Theory of Knowledge II Essay

‘Is subjectivity overly celebrated in the arts but overly condemned in history? Discuss with reference to the arts and history.’ (P. Title 1)

Introduction

In German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche’s 1878 manuscript, Human, All Too Human, he famously stated that, “there are no eternal facts, as there are no absolute truths” (Nietzsche, 1908). Nietzsche is conveying the concept of “absolute relativity:” the idea that we inhabit a world in which nothing is true; all information exists relative to other knowledge (Baghramian & Carter, 2015). Subjectivity, or a lack of absolute facts or evidence, is extremely prominent in the academic world (Strazzoni, 2015). In this essay, I have thus chosen the following prescribed title as our guiding question: is subjectivity overly celebrated in the arts but overly condemned in history?

Firstly, we must examine and define all aspects of the question. “Overly celebrated” will be defined as appreciation to an unfair or unjustified degree. “Overly condemned” will be defined as rejection to an unfair or unjustified degree. We must answer the question by responding to two distinct parts: firstly, if subjectivity is overly celebrated in the arts, and secondly, if it is overly condemned within history. However, we must also assess the degree to which subjectivity is currently celebrated or condemned in their respective areas of knowledge in order to assess whether it is overly celebrated or condemned. We can come to the conclusion that subjectivity is not overly celebrated in the arts, however it is overly condemned in history.

2. The Arts

In regards to the arts, we can adopt the knowledge claim that subjectivity is fairly celebrated within this field. It is generally accepted that subjective art is considered “good,” while more objective art is considered “bad.” But what makes art good and bad, and more importantly, is this definition truly a fair assessment? Good, or effective art, for our purposes conveys the complexity of the human condition, and creates a profound, introspective connection with the viewer. Bad art, therefore, does not foster this intense connection, nor display the realities and intricacies of the human condition. Art that is subjective, displays a unique or unheard perspective, and is able to foster a deep connection with the viewer all demonstrate how subjectivity can create effective, more celebrated pieces of art.

In regards to visual art, we can examine the example of expressionism. Expressionism emphasizes subjectivity, individual expression, and visual distortion in order to convey intense emotion, pioneered by many celebrated artists such as Vincent Van Gogh (“Expressionism,” 2024). Expressionism is effective at creating a profound connection with its audience. Many find solace in its emotion and relatability. For example, Van Gogh’s Sunset at Montmajour is a beautiful painting that uses vivid color and unconventional, curving strokes to create a connection between the art and the viewer in a way that is not possible in more “objective” paintings, devoid of greater emotional value (Van Gogh, 1888).

It is also important to discuss the role and necessity of emotion within art. If we were unable to develop any emotional connection to a work of art, we would most likely seek out pieces which most accurately portray the visual or objective reality of life, such as realist or hyperrealist landscape paintings which depict, to an extreme level of accuracy, our natural environment (“Realism,” 2024). However, humanity continues to seek out the art of those such as Van Gogh and Monet; artists that in no way depict what is visually real. Furthermore, on a more personal level, expressionist paintings communicate raw emotions to the viewer that many realist paintings can not. It is for this reason that subjectivity in art is so celebrated, and how this celebration is entirely fair and warranted; subjective art, in general, more accurately reflects the subjective, emotional reality that we all face as humans.

It is possible, of course, to argue against the knowledge claim; that the distortion caused by subjectivity creates art that is discordant and unrepresentative of the nature of real life; this art is ineffective, thus it is overly celebrated. Moreover, the ability of art to transport the viewer into the environment of the painting is what makes visual art ‘good’ or ‘bad.’ We can consider the example of realism in visual art. A more “objective” depiction of reality and nature can be seen in Frederic Edwin Church’s Autumn, which has muted, less-saturated colors, and a meticulous, realistic depiction of the natural world (Church, 1875). Though Church’s Autumn is striking and more realistic, Montmajour instills more authentic emotion within the viewer through its engaging (though subjective) depiction of a beautiful landscape. This counter-argument is inaccurate as it incorrectly assesses the role of subjectivity, emotion, and art. The role of art itself is not to accurately portray real life - much to the contrary: it is to depict the relativity of the human condition that can only be achieved through the use of necessary subjective techniques and themes. Thus, subjectivity is necessary to the field of the arts, and its current celebration is entirely warranted.

3. History

With regard to history, we can adopt the knowledge claim that subjectivity is overly condemned in history, with reference to the theory that objective history is formed by balancing the claims of subjective individual historical accounts. The conventional wisdom of historiography is that history should be compiled with the accounts of multiple sources, avoiding those which are inaccurate or biased, therefore demonstrating a condemnation of subjectivity (Vann, 2023). However, if we assume that complete objectivity is impossible, then historians should not avoid using biased historical sources, but instead use them while simultaneously acknowledging the historical and authorial context in which they were written to arrive at a balanced final account. To discuss this idea more in-depth, we can examine the debate over the historical events pertaining to the 1937-1938 Rape of Nanking.

