The $2M Urinal: Why Hard Work Doesn’t Cut It (2018) • Hacker News Board

Re: The $2M Urinal: Why Hard Work Doesn’t Cut It (2018)

#21

Post by rdiddly » Thu, Mar 07, 2019, 3:56 PM UTC

astazangasta wrote: post #16

dwaltrip wrote: post #10

> But I do mean to say that there is no quality in art. > The simple truth is we have no way of objectively determining the value of any work of art or the performance of its maker. Ehh... Not having objective, quantitative metrics is not the same thing as having no quality what so ever. It seems very strange (and utterly wrong) to claim there is not even a smidgen of underlying truth or insight about the world found…

>Ehh... Not having objective, quantitative metrics is not the same thing as having no quality what so ever. I am shocked that in 2019 there are adults walking around with this epistemology. Every quantitative metric is an exercise in narrative. The notion of objectivity is an appealing construct in a world constructed by second hand observations, but alas, it remains just another implement in the narrative toolkit.

So in effect, you're saying all domains are like the art world.

Re: The $2M Urinal: Why Hard Work Doesn’t Cut It (2018)

#22

Post by esnible3 » Thu, Mar 07, 2019, 3:57 PM UTC

astazangasta wrote: post #11

The story in the opening is probably apocryphal, and there is evidence Fountain is not the work of Duchamp, but of Baroness Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven : >On 11 April 1917 Duchamp wrote to his sister Suzanne and said that, "One of my female friends who had adopted the pseudonym Richard Mutt sent me a porcelain urinal as a sculpture; since there was nothing indecent about it, there was no reason to reject it." https:…

Exactly this. Barabási says "networks drive success." The Baroness was a leaf node. She connected mostly through Duchamp. His network allowed him to succeed. Her packets got dropped by the Duchamp node.

Re: The $2M Urinal: Why Hard Work Doesn’t Cut It (2018)

#23

Post by clojurestan » Thu, Mar 07, 2019, 3:58 PM UTC

airstrike wrote: post #14

duado wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? It’s not strange to think that an old man in leveraged buyouts would be willing to spend some money to be catered to by a group of young, talented, attractive people... and if he’s rich enough or lucky enough, maybe even fuck a few of them.

Young, sure. Talented, maybe. But attractive is probably not what you're optimizing for if you're hanging out in the art scene. Might have better luck in the fashion world

Not everyone is attracted to the same thing. Personally I don't know much about the "art scene" but many of the people I find attractive have turned out to be artists and musicians.

Re: The $2M Urinal: Why Hard Work Doesn’t Cut It (2018)

#24

Post by astazangasta » Thu, Mar 07, 2019, 3:59 PM UTC

rdiddly wrote: post #21

astazangasta wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Ehh... Not having objective, quantitative metrics is not the same thing as having no quality what so ever. I am shocked that in 2019 there are adults walking around with this epistemology. Every quantitative metric is an exercise in narrative. The notion of objectivity is an appealing construct in a world constructed by second hand observations, but alas, it remains just another implement in the narrative toolkit.

So in effect, you're saying all domains are like the art world.

Metaphysics are a problem created by the fact that your brain is smaller than the universe. It's hard to walk away from that.

Re: The $2M Urinal: Why Hard Work Doesn’t Cut It (2018)

#25

Post by ivanhoe » Thu, Mar 07, 2019, 4:02 PM UTC

dwaltrip wrote: post #10

> But I do mean to say that there is no quality in art. > The simple truth is we have no way of objectively determining the value of any work of art or the performance of its maker. Ehh... Not having objective, quantitative metrics is not the same thing as having no quality what so ever. It seems very strange (and utterly wrong) to claim there is not even a smidgen of underlying truth or insight about the world found…

AFAIK there's no way of objectively determining the value of anything. Are prices of houses in SF "reflecting their inherent quality" compared to houses in other parts of US? Or is the value of t-shirt with some brand logo sticked on it "objectively determined"? No, they're not, it's all simply negotiated by market's supply and demand, and so is art. It's worth exactly as much as someone is willing to pay for it.

