Wendy Haines
If there’s one thing Immanuel Kant left us with, it’s a
puzzle. Not because he failed to answer his own questions, but because he told
us they were unanswerable in nature. Judgements of taste seem to be objective,
but they clearly aren’t; Judgements of taste seems to be subjective, but they
clearly aren’t. That’s the gist of it, the summary, the most basic
representation of one of the most infamously baffling philosophical texts in
history: Critique of Judgement.
Kant may be only one of hundreds to tackle the question of
taste, but in my opinion he answers it best by saying there is no answer, in a
way. He at least implies that both supposed ‘answers’ are correct in their own
ways, using a concept of collective subjectivity to effectively blend them.
Subjectivity is definitively not collective, yet there must be a reason why he
does not equate this idea with objectivity.
Regardless, my argument here is that promoting a
co-existence of objectivity and subjectivity can put a critic’s mind at rest.
Asserting that our judgement of art is either entirely objective or subjective
may be appealing, particularly in the latter case, but either way it doesn’t
really help us. Total subjectivity is a comforting security blanket – the idea
that your opinion cannot be judged because it is just your opinion. It cannot
be validated or vice versa. If this is true, then I can’t help but question the
point in any sort of criticism. If everything is a matter of opinion, then is
critical acclaim worthless? Suddenly it becomes impossible to accredit anything
with quality of any kind, accept that you like it yourself.
On the reverse side, total objectivity can be a force of
arrogance and elitism. Quality is inherent in a work and personal interaction
with that work changes nothing. Phenomenology means nothing and by extension
even the audience mean nothing, because the truth is above all of us.
These horrific critical dystopias are exactly the reason why
I believe we should respect the paradox. Writing off any part of the judgment
spectrum will only make us paranoid. Let us just be happy in our ignorance and remain
open to either side, making solid judgments or acknowledging personal influence
whenever we deem necessary. A self-doubting
or arrogant critic will only worsen the crisis in criticism – what are
we for?
