Pluralism and the Comparison of Artistic Value

This talk explores how it is possible to compare different artworks in terms of their artistic value if artistic value is pluralistic. If artistic value were monistic, that is, if artistic value were a single kind of value, it would be clear how to compare artworks: the one with more of that value would be more artistically valuable. However, there is a growing consensus that artistic value is pluralistic. On this view, artistic value consists of multiple components—such as aesthetic value, cognitive value, and creativity—without an overarching value that unifies them. This multi-dimensionality raises a challenge: how can we compare the overall artistic value of works when they excel in different components? For simplicity, suppose artistic value consists of aesthetic value and creativity. What if one work is more aesthetically valuable, while another is more creative? Determining which work is more artistically valuable overall requires comparing aesthetic value to creativity. One way to do this would be to assign weights to these components (e.g., aesthetic value might count twice as much as creativity), but it is unclear where such weights come from within a pluralistic framework without an overarching value. So, how can we compare artistic value in this pluralistic context? I propose an answer: the weights of the components of artistic value are determined by a work’s aim and, thus, vary from work to work.

Moonyoung Song is an assistant professor in the Philosophy Department at the National University of Singapore. Her areas of specialization are aesthetics and the philosophy of art. Before coming to NUS, she received her PhD in Philosophy from the University of Maryland, College Park, and was a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.