Can we measure music objectively or not?
That was the question in my mind when I started The JP Notes. I wrote about it briefly in one of my first posts. At the time, I didn’t have a clear answer. I think I do now, or at least the start of a suitable response.
First, I need to make the question clear. In The Abolition of Man, C.S. Lewis addresses a claim made in an English textbook that amounts to this: ‘When someone says that a thing is good, they only mean that they approve of that thing, not that the thing has any inherent goodness.’ When we find that we like a song, we often say, “This is a good song.” Most of us don’t go through an analysis of the song and its merits and then deem it “good.” We hear it. We like it. We call it good. Perhaps that’s the extent of a song’s worth.
But this claim poses a large problem. Let’s say Jimmy Page and I are in the same room and we both have guitars. We take turns playing our guitars. I have little to no experience with guitars, and I am not a savant. Wouldn’t anyone say that Page is producing better music than I? I should hope so. Page has worked hard to play the guitar that well. It would be an insult to his life’s work to say what I produced was of the same quality.
Still, I think some would answer that it can be equal in value, as long as someone liked it as much as they liked Jimmy Page’s music. A few years ago, I would have said that’s absurd. Obviously Page’s music is better than mine because he is a more skilled guitar player. Now I must admit that skill is not the sole measure of value in music, but neither is subjective approval. Part of the beauty of art is that there is no one sole conveyor of meaning (at least not on earth). The full value of art is something both subject and objective.
The best example I can think of to express this idea is that of a child’s drawing. Several years ago, my sister drew a family portrait on a piece of cardboard. It’s a typical stick figure design, and to anyone outside the family, it wouldn’t be anything special. However, it means a great deal to me. Attached to it are memories and emotions that are specific to me and my experiences. But I would never say that at the time she was a better artist than Michelangelo. Her drawing isn’t of the same quality as the ceiling of Sistine Chapel. Objectively, its value is less than the cardboard it’s drawn on. Subjectively, it is priceless.
What is even more magnificent about art is that objective and subjective values are not at odds. These different values have a relationship with one another. If my sister were to draw me a family portrait today, it would be of higher quality and (hopefully) the result of greater effort. The improvement in quality would be delightful for two reasons. First, everyone enjoys seeing something of better quality. Second, I enjoy seeing my younger sister improve her skills. The improvement between pictures is the source of both subjective and objective gains in value.
In my opinion, one of the most incredible things about art is that it’s a facet of our lives in which our subjective valuations mean something in tandem with the objective worth of the object. Anything can be worth something to someone, but good things remain good in and of themselves.
The implications of this are great. It means art can get better but still come in different styles and genres. It means the worth of art can increase when we learn more about it. It means that we can use art to help form our own identities. It means we can find meaning in things that might otherwise be worthless. It opens the way for everything we know and appreciate about art.
Is the measure of art objective or subjective? Yes, and thank God it is.
Let me know what you think. Do you agree with me? Or do you think I’m missing something? I’m looking forward to your responses and song suggestions.
Thanks for reading!