I have been wanting to write a post on this subject for a while, but I have not been able to bring myself to do it for various reasons. But, thanks to a recent story from CNN, I have the perfect example to use to make a post about this subject.
CNN reported a few days ago that a famous painting of Jesus Christ, known as "Ecce Homo" (Latin for "behold the man"), underwent a restoration from it's deteriorated state in a church in Spain. Below is the picture of the original painting, it's deteriorated state, and it's "restoration"
CNN reported a few days ago that a famous painting of Jesus Christ, known as "Ecce Homo" (Latin for "behold the man"), underwent a restoration from it's deteriorated state in a church in Spain. Below is the picture of the original painting, it's deteriorated state, and it's "restoration"
Did you laugh at the restoration? It's okay if you did - I know I laughed at it. It's goofy and bizarre. But, I want to use this to raise a point about art: is art subjective, or are there objective standards to art?
I want to posit that if art is truly a subjective enterprise, then the restoration on the right could be considered just as much a masterpiece (in the eyes of the parishioner who restored it) as the original painting itself. But does that idea not seem ludicrous? Compared to the original painting, the restoration is hideous. The original painting shows skill and expertise, while the restoration does not. But if quality art is determined subjectively, then the only grounds to say that the original is better than the restoration is based on my own personal preferences.
I don't think anyone would be willing to say that the restoration is a better piece of art than the original. But, what is that claim grounded in? It is a futile claim to ground it in my subjective evaluation of art. I think this situation showcases a point that has subtly been lost in our relativistic society - there are objective standards to good art, and art is not a fully subjective enterprise. "Standards" is a dirty word in this society, but we affirm the idea of objective standards in that this restoration is a failed one - we are crying foul because this restoration attempt failed, and the result looks absolutely nothing like the original. There is implicitly a charge that standards were not met in this case, and this brings to the table a notion that there are objective standards to art.
This post isn't going to make the case for what the standards for art actually are. But, I hope this brief post makes you think - if art has an objective component of accountability, then what could be the implications of this for society? If you have thoughts, sound off below!