Re: The $2M Urinal: Why Hard Work Doesn’t Cut It (2018)

#26

Post by borkt » Thu, Mar 07, 2019, 4:03 PM UTC

duado wrote: post #9

leesec wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a weird and condescending take.

Why? It’s not strange to think that an old man in leveraged buyouts would be willing to spend some money to be catered to by a group of young, talented, attractive people... and if he’s rich enough or lucky enough, maybe even fuck a few of them.

Sounds like owning a winery around these parts.

Re: The $2M Urinal: Why Hard Work Doesn’t Cut It (2018)

#27

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Mar 07, 2019, 4:03 PM UTC

dwaltrip wrote: post #10

> But I do mean to say that there is no quality in art. > The simple truth is we have no way of objectively determining the value of any work of art or the performance of its maker. Ehh... Not having objective, quantitative metrics is not the same thing as having no quality what so ever. It seems very strange (and utterly wrong) to claim there is not even a smidgen of underlying truth or insight about the world found…

[deleted]

Re: The $2M Urinal: Why Hard Work Doesn’t Cut It (2018)

#28

Post by TheOtherHobbes » Thu, Mar 07, 2019, 4:06 PM UTC

betulaq wrote: post #17

dwaltrip wrote: post #10

> But I do mean to say that there is no quality in art. > The simple truth is we have no way of objectively determining the value of any work of art or the performance of its maker. Ehh... Not having objective, quantitative metrics is not the same thing as having no quality what so ever. It seems very strange (and utterly wrong) to claim there is not even a smidgen of underlying truth or insight about the world found…

I read it differently, but I don't think the author was saying art has no quality in the way you're interpreting it at the end of your sentence, in the sense of value or anything to offer. I interpreted them to mean that there's no way to objectively determinine that value, so practically speaking there's no objective quality in art. I think there's even a sentence or two where they try to make clear that they're not…

In studies, people - including untrained people - can fairly reliably tell the difference between messy abstract art made by trained artists and messy abstract messes made by kids messing around with paint.

So there seems to be a quality of visual intelligence present in at least some art which is not present in non-expert splashes.

I would be surprised if you couldn't train a neural network to recognise the difference.

This is different to having an explicit formal model of "the quality that is different."

It's also different to a financially successful artistic career. All kinds of things can kill or promote a career which have nothing to do with the art itself.

Likewise for market pricing, which is always based on what galleries and auction houses hope they can get away with - often in a hyper-inflated market where art is reliably used for money laundering and tax evasion and other pastimes which have absolutely nothing to do with what it looks like.

Re: The $2M Urinal: Why Hard Work Doesn’t Cut It (2018)

#29

Post by Foobar8568 » Thu, Mar 07, 2019, 4:06 PM UTC

drcode wrote: post #5

I feel like modern art market is primarily a way for a subsegment of rich people to buy certain intangible goods: These are people that feel lonely, and have low self esteem... They really would like to socialize with cool and charismatic people, and the "modern art scene" is basically a very pricey matchmaking service for them to make friends and go to parties with people that fit this description (i.e. the artists)

Modern art (or just art), it's more a money laundry, tax evasion, asset management scheme than anything else.

Re: The $2M Urinal: Why Hard Work Doesn’t Cut It (2018)

#30

Post by dwaltrip » Thu, Mar 07, 2019, 4:06 PM UTC

betulaq wrote: post #17

dwaltrip wrote: post #10

> But I do mean to say that there is no quality in art. > The simple truth is we have no way of objectively determining the value of any work of art or the performance of its maker. Ehh... Not having objective, quantitative metrics is not the same thing as having no quality what so ever. It seems very strange (and utterly wrong) to claim there is not even a smidgen of underlying truth or insight about the world found…

I read it differently, but I don't think the author was saying art has no quality in the way you're interpreting it at the end of your sentence, in the sense of value or anything to offer. I interpreted them to mean that there's no way to objectively determinine that value, so practically speaking there's no objective quality in art. I think there's even a sentence or two where they try to make clear that they're not…

These are all great points, thanks for writing that out. I see what you are getting at -- I agree with your take the author probably needed to choose their words more carefully. I had a hard time getting past the sentence "But I do mean to say there is no quality in art." The brutal wrongness of it so fundamental and stark... it was like a car crash where I couldn't look away.