I think there is an objective component to art. For example, I think it is objectively demonstrable that The Da Vinci Code is a bad a book. But, while I think Whitman is a greater poet than Donald Hall, I still think that Donald Hall is a very good poet. Is this objectively demonstrable? I think it may well be.
At any rate, I don't believe in pure objectivity, which I take to mean the phenomenal world considered as it would be were there no one to observe it (das Ding an sich, etc.). I think that is a fantasy. Knowledge is the interaction of observer and observed.
So, which Mr. Dan Schneider is trying to bolster his ego? I'm so confused. -blue
ReplyDelete