MELVIN M. TUMIN
537
excepti on a ll y n a rrow. He's onl y gOt twO arti sts. aft er a ll , and no t the
bes t. But mos t peopl e think a bo ut art tha t way. Th a t is, they h ave a
set of legitimized a rti sts and th e res t of a rt may be to ta ll y hopeless to
th em .
In
fact, th a t's exactl y wh a t goes on a ll th e time. Th a t cab driver
is typi ca l, in th a t h e h as a few icon s whi ch constitut e th e who le fi eld
of art fo r him. And tha t's wh a t I was ta lking a bout before in rela ti on
to th e criti cism o f the p as t fift een yea rs, in whi ch a certa in type o f
p ro bl em-so lvin g h as been th e criteri on for art.
T umin:
I
want
to
ge t back to the ques ti on o f conceptua lizin g the
judg menta l and eva lua ti o na l and criti ca l p rocess. Because it is
possibl e
to
do it in scien ce,
to
specify, say, a dozen criteri a tha t
somehow mu st be met by a wo rk of science before you would say it 's
good , as aga in st being a bad wo rk of sc ien ce. It' s possibl e to do it
with a thl eti cs.
R osen berg:
You can do it with a ll sorts o f things.
T umin:
Can you not do it with a rtwo rk ?
R osen berg:
Peopl e do it a ll the time.
T umin:
Do you think it's wrong
to
do it?
R osenberg:
I
think tha t th e criti c's experi ence o f a pa rti cul ar work
IS
th e anima ting force whi ch evokes vari o us ideas, whi ch , furth ermo re,
are a lways evoked in terms o f a g iven rheto ri c.
I
don 't leave out the
ques ti on o f style. Th a t is to say,
I
can ' t h ave wh a t I would con sider a
va lid di scu ss ion , on my p a rt , o f a p a inting unl ess tha t di scuss ion is
ca rri ed on in a certa in style, whi ch h appens to be the way I use wo rds
in thinking.
In
o th er word s, th e cr iti c a fter all is a writer, and th a t is
bas ic. Somebod y who can ' t write can 't be a criti c. There is no such
thing as having good ideas badl y phrased in a rt criti cism , a n y mo re
than there is su ch a thing as h avin g a very good idea badl y written as
a poem .
T wnin:
T h ere is very badl y written good science.
R osen berg:
Th a t can very well be. Thi s is on e of the impo rtant
differen ces between art and scien ce.
T umin:
Or is it between criti cism o f science as aga in st criti cism o f art ?
Do you think th a t's rea ll y different, too?
R osen berg:
Yes, a bsolutely. T here is no o bj ective measure of a work o f
a rt.
T umin :
There a re no o bj ective criteri a?
R osenberg:
Th ere a re no o bj ective criteria .
Tumin:
The o bj ective criteri a in o ther fi elds are simpl y those whi ch
speciali sts ag ree upon. Are there no such obj ecti\ e criteri a in the
same sen se
in
art ?
