This is overly dismissive - why not attack the ideas directly?
I find these ideas overly reductive since the essay presupposes that art should be judged in a vacuum outside of it's societal context, as if that's somehow more objective. The emotional impact of the art (PG's stated objective function to maximize) cannot be pulled out of its context. Said differently, the emotional impact of a piece of art often leans heavily on the story of the artist. PG seems to argue against this, but unconvincingly.
Yes, I am dismissing his contribution - because it's amateurish. I also don't encourage the local nursery to contribute their kids' paintings to the Met. Ironically, his article contributes to his argument that there is such a thing as objective taste if you root it primarily in the skill of the artist.
I'm no art critic or aesthetician, but here's some random issues that I noticed while reading:
- he has failed to separate skill from aesthetic taste. He describes taste as obviously real because some artists are better than others when this is a description of skill not taste; nobody denies the existence of painterly skill.
- his entire argument rests on comparing a child's drawing to a work by Da Vinci. Taste comes into play when you compare artists of comparable skill. Is it Good Taste to prefer Da Vinci to Lichtenstein? To Vermeer, or Van Gogh, or Picasso or whoever? The main arguments you can lean on here are from authority (such-and-such is popular with the galleries/critics, exhibits traits I was taught to look for in class) or from personal analysis/appreciation. He touches on the argument from authority but just hand-waves it away.
- He hints at the critique of art appreciation as being dominated by the celebrity of the artist and its connotations of class signalling but makes no reference to the fact that there's a ton of academic work on both of these factors. Thus he can only really skim the surface of this perspective.
- His whole argument about properties of objects being real or constructed is day-1 metaphysics. Ditto for his description of properties having a dimension of objectivity to subjectivity; he's just trotting out logical positivism like it's a truism, like many rationalist-types do. Logical positivism does not apply to a purely social field like art. Intersubjectivity isn't related to objectivity.
All this would be fine if it was just him thinking about art - it's perfectly reasonable to consider positions out loud without any meaningful expertise. But he makes a claim to truth, in front of a large audience that often accepts his ideas pretty uncritically, and it's an audience that already has disdain for the humanities. That's deserving of derision.
I find these ideas overly reductive since the essay presupposes that art should be judged in a vacuum outside of it's societal context, as if that's somehow more objective. The emotional impact of the art (PG's stated objective function to maximize) cannot be pulled out of its context. Said differently, the emotional impact of a piece of art often leans heavily on the story of the artist. PG seems to argue against this, but unconvincingly.