Rainer Rochlitz and the power of public debate to estimate the value of a work of art

The aim of this presentation is to discuss Rainer Rochlitz’s call on public, rational debate in order to estimate the value of works of art. We will try to show that, in regards to artworks, the problem of truth and of falsehood in public debate becomes the problem of the legitimacy and objectivity of judgments expressed during a rational discussion. Indeed, according to Rochlitz – who extends the reflections by Habermas on an ethic of discussion – the value of a work must be the subject of a critical discussion that, far from being reduced to the mere addition of personal preferences, allows to reach a rational verdict. Participants should be at the height of the debate, that is to say, offer arguments that will be built on the actual properties of the work and that can be evaluated collectively. This kind of discussion has its own rationality, able to validate or invalidate the judgments contained under the argument that underlies them. The strength of rational debate is indeed to be able to shed light on the gaps or qualities of an argument about a work. As Rochlitz notes, "some subjects express their preferences because of passions, privileged memories, family, regional or national habits, traditions, established cultural assessments. But when they express such claims in the presence of subjects who do not share their axiological choice, these claims are immediately problematized, and it is no longer possible to think that one can, […] ‘assign them to everyone’ or ‘assume them in any other’". But what about the content of actual judgments? On what criteria are they based on? Rochlitz suggests four of them, which we will analyze in detail in our talk: the coherence, the culmination, the challenge and the originality of the work. These are not definitive criteria but rather critical parameters. None of them (alone or in combination with others) is sufficient to justify a judgment; but without them, no judgment could be sustained. Therefore, according to Rochlitz, a valid aesthetic judgment is based on critical parameters and reasons evaluated in an intersubjective way during a rational debate. But how exactly does this intersubjective evaluation work? What would be the rules necessary for the establishment of such a space for discussion and what kind of attitude would be required from the participants? Also, if public debate appears proper to review the form of the judgments expressed, is it really fitting to estimate their content? What if two well-constructed and argued assessments are confronted: can we discriminate between them? Finally, how is the question about the legitimacy and objectivity of aesthetic judgments different from the problem of truth and falsehood? Why can’t we say about a “legitimate” and “objective” judgment about a work, that it is “true”? By discussing Rainer Rochlitz’s thesis, it is these questions about the value of works of art, about the legitimacy of the reactions related to them and about the potential capacity of public debate to evaluate them that we plan on addressing.