Introduction
From the objectivist viewpoint of art, Martin Gardner gives an opposite approach. One that should be thought through and contemplated. His existing claim, which comes from a belief that the thing that makes people’ Art’ is an object’s intrinsic qualities rather than a subjective one, goes against the idea that certain qualities make an object ‘Art.’
Body
Gardner expressed objectivist theory, saying art can be recognized by its objective features (Steven, 2011). The implication particularly suggests that it is not only an artist or a society that evaluates and comprehends the meaning of an artwork. To fully grasp Gardner’s theory, one must understand its foundation of aesthetic trends based on intrinsic partiality, not subjective taste. The objectivist view states that the sense of these dimensions – harmony, complexity, profundity – and not just that personal or cultural prejudices be the base of an aesthetic appreciation.
For example, the ‘Mona Lisa,’ painted by Leonardo da Vinci, forms part of Gardner’s theory. The painting shares the typical features of a piece of art, including compositional balance, the expression through her unresolved smile, and also its historical significance. These elements unite listeners from around the world, and accordingly, they fit the concept of a cooperative society as proposed by Gardner’s objectivism.
Also, there are some radical comments about it. The drawback is that this plan may prove too strict and must be adapted for developed and developing countries to ensure effectiveness. After all, ‘universal standards’ could be offending stories that may have great significance for a given culture or a person simply because they do not fit a particular set of criteria. Occasionally, we limit ourselves by only sticking to the objective criteria if we do not appreciate all kinds of artistic expressions.
According to Gardner’s standpoint about the absolutism of art, he points out that what attributes art from being called an artifact or an art object is a specific universal criterion, which is its base separator. This perspective work not only describes the intrinsic qualities of an art piece but also makes a universal claim and can be used by both art lovers and critics to evaluate artworks (Steven, 2011). An attempt to introduce a level of objectivity into the area primarily perceived as of a subjective nature is a goal the theory strives at. In this domain, “art” appreciation is not simply synthetic or dictated by the cultural influence of an individual. Instead, it arises from evaluating artistic works that are acknowledged on objective grounds. This approach is based on the philosophy that art-related activities and studies should be based on universally accepted theory; the world can have one evaluation system for different art forms, thus transcending individual and cultural differences.
Whereas, one could examine a contemporary art object, namely, Yayoi Kusama’s “Infinity Mirror Rooms” that, as per Gardner’s objective view, might be assessed as a use of space, light, and reflective surfaces to produce an immersive world (Steven, 2011). The harmony underpinned by simple and repetitive patterns and the ultimate experience it offers would grant the flute playing the title of a piece of art from Gardner’s perspective. Nonetheless, this view seems narrow considering the art that is culturally significant or has some [customized] relation to the particular individual. For example, indigenous art forms, which may not represent the classical ideals of harmony or richness and complexity but instead carry cultural practices and narratives, could be underappreciated and almost undermined by the dominant global culture. Gardner’s theory might face challenges, as it can undervalue the role of cultural diversity and personal experience in applying values in interpreting art.
However, the subjective interpretation many adopt does not rule out the objectivist view, which provides the universal grounds for evaluating art. Moreover, by narrowing down one’s assessment of what art is, the subjective view may happen by chance to discover the objective criteria that are the foundation of all people’s perceptions of creative activity. It represents the threats of a one-sided focus, which concentrates on only one element of art, its inherent qualities, but omits subjective experiences. In its purest form, this artist is a live interchange to bring the creator, the creation, and the viewer into play, where each participant brings their separate viewpoints on the piece. Fair as the principle of objective standards may be, they can never be more than a basis for assimilation and perception of art. They should never suppress the individual and the personal pleasure art provokes.
Conclusion
Lastly, I join Gardner’s subjective point of view. However, I also find it necessary to argue for an inclusive approach to art definition. Why does the concept of art overlap objective and subjective aspects, and the subject that defines the person’s culture is within the central part of the given concept? It involves that view that observes different and interdependent artistic expressions and takes time to cognize that. However, the objectivity Gardner is pursuing offers his theory an incomplete perspective. The subjective experience of each individual determines whether a work of art is good or bad: the theory cannot help but be deprived of this part.
