are drawn to purchase works for their potential investment value."
The value of an artist's work is ultimately determined by the
consensus of people.
no skill, no art
artangel
general population does not care about art outside of its simple
decorative value.
The value of an artists' work has always been determined by a small
group who were considered the experts.
Ruling families and church leaders gave their consent in the past.
Recently its those with the most disposable income and their art
dealers.
I am not conviced that major collectors buy simply for investment
purposes. If that was so, the secondary market for works would be
larger. We do not see old masters traded like GM stock.
Reviewers of art show are now considered critics. The academic
community has let us down. They now concentrate on creating artists.
Read any critics that made you think recently?
The museum community should frequently review its positon in society.
That can only be good for everyone.
In general, the art world is healthy.
Mani Deli
<cityofim...@verizon.net> wrote:
>The first thing the art community must understand is that 85% of the
>general population does not care about art outside of its simple
>decorative value.
With good reason, because most of the crap in the Modern sections of
museums doesn't even have that.
>I am not conviced that major collectors buy simply for investment
>purposes. If that was so, the secondary market for works would be
>larger. We do not see old masters traded like GM stock.
>
Many rich people buy signatures not quality. If one erased the
signature on some of their most valuable crap it would be close to
worthless.
>In general, the art world is healthy.
Yes, in spite of Modern Academic art.
no skill, no art
artangel
Stupid as usual.
dupuis...@aol.com
creative world is filled with who rather than what. Which brings us to
money, I have tried to get my work out there and time and time again
galleries want you to rent space. When I ask "but you said the work
was marketable" (not the compliment I would prefer) they answer back
that I haven't a name for myself. Try to get a book published and it's
the same thing - but if say paris h decided to design watches even
though she has the bucks no one would ask her to front the cash. Sign
of the times I guess.
artangel
"entitlement".
As a gallery owner, I run across many artists who feel that they are
somehow entitled to show in my gallery. Everyone they know tells them
what great artists they are so I am just a simple jerk for not making
them a part of my gallery.
The gallery business is a tough business. The biggest mistake is to be
all things to all people. My gallery has a brand. My collectors know
what I represent. They trust my judgement. (" A small group
determines the value of an artists work"). That is the way it works.
Is it fair? Yes I think so.
As for a gallery asking for rent. That is not a gallery. That is a
real estate venture.
A reputable gallery may take the work on consignment to see if it has a
market. However, the market should be the gallerist matching artists
with collectors. A good gallerist creates the market for an artist.
Yes pop culture produces creatures like Paris Hilton. In a few years
we will be seeing "what ever happened to" shows about her and the
reighning queen will be "Bimbo Betty". Is your goal to be a flash in
the pan or do you plan on a long term career? That has to be asked of
all artists. If you plan on a long career you must do the work inside
you and not be influenced by "marketablity".
(For those who are wondering - No, I will not put my web site here. I
dont have the time to be bombarded by Mani and his crowd.)
Thur
"artangel" <cityofim...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1135953879.8...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
by:-
> If you plan on a long career you must do the work inside
> you and not be influenced by "marketablity".<
Regard this against :-
> The biggest mistake is to be all things to all people. <
You make money by shaping your trade to the marketplace.
What you sell is a selection with which you feel comfortable with.
The marketplace is a very pliable thing, especially when it is
the art marketplace. Trying to be sure that the investment made
is going to hold or increase in value must be like trying to buy
furniture. You never know until much later if you have been sold
rubbish.
I had some contact with several gallery owners in LA and SF.
They saw me as a potential buyer, and their selling strategy
was the same as for furniture, too.
There are bound to be sections of art which don't suit this kind
of trade, or your kind of gallery owner, yet the artists may feel
all they need is a gallery, and some of the hype afforded to
others.
It's always a possibility that some of them are right.
The buyers must steel themselves from the hype and buy what
pleases them, rather than trying to outguess the market by
"investing" in a name, or even a style.
--
Thur
Mani Deli
<cityofim...@verizon.net> wrote:
>As a gallery owner, I run across many artists who feel that they are
>somehow entitled to show in my gallery. Everyone they know tells them
>what great artists they are so I am just a simple jerk for not making
>them a part of my gallery.
Most art graduates believe they are geniuses. It's understandable. The
teachers who know nothing infer this in order to keep them in school
until they can get their worthless diplomas. Students value their work
by comparing it to the modern crap in museums and stuff similar to
that in Artangel's gallery. That's why they feel entitled to show.
