Duchamp may have been pointing out that labels do not define the essence of something. I don't know much about that work, but it doesn't sound like an indictment of relativism, but an indictment of wankery in general. Calling it art doesn't make it art in spite of the viewer's judgment that it's just stupid or mean.
Relativism is less about saying that everything is art and can't be judged and more about saying that individuals have perfectly reasonable and very real differences of opinion about what they find to be good art. Roger seems to think this will lead to hell. Actually, I think it leads to variety (or markets, if you will). You might not think magic eye 3D posters are art, or even bad art, but there are people who do find them beautiful who aren't just pretending so they can feel cool. They consume and admire the stuff. I wouldn't defend anyone who says that a specific work is always art and you can't judge it. Sure you can. I think most art is rubbish. You just can't get away with saying "no one can think this is art because I don't." That's proper relativism in my mind.
Where I agree with Roger is that I think he's railing against the habit of dumb people to institutionalize relativism as if relativism itself is right--it can't be by definition. (Reminds me of discussing anti-realism in metaphysics. Anti-realism says that there are no objective truths. Oh, you mean like that one in the previous sentence? Nice try.). If a professor says "this is art and you can't say it's not because of relativism," that professor is being a hypocrite as Roger points out. They are violating their own principle. The correct relativist stance would be to say "I think this is art. Tell me why you disagree." Where does society come in? Pragmatically, if 75% of people think it's not art, then we're going to collectively treat it as if it isn't art. The other 25% are wrong in context, but they're still allowed to enjoy it for themselves. In education, you should teach people to produce what others value or find moving. Anyone who wants to focus on their version of art that no one else cares for is free to waste their degree money and they should be allowed to fail if they don't follow the curriculum--they just aren't intended for that school/approach.
Anyone who tells me I can't be moved by something that moves me because they don't think it's art (or society doesn't think it's art, or whatever) can shove off. If it moves me, it moves me.
All Comments
Relativism is less about saying that everything is art and can't be judged and more about saying that individuals have perfectly reasonable and very real differences of opinion about what they find to be good art. Roger seems to think this will lead to hell. Actually, I think it leads to variety (or markets, if you will). You might not think magic eye 3D posters are art, or even bad art, but there are people who do find them beautiful who aren't just pretending so they can feel cool. They consume and admire the stuff. I wouldn't defend anyone who says that a specific work is always art and you can't judge it. Sure you can. I think most art is rubbish. You just can't get away with saying "no one can think this is art because I don't." That's proper relativism in my mind.
Where I agree with Roger is that I think he's railing against the habit of dumb people to institutionalize relativism as if relativism itself is right--it can't be by definition. (Reminds me of discussing anti-realism in metaphysics. Anti-realism says that there are no objective truths. Oh, you mean like that one in the previous sentence? Nice try.). If a professor says "this is art and you can't say it's not because of relativism," that professor is being a hypocrite as Roger points out. They are violating their own principle. The correct relativist stance would be to say "I think this is art. Tell me why you disagree." Where does society come in? Pragmatically, if 75% of people think it's not art, then we're going to collectively treat it as if it isn't art. The other 25% are wrong in context, but they're still allowed to enjoy it for themselves. In education, you should teach people to produce what others value or find moving. Anyone who wants to focus on their version of art that no one else cares for is free to waste their degree money and they should be allowed to fail if they don't follow the curriculum--they just aren't intended for that school/approach.
Anyone who tells me I can't be moved by something that moves me because they don't think it's art (or society doesn't think it's art, or whatever) can shove off. If it moves me, it moves me.