1

Can we objectively say that one author is better than another? For example, could we say William Shakespeare is objectively a better author than E.L. James? If it is possible, how would we decide? Bonus points for walking through the example to show that Shakespeare is better than E.L. James.

This question is related to "Is it ever possible to objectively state that a piece of music or film, or a genre, is better, or more artistically valid than another except that I am asking about evaluations of the artist, rather than their product.

This question was motivated by discussion on a post over at Politics.SE.

Community
  • 1
indigochild
  • 149
  • 6
  • Great pick of a contrast, that will work – K Dog Jan 25 '17 at 16:39
  • This is something of a "what is the meaning of life" question. As [SEP](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/beauty/#ObjSub) says on a related subject:"*Perhaps the most familiar basic issue in the theory of beauty is whether beauty is subjective—located ‘in the eye of the beholder’—or whether it is an objective feature of beautiful things. A pure version of either of these positions seems implausible... and many attempts have been made to split the difference or incorporate insights of both*". You'll have to narrow down what you take as "objective" in this context for us to answer. – Conifold Jan 25 '17 at 20:26
  • @Conifold - Is there a way to reframe this that leaves the definition of "objective" open to the answerer? Maybe something like, "Under what circumstances would it be possible to prove that one author is objectively better than another"? – indigochild Jan 25 '17 at 20:29
  • I am afraid it would make it too broad. The issue here is that scientifically objective, mind-independent, etc., would give you a trivial "no". In aesthetics some relaxed notions are entertained, more along the lines of "intersubjective", but it is unclear if you would see anything like that as "objective". Maybe look at the SEP article and try to find a school of thought that is close enough to your intuition, then specify that "better" is meant under it. – Conifold Jan 25 '17 at 20:45
  • 1
    Relevant : [Aesthetic Judgment](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aesthetic-judgment/). – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Jan 25 '17 at 21:13
  • Don't make it in the aesthetic sense but in a moral one – K Dog Jan 26 '17 at 00:40
  • 2
    I presume you've been through a standard education to at least secondary level, so the fact that you're having to ask means the answer is obviously no. If there were a set of objective reasons why Shakespeare were better than any other given author, learning those reasons would be Class 1 of any English Literature course, they're not, so we can safely assume they don't exist. Furthermore, unless we are to presume that Shakespeare was some genetic marvel, then all other authors would simply learn such a list and so all be as good as Shakespeare, in fact books could just be written by software. –  Jan 26 '17 at 07:47
  • Questions like this can be powerful stimuli for power brains. Any answer that does not mention quantity, magnitude and measurement must be considered falling short; these concepts are increasingly useful these days due to the rise of data science. Anyways, do we all agree that it is the the Individual, not the culture circle, that is the ultimate judge? – George Chen Jan 27 '17 at 16:19
  • @Isaacson - My suspicion *is* that this impossible. I have a colleague who thinks that it is possible. I don't think I could put up a great proof that it is impossible, so I posted over here. If it's not possible to do, please post that as an answer. – indigochild Jan 27 '17 at 16:36
  • Another point of expansion is the word "objectively." Einstein has shown that even such simple quantities as length, mass and duration depend on the observer. Any answer that does not begin with a careful scrutiny of what "objectively" means will be considered inadequate. – George Chen Jan 27 '17 at 17:15
  • Perhaps it would help to give your colleague's argument for why it is possible, or perhaps a suggestion on how to make such judgements "objectively", it would give us a better idea of what "objective" means. On the usual understanding of "objective" it is impossible because it is broadly accepted that values are not derivable from facts (see [fact-value distinction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact%E2%80%93value_distinction)), and so there is no "objective" basis for value judgements. – Conifold Jan 27 '17 at 21:51
  • As Conifold says, I don't think I can write my comments up into a meaningful answer without knowing what your colleague's argument is. –  Jan 28 '17 at 08:33
  • If someone can give us an outline of how news feeds are managed on some social media sites, that will be very much appreciated. – George Chen Jan 28 '17 at 18:18

1 Answers1

1

It is possible, at least, to establish a criterion for evaluating relative superiority in artists, for example:

Where x and y range over people, x is a better artist than y if artworks created by x are overall better than artworks created by y.

