Eddie, Lyotard

Jean-Francois Lyotard shares with us the idea of art being incompatible with our modern scientific approach towards the world. He states that art functions because it “enables us to see only by making it impossible to see” and logical studies of art would limit the creative mind.

That is, with his idea of “negative presentation,” nothing shown on the paper or canvas itself is capable of being beautiful in a true artistic sense. He also believes that artistic beauty itself should not be broken down into smaller logical components which are then studied and described in a scholarly, disciplined sense. If we think about it, is it not conceivable that the rigid, objective theories of art still require a degree of human interpretation and subjectivity? If art could be understood in truly objective elements, one could theoretically make computer software that rates the beauty of art on a numeric scale, but such a notion is obviously ridiculous. It hints that structure, system and scientific objectivity is being fitted onto something that is (at least partly) subjective by nature.
Mathematics is an example of a perfectly objective discipline. All questions give definite answers and results can be replicated regardless of mood, sex or cultural background. What the person feels is irrelevant to the computation, and it is with such removal from human subjectivity that orderly progress and the build-up of experience can be allowed the field.

But is it, thus, true that the subjective art must be removed from similar methods of study, dissection and classification? The artistic scholar disassembles a piece of work by looking for patterns and clues which agree with artistic theories, and while this may seem like superimposing order onto unique products of unique minds and social backgrounds, we must keep in mind the purposes of such explorations and the extent in which such efforts define a piece of work. Artistic scholars and aspiring artists need to learn how to see art in a non-arbitrary sense which can be communicated through peers. If such a structured study of art is labeled a hindrance and its authority is denied, what we are left with is a pool of arbitrary values and views concerning art. We are left with self-proclaimed artists and with no way of agreeing on who is the truly talented and who is the Billy Bob Joe that has no idea what he is doing. When no one is an expert, everyone is an expert. My opinions are just as valid as yours or any predecessors, and there can be no hope of any useful precipitation of knowledge and experience.

Sure, it is stated above that art holds with it a level of subjectivity, but it also defines that there is also a degree of objectivity too. If art is the specific set of decisions based on style by an artist in face of a multitude of options, then there must be some rhyme or reason governing how the art comes to be. Theories provide us with a useful approach to art and allow us to get closer to the work. Yet science does not penetrate art as thoroughly as it does with math. There will always be a fair amount of artistic subjectivity that is untamable and keeps each great artwork unique. Radical beliefs such as to remove art completely from disciplined studies simply will not free art, but would rather bring about the destruction of the “artist,” granting the same level of prestige and authority to every man woman and child, which may very well be against Lyotard’s wishes.