Nikki asked:

Mind boggling questions for me...

Here goes. "The public affects taste, theory, and artistic outlook in literature, music, and drama, even
though courtly elites hang on somewhat desperately in each field. The same has never been true in
art. The public...are merely tourists, autography seekers, gawkers, parade watchers, so far as the
game of Success in Art is concerned" Wolfe (26-27).

My question is that I have to pick two aestheticians and argue why they think this idea is wrong or
why it is right. Does the public really have a say in art? or are they simply bystanders?

I'm afraid that this is mind-boggling for me too. As far as I know, no-one argues specifically against
the view put forward in the quote, probably because it is not clear what it means since it raises so
many issues. I suppose by "art" Wolfe means pictorial art, but you can distinguish
literature/music/drama which we take to be art in the sense that it has aesthetic value from that we
take to be pure entertainment. Do look at my recent answer to Lima on Answers 13 on the difference
between taste and aesthetic value. If the distinction made there is correct, the public don't have a say
in determining which works have aesthetic value based on their taste: Taste is distinct from what
people find valuable and to this extent the public are gawkers whatever the art-form. I don't see why
pictorial art should differ. There is still valuable art and popular art.

Wolfe claims theory as well as taste determines the body of art which is literature, music and drama.
Does literary theory have a say, or is it the critic, who combines a knowledge of theory with personal
taste? This view is put forward by Hume in On Standards of Taste a paper to be found in Essays,
Moral, Political and Literary,but Hume doesn't distinguish between art forms. The idea that it is the
critic whose knowledge and taste defines what art is disputes Wolfe because the critic is distinct from
the general public. He is the person the public look to as someone who knows.

It has been argued that valuable art should stand the test of time. For this approach to artistic value,
see The Test of Timeby Antony Savile. Savile argues that part of what makes a work valuable is that
it possesses qualities which make it worthy of being appreciated over a period of time. This can be
used against Wolfe, since it is not taste or theory, but quality which makes a work successful and this
can again be held to apply to all art-forms.

Rachel Browne