>Yes pop culture produces creatures like Paris Hilton.
-along with Rothko, de Kooning, Pollock and Warhol etc. When some
celebrity schmiers away like they did why wonder? Some have even
better connections than those famous phonies.
> In a few years
>we will be seeing "what ever happened to" shows about her and the
>reighning queen will be "Bimbo Betty".
Just like the other charlatans.
>(For those who are wondering - No, I will not put my web site here. I
>dont have the time to be bombarded by Mani and his crowd.)
Bet it's the usual crap that's all over the net!
artangel
What you sell is a selection with which you feel comfortable with."
Yes.
"yet the artists may feel
all they need is a gallery, and some of the hype afforded to
others."
The biggest mistake made by artists. If you feel the art world is all
hype and no substance. Find another field. You will not be
successful. It really is that simple.
"buy what
pleases them, rather than trying to outguess the market by
"investing" in a name, or even a style."
Rule #1. for a successful collector.
Mani,
"Rothko, de Kooning, Pollock and Warhol etc."
Isnt it interesting that you can identify these artist simply by last
name eventhough their careers are in some cases over 60 years old.
"Bet it's the usual crap that's all over the net!"
Yup! You got it!
Thank you again. Your stupidity is truly amazing.
rec.arts.fine
in retrospect my statements seemed jaded, as i read yours i get a sense
of tension. there have been customers of my fine art work who have
understood my voice, or perhaps find a voice of their own in my work.
having worked in marketing art, where the dollar is bible and customer
is god, where even when you know it is wrong you do as your paid, i
find it hard to envision my fine art work in that respect. never have
i felt i deserved to show in any gallery, but when you are told the
work is good, and would fit with their customer then i do not expect to
be asked to put up monies i do not have. these scam artists prey on
artists. now as a teacher (k-8) i show children how to use materials
and encourage them to look within for inspiration. if they are happy
with their art they have succeeded. happy new year - and success to
you both from kad
artangel
We have Mani - One - Note. He posts the same rant over and over. It
really is fun to poke him with a stick. He always comes back for more!
The art business is tough. VERY TOUGH.
There are no simple standards for deciding who truly is an artist and
who the wannabes are. It seems as if almost everyone I meet claims to
be an artist.
As a gallery owner I have to decide who I represent for myself, based
on my knowledge and taste. It is even harder since I deal with younger
contemporary artists. (goes back to the who decides an artists worth)
I can tell you one thing however that I find useful. The people I deal
with both artists and collectors, are driven by passion and not ego.
If you are driven by passion the world of art is an exciting adventure.
If you are driven by ego you find fault with everything and only your
own view is valid. You open yourself to the scamers who are quite
willing to exploit your ego in order to take your money. This applies
both to artists and collectors.
Passion - " if they are happy
with their art they have succeeded".
Ego - " where the dollar is bible and customer
is god, where even when you know it is wrong you do as your paid".
Happy New Year.
Mani Deli
<cityofim...@verizon.net> wrote:
>There is a history going on.
>
>We have Mani - One - Note.
and we have Artangel who has more than one note, which I quote:
>"Keep pissing into the wind Mani
>Keep pissing into the wind Mani
>Keep pissing into the wind Mani
>Keep pissing into the wind Mani
>Keep pissing into the wind Mani
>Keep pissing into the wind Mani"
>(For those who are wondering - No, I will not put my web site here. I
>dont have the time to be bombarded by Mani and his crowd.)
Bet it's the usual crap that's all over the net!
>He posts the same rant over and over. It
>really is fun to poke him with a stick. He always comes back for more!
>
>The art business is tough. VERY TOUGH.
For failures like you
>There are no simple standards for deciding who truly is an artist and
>who the wannabes are. It seems as if almost everyone I meet claims to
>be an artist.
>
>As a gallery owner I have to decide who I represent for myself, based
>on my knowledge and taste. It is even harder since I deal with younger
>contemporary artists. (goes back to the who decides an artists worth)
Tough life isn't it?
artangel
Stupid and BORING - are you eating right and getting enough sleep?
I hope you recover soon.
aest...@hotmail.com
> The first thing the art community must understand is that 85% of the
> general population does not care about art outside of its simple
> decorative value.
- The connoisseur of art must be able to appreciate what is simply
beautiful, but the common run of people is satisfied with ornament.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Thur
<aest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136372087.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
wines for example. At first we may not understand why
someone would pay 10 or 20 times the value of commonly
produced and consumed wine.