This criterion may seem dependent on the ability to evaluate artworks, but technically speaking, that is a different question. This question is specifically and narrowly about artists.

n.r.
  • 172
  • 4
  • This is a non-answer. It just changes the question from "evaluating artists" to "evaluating artworks". And even then, it ignores the fact that being a good artist entails more than only producing good art. The idea behind philosophy is to shine a light on things, to tackle the underlying questions and assumptions in the world. In this case, *what do we mean when we say 'artist', or 'art', 'good'? A trivial answer is antithetical to philosophy. – Dan Bron Jan 26 '17 at 12:13
  • No, it doesn't change the question. It elucidates what it is for an artist to be a good artist, namely, to be a good artist it is sufficient to have created good works. Please explain where the triviality is. – n.r. Jan 26 '17 at 12:18
  • The triviality is in avoiding the question. "What makes Bob taller than Joe"? "One human is taller than another if he has more height than the other" (and you'll find, if you read the literature, that "producing superior works" is often not the only thing that "makes a superior artist"; that's a naive view, but we'll leave that aside for now). – Dan Bron Jan 26 '17 at 12:21
  • You're reading too much into the original question. Please don't leave the bat side, and please refute my answer. – n.r. Jan 26 '17 at 12:24
  • You're not reading enough into the original question, because you're not interested in doing philosophy. Which is why this is a non-answer. GOTO 10. – Dan Bron Jan 26 '17 at 12:25
  • Isn't the question how to decide whether an artist is better than another? What am I missing? Now, if *you* are doing philosophy, then you should try to tell me why we can't decide whether an artist is better than another by comparing their works. You should at least try to provide a counterexample. And I still fail to see what is so trivial about my answer. By the way, you definition of being taller is pretty good. – n.r. Jan 26 '17 at 12:39
  • Yes, and you punted that question, saying "the real question is whether the works are better" (again, this is insufficient, but leaving that aside...). So, ok, fine, *how do you evaluate their works*? What is the philosophical value of your answer? Nothing. Nada. It's begging the question, at best. At worst, it's a misdirection. Your answer "isn't even wrong": it's *not an answer*. GOTO 10. – Dan Bron Jan 26 '17 at 12:45
  • How to evaluate artworks is **another** question. And the philosophical value of my answer is that it elucidates what it is for an artist to be a good artist, namely, to have created good works, and what it is for an artist to be better than another artist, namely, to have created works better than the other artist's works. Is either view false? Do you have any counterexamples? – n.r. Jan 26 '17 at 13:03
  • According to you, it is the same question, in fact. Hence your non-answer. And again, your position that "works are all that matters" is naive, and so even if we were to agree to label that the "philosophical content" of your answer (though we will not agree to that), it's thin, misleading content indeed. I do have counterexamples, in fact leading from Shakespeare, the specific person OP asks about, but given our exchange here, I'm concluding discussing it won't be fruitful. You could always do the same yourself, cite philosophical authorities who agree with your position, but you won't. – Dan Bron Jan 26 '17 at 13:08
  • Why is it naive? Please explain. – n.r. Jan 26 '17 at 13:16
  • I edited this answer a bit to cast it in it's best possible light, but I'm still deeply ambivalent about it. It's perfect in form, but useless in practice. In all fairness, however, that could be said about quite a large quantity of respected philosophy --this answer fits quite well within certain analytic traditions. – Chris Sunami Jan 26 '17 at 18:29
  • I think this is a fine answer, and a substantive one. For example, suppose Shakespeare never managed to complete any of his plays. Then he's going to come out as a pretty poor artist on this definition. That's an interesting (and debatable) result! – aduh Jul 12 '21 at 09:04