Quality: More than just what we like

"But how can you put on the blackboard the mysterious internal goal of each creative person?" (201) No two people see things the exact same way, and therefore no two people place the same value on things. How is it that we can find an overarching value in something when the value that is placed upon said thing is contingent on each person's individual taste? To me, it seems that Pirsig is saying that it is nearly impossible to pin down what is a Quality piece of work and what is not, when we all see things differently. If this is true, then how can we conquer the idea of Quality--this all encompassing idea of what is considered better and what is considered worse?

Another way to say this: How can you define Quality in a way that applies to everyone, and not (simply) as each person's preferences? Doug asked us, for this week's prompt, to consider Quality in such a way that defines it as more than what we each like. And how can we really? By what value of "betterness," as Pirsig puts it, can we establish something?

The way I see it, while Quality can be (and is) defined by each, singular person, it is also something we all adhere to on a more broad scale. This is something that's been demonstrated to us for about as long as we can remember. Let's ponder.
What happens when we see a Van Gogh painting?
We say that it is beautiful.
When we encounter Shakespeare, don't we always recognize it as a work of greatness?
We do, even if we don't necessarily enjoy it.

But, what makes these things great? It seems to be, that part of the reason we value something--the way that we qualify it as better--is defined by someone else. At some point, someone out there decided that Van Gogh's paintings were beautiful. At some point, someone read Shakespeare's plays, recognized his innovative use of words and phrases and it struck their fancy. From then on, they decided that that was the epitome of greatness. It seems to me that some well-respected person out there once decided that some things were inherently better than others, voiced that opinion, and thereafter people agreed with them.

This, I guess, brings me around the the second question too. I feel that we can see through the same lens because we've been told which lens is the correct one to see through. Yes, we all see differently. And yes, we have the capacity to challenge the lens that has been established for us; however, the Quality of things, seems to be defined through the shared sense that greatness has already been established. We can recognize that none of us see things the same way, and appreciate that we won't always agree on what is great and what is not, but when it comes down to it, some things will always be great, and other things will always be less than great in the grand scheme of things.

I don't know if I entirely agree with all of this, or entirely believe any of it, but I guess that's how I am seeing it right this hot second.