Given an interest, over time, tastes may be sharpened and
become discriminatory.
Such is the way tastes for fine art develop.
Now there may be several different types of taste depending
upon the knowledge, experience and skills of the individual.
Some of those who cannot play the violin can still appreciate
the very best performances, and those who cannot compose
are in no way restricted from becoming very informed and
very discriminatory in their tastes.
We should try not to look down upon those who are treading
the very same path we all take.
" the common run of people " includes everyone these days.
The percentage of 85 percent is depressing, but simply a
reflection on how much emphasis is paid to art during the
formative years.
--
Thur
aest...@hotmail.com
However, I have noticed that society is becoming so egalitarian as to
doubt the existence of standards (i.e., objectivity) and coming to
believe that everything boils down to personal taste (i.e.,
subjectivity).
The following article says:
"...Whether or not anyone could make fine discriminations of this
sort, there was no way to fix standards in such matters - judgments
that could be made explicit, justified and shared. Science was one
thing, taste quite another..."
artangel
wines for example"
"Given an interest, over time, tastes may be sharpened and
become discriminatory."
The Art/Wine comparison is a good example of how far taste can be
influenced. Two of my friends are truly wine experts. They have a
passion for it. They really can taste subtle differences and flavors
that I cannot. Even with repeated exposure my taste buds can only be
"sharpened" to a certain extent. Does that mean that I am to be
dismissed in any exploration of wine? Since my tastes are limited,
should I dismiss their connoisseurship as phony?
My passion is for mid century modernism and contemporary art. Should I
reject everything that came before or anyone who does not share my
passion?
Another friend of mine is an expert in European art of the middle ages.
She does not see what I do in modern or contemporary art and I do not
see what she sees in the art of the middle ages. In this case who has
standards and who does not?
It does come down to personal taste. This is not bad thing.
What should be avoided are those who are ruled by an ego that does not
allow any other viewpoints other than their own.
The vast experiences of life (art) should be enjoyed and shared
regardless of ones specific expertise.
So if 85 percent of the population does not share our serious passion
for art thats fine.
A Sunday stroll through a museum and a nice glass of wine can make for
a lovely afternoon even if one is not an expert.
aest...@hotmail.com
Right. But one should never conclude that just because one cannot make
a discernment, that the discernment doesn't exist (and doesn't make any
difference) and therefore others are phonies if they claim that they
can make the discernment.
And to make discernments, doesn't one have to be trained to take notice
of details?
aest...@hotmail.com
that just because one cannot make a discernment, that the discernment
doesn't exist (and doesn't make any difference) and therefore others
are phonies if they claim that they
- The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.
Aristotle
Bob C
>
> Right. But one should never conclude that just because one cannot make
> a discernment, that the discernment doesn't exist (and doesn't make any
> difference) and therefore others are phonies if they claim that they
> can make the discernment.
>
> And to make discernments, doesn't one have to be trained to take notice
> of details?
>
To make discernments, whether for fine wine or art, you must have
evaluation criteria. Your choice of criteria is subjective, but once
having chosen it, your evaluations against that criteria can themselves
be evaluated for validity with a certain degree of objectivity. Note
that a valid evaluation does not imply a "correct" one - I may agree
with your evaluation of a given set of criteria but not agree with your
choice of criteria as being a meaningful or relevant judge of quality.
To have an appreciation, you must be able to recognize patterns. To even
accept that something can be classified as either wine or art, it must
present certain patterns which allow it to meet our expectations of what
wine or art should be. Pattern recognition is a cognitive skill, and
like all cognitive skills, it can be further developed from that we
acquire naturally if we choose to do so. If and how we choose to develop
it is a matter of personal taste.
The better your pattern recognition skills with respect to the object
under evaluation, the more details you'll notice.
Learning to recognize the more obscure patterns (whether in art or wine)
doesn't guarantee that you'll change your opinion of things presenting
those patterns, but it does let you evaluate them for what they are
rather than criticizing them for what they aren't.
- Bob C.
artangel
a discernment, that the discernment doesn't exist (and doesn't make any
difference) and therefore others are phonies if they claim that they
can make the discernment."
100% correct.
"Note
that a valid evaluation does not imply a "correct" one "
That is the point at which it becomes subjective.
"evaluate them for what they are
rather than criticizing them for what they aren't. "
This is what makes the arts exciting.
Peter H.M. Brooks
improve your taste - which is likely to change your opinions of at least
some things.
