Introduction
Scholars have discussed the most difficult aesthetic topic since Aristotle’s Day. The former believes that objective standards exist for judging the aesthetic worth of craftsmanship, whereas the latter believes that all perfection assessments are subjective. Martin Gardner was an outspoken supporter of the objectivist concept, stating that perseverance was the key to excellent handicraft excellence. While this method is not particularly applicable to more modern masterpieces, it is convincing and compelling when selecting more well-known ones.
Gardner’s Objectivism Approach
Gardner’s main argument for an objectivist approach to art is that, despite their differences, people share comparable animal groups and have similar needs. As the designer put it, people “have a typical human inclination, with normal necessities,” as the designer put it, which most likely includes fashionable ones (Vaughn, 2019). As a result, relying on a generally satisfactory level of the public, one can consider art to be very stylishly essential.
Therefore, the primary principles of objectivism include reality in its absolute form and knowledge, which is the ability of an individual to reason while making choices (Vaughn, 2019). On the other hand, objectivism involves intolerance since its principles are rules that do not allow exceptions and imply an exact representation of a culture. For instance, a war should be represented in the precise situation and culture and advocating for realism in addressing social issues.
The best method to figure it out, according to Gardner, is to look at how long a piece of art has lasted. Art is characterized as objective when it presents aesthetic meaning to the public over time. As a result, Gardner’s ultimate criterion for evaluating art, as an objectivist, is its continuing popularity and significance. Therefore, objectivism allows art to develop accurate works that depict a moral problem in society (Vaughn, 2019). It also contributes to the quality of artwork by enabling the artist to choose the right type of audience for their works.
The theory has its critics on practical applicability by the audience. Objectivism mainly focuses on open-ended concepts (Vaughn, 2019). An audience can express their reaction to a piece of art, thus involving past, present, and future interpretations of an artwork. Therefore, objectivist does not adopt analytic-synthetic distinction and denies the possibility of prior information.
Application of Objectivism Approach the Parthenon
The Parthenon is an artwork that represents Gardner’s objectivism, an ancient Greek sanctuary in Athens devoted to the city’s patron goddess. By organizing its different components to meet the numerous ways people look at it (Jacobus & Martin, 2018), the goal of the sanctuary was to provide the idea of mathematical perfection.
This method is comparable to Gardner’s “natural human instinct”: people’s optical nerves act in a similar way, and one can use this similarity to create the illusion of grandeur (Vaughn, 2019). People regard the Parthenon as a show stopper in terms of design because it is almost two centuries old, but it also completes the assessment of durability. Gardner would surely structure the Parthenon in this fashion as a work of art and an important one at that.
Strengths and Weakness of Gardner’s Approach
This point of view on art has both benefits and drawbacks. The simplicity and clarity of this strategy are apparent advantages. Beyond the supply of individual loving care, Gardner offers a straightforward and practical method for judging the aesthetic value of craftsmanship and “to recognize War and Peace and the earlier piece” (Vaughn, 2019). The strategy allows an audience to contemplate the ongoing conflicts within the society and their impact, such as environmental, economic, and political (Jacobus & Martin, 2018). Gardner’s objectivism has problems in terms of practical applicability; as the passage of time may favor perseverance, this becomes difficult for the audience to distinguish between reality and fantasy.
Regardless, it implies that there is no standard for evaluating newer forms of beauty, as one can judge whether they withstand everyday adversity. Furthermore, the inventor does not specify what constitutes a particular time that allows artists to be labeled as persisting. Gardner’s objectivist hypothesis is relevant to older masterpieces, but of little service to contemporary craftsmanship, due to this mix of strengths and flaws (Vaughn, 2019). Generally, the objectivist approach to art has a critical role in understanding and relating to other individuals’ cultures; it is an opportunity for artists to express their culture through their works.
Conclusion
To recapitulate, as long as Gardner’s objectivist premise of craftsmanship applies to more established fine arts, one can agree with him. It provides a sound justification and permits earlier works to be recognized. Gardner’s core thesis is that individuals have an essential nature and needs and that basic principles of grandeur are conceivable and likely to emerge in suffering masterpieces as a result.
The Parthenon, depicted above, exemplifies the benefits of the objectivist approach since the sanctuary uses the fundamental shared properties of human eyesight to create the illusion of symmetric flawlessness (Jacobus & Martin, 2018). The perseverance concept is unclear and only marginally relevant to modern craftsmanship. Regardless of these limitations, Gardner’s objectivism is a genuinely appealing technique for evaluating artists.
References
Jacobus, L., & Martin, F. D. (2018). Humanities Through the Arts (10th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
Vaughn, L. (2019). The philosophy here and now: Powerful Ideas in Everyday Life (3rd ed.). Oxford UP.