Buddy Exercise to Test Isenberg Claim

Does Isenberg's argument seem too abstract? Then try this with a buddy while looking at two art objects (perhaps side-by-side at one of the galleries in the Arts Colony). One of you believes that one of the objects in stronger than the other in one or more respects (perhaps even better overall). You identify a feature in which the one is stronger than the other and say, "This is better than that because this has _______ (the grading feature - elegance, unity, pizzazz, whatever). Your buddy then challenges how general that feature is. Would another art object be good if it had it? See how well this plays out in actual discourse and report on your Blog.

Then reflect on how this applies to the Rosenberg criteria. (It's interesting here that Rosenberg goes "down" in his order of presentation from the "categories" to the "criteria" to the "specific excellences" - the "two cascades" level. And it seems to work. But what Isenberg is doing is the reverse - attempting to go "up" from the specific excellence - the "wave" to the general criterian - the the Reason/Norm. But to do it this way may be impossible.)

Once you have been able to articulate the criterian (as Rosenberg seems to do) then you can look for "instances" of that criterian (the "two cascades" level) in two works and grading seems to work. But starting from the "wave" for example doesn't seem to work.