If gaining an aesthetic judgement didn't cause you to change any of your
opinions about anything it wouldn't really be worth doing, now, would it?
What interests me most about aesthetics (in this context) is how
important it is to actually produce art (even if bad) in order to
appreciate it's aesthetic - this applies to music too. It isn't,
however, necessary to produce wine to appreciate it though - I have made
wine, actually, but I don't think that that process helped me appreciate it.
Consequently, though it is important, I can believe that it is possible,
though much more difficult, to achieve an aesthetic appreciation of art
without actually producing any. Just as it is possible to climb a flight
of stairs without legs, but more difficult.
So appreciating wine is quite a good metaphor, but can be carried too
far. Is there 'quaffing' art, just as there is quaffing wine, for
example? Wine is consumed whilst appreciated, whilst art is not, does
this absence of consumption have an effect?
The last question interests me in a different context. Culinary art is
an art as well - and one that shares, with wine, more than it does with
visual art. I think that the consumption does have an effect - it
enhances the memory (taste memory in this case) because, since the
object is consumed, it can only be compared in memory.
--
What female heart can gold despise? - Thomas Gray; 'Ode on the Death
of a Favourite Cat Drowned in a Tub of Gold Fishes' 1747
* TagZilla 0.057 * http://tagzilla.mozdev.org
Peter H.M. Brooks
> " But one should never conclude that just because one cannot make
> a discernment, that the discernment doesn't exist (and doesn't make any
>
> difference) and therefore others are phonies if they claim that they
> can make the discernment."
>
> 100% correct.
>
> "Note that a valid evaluation does not imply a "correct" one "
>
> That is the point at which it becomes subjective.
>
I ask this because you are so certain that a valid evaluation is not a
correct one - so you must have some idea of what a correct one would be.
--
De gustibus non disputandum est. - Auctor Ignotus
artangel
important it is to actually produce art (even if bad) in order to
appreciate it's aesthetic"
It is not very important.
I do not write, but love and can tell good writing.
I do not compose, but love and can tell good music.
Great art will always tell you what you need to know. Great art will
reveal its secrets to you. All you have to do is give it your
attention. You do not have to produce it or reproduce it.
"Is there 'quaffing' art, just as there is quaffing wine, for
example?" - Thomas Kinkade comes to mind.
"What would a 'correct' one mean?"
The "correct" one is the field that interests you. To use my previous
example:
I do not share my friends passion for European Art of the Middle Ages.
So it is not "correct" for me. I do not dismiss this age in art. It
is as valid an undertaking as my passion and interest in Modern and
Contemporary Art. Again, the subjective.
Thur
When one does gain a more discerning outlook, then
it could take the form where instead of demanding more
cutting edge creative stuff, there is a demand for the same sort
of works but with more complexity (although that may have
already been there, but undetected)
I like to think that the Kinkade factory buyers might become
dissatisfied with the shallow fare on offer after buying a number
of pieces and look for different work, different values,
different aspects that they may not have seen in the works they
have already bought.
I think I read that Kinkades appear at garage sales. I hope this is
because someone's taste has become more refined, rather than
have died with the same 'taste'.
There aren't enough people who take art more seriously than they
do fluffy cushions.
Without art we could become little better than automatons.
--
Thur
Bob C
> Bob C wrote:
>>
>> "Note that a valid evaluation does not imply a "correct" one "
>>
>> That is the point at which it becomes subjective.
>
> What would a 'correct' one mean?
>
Consider the following evaluation:
Criteria: Blue paintings are good
Evaluation: This painting is blue
Conclusion: This painting is good
The logic is correct, so the conclusion is "valid". But the conclusion
is not known to be any more "correct" than the criteria and evaluation
are correct.
If you don't agree with the idea that all blue paintings are good, then
you may rightly consider the conclusion to be incorrect even though the
evaluation itself is a valid one based on the given criteria. Same as if
you disagree only with the idea that the painting actually is blue.
Now suppose somebody used the same criteria and evaluation to conclude
that "this painting is bad". Their conclusion would be invalid. This
doesn't mean that the conclusion is incorrect - the painting might
really be bad - but it does mean that their argument supporting it is wrong.
When it comes to art, the choice of criteria always has a degree of
subjectivity to it, as does the evaluation against any realistically
meaningful criteria. Because of this, the "correctness" of any
conclusion must also have some degree of subjectivity to it, since it
can't be any more objective than the choice of criteria and the
evaluation against that criteria.