In 1997, Chinese author Iris Chang first published The Rape of Nanking released her book to wide acclaim, drawing attention to the horrors that took place during this infamous event, perpetrated by the Japanese Army during the Second World War (Chang, 2015). In 2000, Japanese author Masaaki Tanaka published a book in response: What Really Happened in Nanking, (Tanaka, 2001) criticizing the work of Chang as hyperbolic and sensationalist (“Historiographic Essays,” n.d.). In this situation, both authors cannot be relatively objective as they both stand to lose something (both their reputation as historians and their sense of national pride) should they accept the views of the other. Simultaneously, both books are, to a certain extent, historically accurate as Chang uses firsthand accounts from primarily Chinese victims, while Tanaka uses firsthand accounts from mostly Japanese soldiers (“Historiographic Essays,” n.d.). The subjectivity, in this case, arises not from inaccuracy or impartiality on one side, but the perspective from which each historian conducts their own investigation.

This example gives us insight pertaining to the role subjectivity plays in history. By balancing the positions of both authors, we can acquire a more accurate understanding of the situation. More importantly, this situation conveys the idea that from an individual account or perspective, it is impossible to be completely unbiased and objective. This clearly demonstrates the great need there is for subjectivity in history, thus we can posit that it is overly condemned; subjectivity remains of great importance to this field, and it should not be condemned, but instead incorporated and properly used to create works of relative objectivity.

One could argue that the role of the historian is to use objective first and secondhand sources to create an accurate historical account, a perspective seen in many sources including Oxford Reference’s Historiography (“Historiography, n.d.) or Stanford’s Philosophy of History (Little, 2018). These texts state the relevance of a high degree of objectivity to the accuracy of an historical account. However, the notion of complete objectivity is impossible. Our argument against this counterclaim is founded on the theory that all knowledge is relative. If we assume absolute relativity, it is impossible to use objective sources to create an objective historical product, if all sources are themselves subjective. Thus, instead of attempting to secure total objectivity of both sources and the final account, the historian should sources despite their potential subjectivity, acknowledging these biases, and adapting their analysis and interpretation of events regarding their individual perspective. Counterintuitively, relative objectivity is possible in the field of history through the acceptance and use of subjective sources, which currently, are overly condemned.

4. Conclusion

Throughout the course of this essay, we have proven our two distinct knowledge claims, that subjectivity is not overly celebrated in the arts, and that subjectivity is overly condemned in history. We first discussed the role of subjectivity and emotion in the arts, and how effective art is forged through the bias of our individual human experiences. We secondly discussed the necessity of subjectivity in history, and how conventional historical thinking too harshly condemns it.

In a broader sense, this essay has argued that every action we commit is contextual. Contextual to our lives, our society, the historical context in which we live, and many other factors. Current society is focused on objectivity and obtaining entirely correct information, when it could be argued that no such thing as objective truth even exists. Life is not black and white, nor is it good and bad. The truth, generally, lies somewhere in the middle between two opposing arguments. This is evident in the visual distortion and subjectivity of expressionism. This is also evident in the compromise that must be made when considering the contrasting accounts surrounding the Rape of Nanking. The necessity of subjectivity in both of these fields is why we have adopted the claim that subjectivity is not overly celebrated in the arts, however it is overly condemned in history.

References

Baghramian, M., & Carter, J. A. (2015, September 11). Relativism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/
Chang, I. (2015). The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II. Basic Books.
Church, F. E. (1875). Autumn [Landscape in oils depicting the banks of the Hudson River during the autumn season.] Museo Nacional Thyssen-Bornemisza, Madrid. Madrid; Museo Nacional Thyssen-Bornemisza.
Encyclopædia Britannica, inc. (2024a, February 14). Expressionism. Encyclopædia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/art/Expressionism
Encyclopædia Britannica, inc. (2024b, February 16). Realism. Encyclopædia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/art/realism-art
Little, D. (2018, February 18). Philosophy of History. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/history/#HistPhilHis
Nietzsche, F. W. (1908). Human, All Too Human: A Book for Free Spirits (A. Harvey, Trans.). Charles H. Kerr & Company.
Oxford University Press. (n.d.). Historiography. Oxford Reference. https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095938853
Queens College. (n.d.). Historiographic Essays. Writing on History. https://qcpages.qc.cuny.edu/Writing/history/assignments/historiographic.html
Strazzoni, A. (2015). Subjectivity and Individuality: Two Strands in Early Modern Philosophy. PhilPapers, 9(1), 5–9.
Tanaka, M. (2001). What Really Happened in Nanking. Sekai Shuppan, Inc.
Van Gogh, V. (1888). Sunset at Montmajour [Landscape in oils depicting the fields surrounding the ruins of Montmajour Abbey.] The Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam. Amsterdam; The Van Gogh Museum.
Vann, R. T. (2023, October 31). Historiography. Encyclopædia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/historiography/Greek-historiography