Explain why Cavell takes agreements or disagreements about aesthetic judgments to matter to us in the way they do.

Cavell seems to suggest that the lack of conclusiveness in matters concerning aesthetic judgments, albeit a widespread and common phenomenon, does not prove itself as an irrationality; he in fact goes to show that this is what precisely is rational about aesthetic judgments and he even goes to say that it is this seemingly “different” kind of rationality that is needed in the area of aesthetic judgments. Aesthetic judgments differ from the likes of empirical mathematical or scientific theories and concepts in that it is normative and encompasses an element of subjectivity. It does not seek to conform the world by advocating universal applicability and consensus. It is also due to this subjectivity that results in the myriad of agreements and disagreements about aesthetic judgments. Hence if a critic were to mete out his judgment of a piece of art work as if he were reading the measurements off a scale, it would be prudent for us to question how is one to know that we ought to place our trust in this particular critic’s judgments and not any other critic’s.

Judgments in matters of art and aesthetics are subjective because there are no hard and fast rules that govern their causality and methods. We do not value critics simply because they are right, but because of their ability to draw our responses to a particular piece of art work. An art critic’s purpose is not to stifle the participation and free play of our cognitive faculties, but instead to arouse our thoughts and focus our attention to the pertinent and valuable aspects of a work of art, by virtue of his expertise and knowledge of this subject area. It is thus possible that this interaction between the freedom of artists to express themselves individually and our willing interpretation, which invites discourse, makes art valuable; maybe it is a good thing to agree to have some form of disagreements about some judgments in life. For the reason that there are no experts in the study of the philosophy of aesthetics in so far as they know it all and are always right, much like moral philosophy, discourse is encouraged just as long as a critic has a capacity to elicit support and agreement with his judgment, and to defend his views in a coherent and objective fashion.

With a sea of subjectivity as backdrop, controversy seems destined to be the bane of a conclusive agreement in aesthetic judgments; even if we were to grant an instance whereby an agreement is reached, the agreement will be fragile and short-lived as the judgment of aesthetics invokes in us a constant desire for interpretation as long as there remains an interest. But where there is an agreement in a world where only subjectivity is guaranteed, it is all the more gratifying and valuable to acknowledge the precious connection and mutual understanding amongst the community of people who agree.