Personal Economy

How high society aesthetes must detest Barbara Herrnstein Smith. To propose that art has no inherent value seems to be a type of heresy in such circles. Herrnstein Smith proposes that "all definitions of art and all evaluations of specific "artworks" depend on a complex set of changing variables" (1910).

I believe that Hernnsetin Smith's argument resides within the confines of a larger argument. Questions of cultural relevance seem important here. How much are we affected by our culture? Does our culture make us who we are? It all comes back to the all important (and elusive) question of Nature vs. Nurture.

To say that there is an intrinsic value to art simultaneously seems like commonsense and silliness. Don't we all appreciate the works of Da Vinci, or Michelangelo, or Van Gogh? If our appreciation of art is not intrinsic then why are there "classic" works of art?

It seems to me that Herrnstein Smith argues for the "Nurture" side of things. We are conditioned by our surroundings and this builds our "personal economy" (1914). Our experiences with the world and with our culture shape who we are and what value we assign to things. We are told that Michelangelo and Da Vinci are the greats. from the get-go we are taught to assume that their art is some of the best. No child would go to a museum pick out a painting by either artist and assert that it had the most value of all the art in the museum. Though we like to think that we are autonomous, we are clearly possessed by our own personal economies.

This is where things get dicey. In terms of the canon (of great works of literature) we tend to assume that writers like Shakespeare are and have always been the greatest. But why? Here is where I think we are in danger of being blinded to just how much culture shapes our way of thinking. We have been taught to read Shakespeare's works through the lens of greatness. And how else can you view something then? It must be great. This almost seems to hinder the literary world though. Because everything must be weighed and measure against the greats. If a work has no echoes of Shakespeare or his greatness, then its value is diminished slightly. Our personal economies eat away somewhat at the value to be placed in individuality and creativity. One cannot deviate too much, for fear of alienating oneself from the canon.

So then , is there any way to set aside one's personal economy just long enough to objectively look at a new work?