In the best art criticism, if you look hard enough, you'll always find
the criteria and evaluation which support the conclusion. It may not be
obvious, but it's there.
- Bob C.
Bob C
>
> If gaining an aesthetic judgement didn't cause you to change any of your
> opinions about anything it wouldn't really be worth doing, now, would it?
You wouldn't know until you tried, so it would at least have the value
of resolving an unknown. Gaining an aesthetic judgement has almost
always changed my opinions, but when discussing it I usually include the
possibility that it won't just to emphasize the point that developing
your aesthetic judgements to a greater degree doesn't necessarily make
your opinions any more right or wrong. If used properly, however, it
should at least make your opinions more valuable.
>
> What interests me most about aesthetics (in this context) is how
> important it is to actually produce art (even if bad) in order to
> appreciate it's aesthetic - this applies to music too. It isn't,
> however, necessary to produce wine to appreciate it though - I have made
> wine, actually, but I don't think that that process helped me appreciate
> it.
>
I've never had a talent for producing music but I think I have developed
a considerable aesthetic for it. I'm sure I could take it further if I
played as well, but I've nevertheless take it far enough to immerse
myself in the beauty of music which some of my friends liken to
musicians tuning their instruments.
As far as wine goes, I think you're correct, probably because there is a
lack of direct connection between the production and the product. You
can assemble the ingredients and set up the initial conditions, but then
you just have to let nature take its course. With art, the results are
usually much more directly connected with the actions. Even more so with
music.
>
> So appreciating wine is quite a good metaphor, but can be carried too
> far. Is there 'quaffing' art, just as there is quaffing wine, for
> example? Wine is consumed whilst appreciated, whilst art is not, does
> this absence of consumption have an effect?
I use the comparison mainly to try to point out the way people are
perfectly willing to accept that appreciating wine requires effort but
believe that art should always be immediately accessible to anyone. I
don't want to belittle wine appreciation, but I personally think there
are far more benefits to developing an appreciation of art and that our
culture should place a higher value on doing so.
I remember once hearing somebody talking about some particularly
difficult music and claiming that it should be like baseball - anybody
should be able to enjoy it. Ok, so now think about how much time and in
how many ways the typical American cultivates the appreciation of their
favorite sports. If we ever treated art and music like sports it would
be a huge improvement for art and music.
As far as the consumption aspect goes, that's something I've never
thought about before, so I guess I'll have to ruminate over it for a
while before commenting. And when I start making bad puns like that, I
know it's time to append my name and hit the send button.
- Bob C.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
>
>> Bob C wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Note that a valid evaluation does not imply a "correct" one "
>>>
>>> That is the point at which it becomes subjective.
>>
>>
>> What would a 'correct' one mean?
>>
>
>
> Consider the following evaluation:
>
> Criteria: Blue paintings are good
>
criterion, many criteria.
This is not mere grammatical carping. Any single criterion of judgement
for art would, of necessity, be useless. Any artwork would be judged by
a number of different criteria for the judgement to be of any use.
>
> Evaluation: This painting is blue
> Conclusion: This painting is good
>
Of course, if you aren't talking about art, but your dining room wall
then this still might not be a good argument. The walls might be blue,
indicating that the painter has well read your simple mind, but not the
right shade of blue.
That is just one reason why you need criteria and can't rely on just one
criterion.
>
> When it comes to art, the choice of criteria always has a degree of
> subjectivity to it, as does the evaluation against any realistically
> meaningful criteria. Because of this, the "correctness" of any
> conclusion must also have some degree of subjectivity to it, since it
> can't be any more objective than the choice of criteria and the
> evaluation against that criteria.
>
Well, no, the judgement of anything according to a set of clearly
defined criteria can be very objective, far more objective than any
single criterion.
If you had a list of all possible criteria for judgement, then any
selection from the list would indeed be, to some extent, arbitrary.
However, the more diverse and the longer the list the less likely it
would be that strict application of it would judge the inaesthetic
aesthetic.
>
> In the best art criticism, if you look hard enough, you'll always find
> the criteria and evaluation which support the conclusion. It may not be
> obvious, but it's there.
>
They are there...--
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as to
seeem not worth stating, and toe end with something so paradoxical that
no one will believe it -Betrand Russell
Peter H.M. Brooks
> Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
>
>>
>> far. Is there 'quaffing' art, just as there is quaffing wine, for
>> example? Wine is consumed whilst appreciated, whilst art is not, does
>> this absence of consumption have an effect?