Topic B: Locke’s View of Human Nature.
The Introduction, A critical position between John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, consequently informs their political theories in connection with their concepts on human nature. This exploration aims to dissect their concepts formed as Vaughn, whose “Philosophy Here and Now” is used in this case, says. Selected excerpts from their works will be used.
Body
Locke is an innate optimist person. What he says about human nature is well explained as an optimist. For him, the people’s fundamental decency and logical aptitude are always at the core. With Locke, a being in the state of nature is liberated and equal. As stated in Vaughn’s book, the whole nation has equal rights. They inherit the natural rights they are entitled to, such as life, liberty, and property (Arthur, 1991). Locke’s confident attitude about human nature is displayed in his notion of the social agreement, that is the contract of the people to strengthen the governments that will be able to defend their natural rights, rights that have been established.
On the contrary, Locke and Hobbes were very determined in their theories for society and governance, which helped differentiate them in their stances: optimistic and pessimistic. Locke’s theory forms the basis of many democratic principles that are prevalent today, where rights, equality, and the necessity of the social contract are highly valued to have a just society. Contrary to Hobbes, his perception’s emphasis leads to the belief that autocratic rule, where authority and peace are first, is necessary.
Locke’s concept is more reasonable, and it is particularly relevant even today. Liberalism, in its aspect, which considers an individual’s natural rights and the view that government serves the society, reminds modern democratic beliefs( Arthur, 1991). The likelihood that humankind can use their cumulative intelligence and coexist in amity inspires and puts forth a more productive and positive model for societal development. By emphasizing the critical elements of human nature, including the need for social structure enforced by laws, Hobbes’ theory on building societies is a very stubborn view that is rather dystopic in the eyes of modern society. With Locke’s approach, we can develop a more united and joyful model that celebrates individuality and the need for order and stability. Locke primarily realizes the complexity of human nature and strives to apply a system of government that not only deals with the concept but, more importantly, promotes the collectiveness of efforts to improve these communities’ livelihoods.
Thomas Hobbes is the author of a more despicable book on the nature of people. Hobbes’ main contention has been that humans are born in a state of war. Hobbes, who saw human life in the state of nature as ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,’ believes humans are jealous of their nature and might cause strife and chaos. Therefore, Hobbes infers that a strong sovereign is needed to maintain peace and order.
Contrary to Locke, who believes that human beings are capable of governing themselves and cooperating, Hobbes asserts that it is essential for a strong and authoritarian ruler to limit the self-seeking habits of individuals. This essential distinction between them, in their belief about the type and nature of human beings, provides them with the various possibilities of setting the best form of government.
Conclusion
I feel more persuaded by Locke than Hobbes. His outlook of optimism is in harmony with the concept of democracy – that people can make an overall reasonable judgment and manage themselves without any outside interference. Locke’s theory is built on the presupposition of human benevolence and intends to formulate a system of government that would care for human decency and independence. While there are certain occasions when Hobbes’ concept is fit, I believe its effectiveness is solely relevant to the times of anarchy and chaos. On the other hand, Locke suggests a long-term and more humane way of governing the society.
REFERENCES
David Miller, Political Philosophy: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003). A concise introduction to the concepts and issues of political philosophy.
John Arthur and William Shaw, eds., Justice and Economic Distribution (Upper et al.: Prentice Hall, 1991). A collection of writings on justice.
Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia (New York: Basic Books, 1974). It is a classic work of political philosophy defending a form of libertarianism. Top of Form
Samuel Fleishacker, A Short History of Distributive Justice (Boston: Harvard University Press, 2005). An overview of the development of significant perspectives on justice.
Steven M. Cahn, ed., Political Philosophy: The Essentials (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011). A collection of the most critical readings.
write