Art and aesthetics have been contemporarily known and researched by philosophers such as Aristotle over the years. Beauty can either be subjective or objective. Objectivists argue that there is a criterion for establishing the aesthetic value of art. In contrast, subjectivists say that all requirements and opinions concerning the beauty and aesthetics of art are subjective. One renowned objectivist is Martin Gardener, who is well known for his objectivist view of the art of endurance. This essay seeks to explore further the objectivist theory of the art of Martin Gardener, the strengths and weaknesses of his approach, and offer our personal opinion on the approach.
Martin Gardener is a well-known art objectivist who argued that the durability of a work of art served as the standard for its aesthetics or objective beauty. This theory is still quite persuasive and helpful for evaluating earlier art pieces, even if it is rarely relevant to the more recent ones. Gardener argued that people, although different, are of similar species with similar needs. Thus, their views on art differ depending on their needs (Vaughn, p. 39). According to Gardner, an artwork’s enduring popularity and relevance over time serve as objective criteria for evaluating its aesthetic value. He suggests that if a piece of art continues to provide aesthetic pleasure to a broad audience across extended periods, it likely has more objective aesthetic value.
Gardener’s theory is straightforward, such that it can be described as a precise measurement of the aesthetic value of art, overlooking human preferences and opinions. This theory thus provides a tangible measure of the importance of artworks. Although the approach is a substantial measure of art, it creates difficulties when applying it to newer works of art. According to Gardener’s endurance criterion, one should wait and see if contemporary art withstands the test of time (Vaughn, p 39). He needs to specify the time to term the art as enduring, thus making the criterion vague and less helpful in evaluating recent creations.
To illustrate Gardener’s objectivism, the Parthenon can be used as an example. The Parthenon is an ancient Greek temple found in Athens that was initially dedicated to the city’s patron goddess. Gardener states, “the common human nature,” which means that the optical nerves of individuals work similarly, and one might take this similarity as a beautiful impression (Vaughn pp39). This phenomenon of the Gardener is similar to the arrangement of the Parthenon of Greece, which was built to give geometrical perfection in how its columns align to accommodate how people look at it. According to Gardener, the temple can be described as a work of art as it passes the endurance test and is viewed as an aesthetic masterpiece to date.
To conclude, I agree with Gardener’s objectivist theory as it applies to older works of art based on Gardener’s simplicity and clarity in his theory of art. In addition, Gardener argues that people have different needs. However, they are of a similar species; thus, the typical aesthetics of art will manifest in the enduring property of art and are possible. Gardener’s premise of endurance of craft, although vague and inapplicable to the works of art, is a valuable method of evaluating art over time, as shown by the example of the Parthenon (Vaughn, p 39). In addition, the temple aligns with the statement by Gardener that human eyesight nerves are aligned universally, thus creating the impression of aesthetics and perfection.
Works Cited
Vaughn, Lewis. Philosophy Here and Now: Powerful Ideas in Everyday Life, International. OUP USA, 2021.
write