We're at odds here, of course.

But if we're in agreement, doesn't that indicate at least a modicum of objectivity? 

If we're just counting minutes, then I've paid far more attention to Big Bang Theory than to Milton as well. But I'm not sure that should have anything to do with our judgment of either.

Which is sort of my point: the fallacy of relativism. 

Fair point. But I think the people component is only a very small part. I understand that particular criterion—not my own idea, of course—as relating more to influence than to public popularity.

Except, as I point out in #115 above, the first step is to remove yourself from the criteria.

Your honesty is refreshing. I'm just as arrogant.

I'd love if others were to chime in with objective criteria, but for now, I'll start with one: Is the work in question greater than its absence? If the answer is yes, there's a good chance it's art. If no, it's probably not.

Did your grandmother dismiss the Bach organ pieces outright? Or did she just not prefer them to his other works while perhaps recognizing their genius? For instance, I'm not a huge fan of Rachmaninoff, but for me to suggest that his oeuvre wasn't a tremendous artistic achievement would be the height of arrogance, it seems to me.

I think the first step is to remove ourselves from the equation. Recognizing artistic merit has little to do with our own personal tastes. I'm with your brother re Reich; with you re Glass—but both composers have exhibited artistic genius. (Glass less so, I believe, but still.) 

Relativism is an intellectual dead end. If art is relative, there's absolutely nothing to prevent me from saying a pre-schooler's finger painting is equal to a work of Van Gogh's, or that my poor attempts at fiction are the equivalent of a Raymond Carver short story. But it should be obvious that that's nonsense. It follows, then, that there must be some sort of objective criteria by which these things are judged.

Right?

Sorry for the dismissive tone of my last couple of remarks, Stephen. I'll see if I can frame a response to your question—it'll just have to wait until later this morning. But before I try, why not at least look into Kramer, Scruton, et al.? It's a big question you've asked—one that thinkers have wrestled with for hundreds of years. It surely deserves more than just a response from a hack like me on an online discussion group…

In 200 words? Sorry. To the suggestions of Crow's Nest above, I'd also add anything by Hilton Kramer. And I'll second Barbara Kidder's Spengler quote. You're already halfway there; the only problem is you've come under the spell of "I'm okay; you're okay." So ask yourself why you and I have come to the same conclusions. Is it nothing more than shared taste? I don't think so.

Not sure how I can make my position clearer, given that I've said pretty much the opposite. Oh well.

To suggest that there can be no objective standards whatsoever in the judgment of art is relativism, pure and simple. Even the most "tolerant" of critics has to agree on that. I'm not denying anyone's right to their opinions. But that certainly doesn't make those opinions valid. 

Yes—I clearly read too much into it. Your summary is spot-on.

So does porn have merit? It's pretty popular. 

I think you're mostly right. But what if someone's taste says that, say, Lady Gaga is better than Bach—something that is objectively false. (I know, I know, there will be a lot of folks who shriek at the thought of making an objective claim about art, but I'm doing it anyway.) Is it really about taste, then?

Yes! And Grateful Dead, and Miles Davis, and Johnny Cash…

(Sigh.) No, that's not at all what I'm saying. I like some things that are popular; I like some things that aren't. This has nothing to do with me. What I'm saying—again—is that popularity doesn't necessarily translate to merit or value. It simply means…wait for it…that it's popular (!).

The "herd mentality" comment has to do with political persuasions, not intelligence.