>
> I use the comparison mainly to try to point out the way people are
> perfectly willing to accept that appreciating wine requires effort but
> believe that art should always be immediately accessible to anyone. I
> don't want to belittle wine appreciation, but I personally think there
> are far more benefits to developing an appreciation of art and that our
> culture should place a higher value on doing so.
>
appreciation for wine is a long, difficult and expensive business - even
though it might well be enjoyable as well.
>
> I remember once hearing somebody talking about some particularly
> difficult music and claiming that it should be like baseball - anybody
> should be able to enjoy it. Ok, so now think about how much time and in
> how many ways the typical American cultivates the appreciation of their
> favorite sports. If we ever treated art and music like sports it would
> be a huge improvement for art and music.
>
Yankland.
That, of course, doesn't mean that there can't be a huge market for art
and 'art'.
--
That which we can only maintain by force we should try to do without -
Quinten Crisp, Resident Alien
aest...@hotmail.com
- Culture is the habit of being pleased with the best and knowing why.
Henry Van Dyke
Bob C
> >
> You mean 'criterion' - 'criteria' is the plural of 'criterion'. One
> criterion, many criteria.
>
> This is not mere grammatical carping. Any single criterion of judgement
> for art would, of necessity, be useless. Any artwork would be judged by
> a number of different criteria for the judgement to be of any use.
> >
>
In common usage, I think, most people use criteria to refer to the group
being used in an argument even if the group only contains one - and the
oversimplified and generally useless argument I gave as an example was
clearly constructed as such only to illustrate the difference between
"valid" and "correct". Which is a different thing entirely than "Good".
Nevertheless, your point about combining criteria to increase the
objectivity of a judgement is well noted. I agree that we can create
combinations of criteria which result in a high degree of objectivity
and that there are specific situations in which the selection of that
criteria can be very objective as well. On the whole, however, I still
consider art appreciation to be a very subjective act.
- Bob C.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
>
>
> objectivity of a judgement is well noted. I agree that we can create
> combinations of criteria which result in a high degree of objectivity
> and that there are specific situations in which the selection of that
> criteria can be very objective as well. On the whole, however, I still
> consider art appreciation to be a very subjective act.
>
some people consider this to mean that it is open house for crass
subjectivity.
--
All persons are deemed to have a _right_ to equality of treatment,
except when some recognised social expediency requires the reverse. And
hence all social inequalities which have ceased to be considered
expedient, assume the character not of simple inexpediency, but of
injustice, and appear so tyrannical, that people are apt to wonder how
they ever could have been tolerated; forgetful that they themselves
perhaps tolerate other inequalities under an equally mistaken notion of
expediency, the correction of which would make that which they approve
seem quite as monstrous as what they have at last learnt to condemn. The
entire history of social improvement has been a series of transitions,
by which one custom or institution after another, from being a supposed
primary necessity of social existence, has passed into the rank of an
universally stigmatized injustice and tyranny. So it has been with the
distinctions of slaves and freemen, nobles and serfs, patricians and
plebeians; and so it will be, and in part already is, with the
aristocracies of colour, race, and sex. -- J.S.Mill Chapter V.
Utilitarianism
aest...@hotmail.com
which result in a high degree of objectivity...", I would say that we
can create combinations of criteria which result in a highER degree of
objectivity.
It's probably impossible to be 100% objective (because of human
limitations), but when we make judgments, we should always strive to be
MORE objective and LESS subjective.
I feel that aesthetic criteria help us to do that by providing a shared
objective base onto which the individual subjectivity can be attached.
Peter H.M. Brooks
Yes, though, what you say is correct.
--
All persons are deemed to have a _right_ to equality of treatment,
except when some recognised social expediency requires the reverse. And
hence all social inequalities which have ceased to be considered
expedient, assume the character not of simple inexpediency, but of
injustice, and appear so tyrannical, that people are apt to wonder how
they ever could have been tolerated; forgetful that they themselves
perhaps tolerate other inequalities under an equally mistaken notion of
expediency, the correction of which would make that which they approve
seem quite as monstrous as what they have at last learnt to condemn. The
entire history of social improvement has been a series of transitions,
by which one custom or institution after another, from being a supposed
primary necessity of social existence, has passed into the rank of an
universally stigmatized injustice and tyranny. So it has been with the
distinctions of slaves and freemen, nobles and serfs, patricians and
plebeians; and so it will be, and in part already is, with the
aristocracies of colour, race, and sex. -- J.S.Mill Chapter V.
Utilitarianism