Intrinsic Objectivity or Collective Subjectivity?

Of all the places to hear something profound, a Netflix series is not where I would expect. The debate between two of the characters in the episode I was watching was about “intrinsic objectivity” vs “collective subjectivity” when it comes to art.  

These are the kinds of debates I would delight in having in art school. ​

I would argue that many people consider the so-called “Masters” as intrinsically “good”, yet there is no such thing as objectivity when it comes to art (or music, or anything that is based in aesthetics). Rather, the masses decide with collective subjectivity what they, in a given time frame, consider masterful. 

I am a big history buff and watch many documentaries on both archeology and history. Anything from Göbekli Tepe to the spy stories of the Cold War is on my various watchlists. During the 1930s, for example, the fascist Nazi regime proclaimed the collective subjectivity of its leaders as intrinsic objectivity. I’m specifically referring to art at this time, but if you think about it, they did this with everything, including their definition of human rights and the lack thereof. Which I could consider objectively abhorrent. 

When it came to art, they would declare anything they didn’t like “degenerate art”. They even held a large exhibition of this art. When I first heard this, I found it rather contradictory that they would put all the art they didn’t like on display. Their intention was for the German people to be shocked and disgusted as they walked through, gawking at all this art they were not supposed to like, and perhaps in contrast decide that the art their leaders were advocating was indeed objectively “good”. On the outside, I’m sure there was no other option than to tow the party line, but I would wager a good deal of them did not feel that way on the inside. 

In their typical hypocritical fashion, the Nazis would steal this so-called “degenerate art” if they could, confiscate it, or buy it at a grossly reduced price and then sell it on to dealers around the world to put money in their coffers. The silver lining: some of these great artworks survived the war simply because they were unwanted by the masses at the time. But it is important to remember that not only were many artworks lost in the war (wanted or otherwise), but most of these systematic looters were never incarcerated and left to continue working in the art world after the war. 

To me, this is the most extreme example of the masses believing their interpretation of what is wanted and unwanted as true objectivity. It puts into perspective how delusional it is to think that certain things will ever be established as intrinsically beautiful. And it shows how dangerous it can be not to challenge the status quo.

This debate can be expanded to other art forms.

I think of a lyric from Faith Hill’s 1993 hit “Wild One”: “She likes rock’n’roll, they think it’s Satan’s tongue”. The song is about the teenager's desire to be free from her confines and strike out on her own. But this one line in the song so perfectly puts into perspective the nature of what one finds beautiful. To her parents, the sound of the music their daughter was listening to was so distasteful that they called it “Satan’s tongue”. This is but one example of the gap between the two generations’ collective subjectivity. She thought it was great, but her parents despised it. Now this fictional “wild one” is likely a mother herself with a teenager listening to music that she doesn’t like. 

In the movie “Immortal Beloved” about Ludwig van Beethoven, there is a scene where a woman faints while listening to his “provocative” music. While this depiction is almost certainly fiction, it is widely agreed that Beethoven was pushing the boundaries of the forms and structures of the contemporary music styles, and particularly in his later years, broke all the rules of composition to express himself through his music. Women may not have swooned, but the masses most certainly would never have heard anything like it. (It is sad to think that Beethoven never got to hear his own later works due to his loss of hearing. But it makes his work that much more impressive and inspiring.) In his own time, Beethoven’s music was operating on the edge of what was considered modern. As time passes, his “new” style is moved to “contemporary” and over the centuries is grouped in with the “classical” style. Beethoven’s music never changed. What changed over time was the masses' collective subjective opinion of the music. 

I may not be an expert to engage in such a philosophical debate. There are academics galore who can run circles around me in this regard. But art makes me think. Viewing life through the lens of art gives one a unique perspective. Art loosens our grip on what we tend to think of as “absolutes”. It shows us that not everyone thinks the same. It allows us to form our own opinions, to choose to follow the masses or not. To decide for ourselves what we think is beautiful. And to know that just because the majority today has decided that someone is a “master” of their craft and worthy of study, does not make it inherently so.

Saying “I’m no Michelangelo” would imply that Michelangelo’s work is objectively masterful when, in fact, it is simply considered good by the collective subjectivity at this time. Personally, I happen to think that Michelangelo’s work is masterful. But as I make this choice for myself, I am aware that I am choosing to join the collective subjectivity of this age - and also grateful that I have the opportunity to educate myself on these subjects, and freedom to do so. I will never take that for granted.