A list of the top recipients on Patreon shows an obsession with the ordinary • Hacker News Board

Re: A list of the top recipients on Patreon shows an obsession with the ordinary

#91

Post by coldtea » Mon, Sep 02, 2019, 1:02 PM UTC

nindalf wrote: post #8

Not sure how the author decides what is ordinary and what is transcendent. According to him, there is nothing special about folks creating podcasts, but there is something special about a singer-songwriter. He does not say why. Take https://www.patreon.com/sonicether who earns $50k a month creating shaders for Minecraft. That sounds mundane until you realise that he's probably enabling tens of thousands of people to…

>He doesn't think much of the artists creating comics either. Maybe he thinks only artists that display their work in galleries are "real" artists. Personally I think artists like Bill Watterson and Randall Munroe have done more to push the cultural zeitgeist than any artist in the last 30 years.

This information could also help make the author's point -- depending on the quality of said "cultural zeitgeist".

Re: A list of the top recipients on Patreon shows an obsession with the ordinary

#92

Post by coldtea » Mon, Sep 02, 2019, 1:03 PM UTC

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #41

nindalf wrote: post #8

Not sure how the author decides what is ordinary and what is transcendent. According to him, there is nothing special about folks creating podcasts, but there is something special about a singer-songwriter. He does not say why. Take https://www.patreon.com/sonicether who earns $50k a month creating shaders for Minecraft. That sounds mundane until you realise that he's probably enabling tens of thousands of people to…

This article is textbook bourgeois virtue signalling - also known as "snobbery." The kind of art he supports already gets plenty of funding. No one seriously expects MOMA or the Met Opera to go bust any time soon. Patreon is a successful alternative for relatively small-scale public-supported art. Of course it reflects public tastes. That's what it's for.

>This article is textbook bourgeois virtue signalling - also known as "snobbery."

Or what once was known as "refinement". It's not like high/low culture is some kind of settled issue, and everybody agrees that it's "all the same"...

>The kind of art he supports already gets plenty of funding. No one seriously expects MOMA or the Met Opera to go bust any time soon.

Isn't that part of the author's point? In that the MOMA or Met Opera's funding are quite distinct from what the masses fund (and from what the masses consume). Not to mention that museums shouldn't be where the culture is consumed, that's where already established culture goes to die.

Re: A list of the top recipients on Patreon shows an obsession with the ordinary

#93

Post by mcv » Mon, Sep 02, 2019, 1:05 PM UTC

Intermernet wrote: post #77

baud147258 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? I'm a believing Catholic and believe in science too.

What, in this instance, defines "Catholic" and "science"? Science relies more on disbelief than belief. Faith is anathema to the scientific method. You can disagree, but you should be able to make a cogent argument as to why what I just typed is incorrect.

You can be both Christian and do science without the science having to be "Christian science". They are different concerns dealing with different things. They don't have to conflict at all unless you try to make them conflict.

Re: A list of the top recipients on Patreon shows an obsession with the ordinary

#94

Post by coldtea » Mon, Sep 02, 2019, 1:07 PM UTC

nindalf wrote: post #78

chippy wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not sure how the author decides what is ordinary and what is transcendent I think the author gives us a hint about what is ordinary: "They tend not to be representations of noble ambition, or of a classical or romantic vision of how human beings might achieve greatness." As an aside and don't take this personally - perhaps your question was actually "I am sure what they mean but I'm trying to disagree" ? Or perhaps…

No it was genuine curiousity driven by ignorance. > a classical or romantic vision of how human beings might achieve greatness How does a singer-songwriter provide this but not the minecraft shader guy? Is there something I'm missing?

Perhaps because minecraft shaders belong more in the realm of some guy making stools and chairs at his garden shed, and not in the realm of deep aspirational art?

Re: A list of the top recipients on Patreon shows an obsession with the ordinary

#95

Post by coldtea » Mon, Sep 02, 2019, 1:11 PM UTC

phoe-krk wrote: post #17

nindalf wrote: post #8

Not sure how the author decides what is ordinary and what is transcendent. According to him, there is nothing special about folks creating podcasts, but there is something special about a singer-songwriter. He does not say why. Take https://www.patreon.com/sonicether who earns $50k a month creating shaders for Minecraft. That sounds mundane until you realise that he's probably enabling tens of thousands of people to…

> Not sure how the author decides what is ordinary and what is transcendent. This. Why should I allow anyone to define what kinds of art should I find transcendent and, worse, which kinds of art are non-transcendent ? This article is weird and full of stereotypes; it's written from the point as if art was easily and objectively classifiable. No, art is not classifiable like that, and something that one man calls ever…

>This. Why should I allow anyone to define what kinds of art should I find transcendent and, worse, which kinds of art are non-transcendent?

Because else you're in an endless loop, where you define what you like by what you like.

It is (or, perhaps, it has been) generally understood, that being schooled into things, learning about them, their history, aesthetic rivalries and ideas abotu them, and appreciating the cultured opinions of people who have studied them more, helps one appreciate finer things and cultivate their preferences.

The alternative, "because I like it", sounds like a regression to childhood.

Re: A list of the top recipients on Patreon shows an obsession with the ordinary

#96

Post by Fricken » Mon, Sep 02, 2019, 1:16 PM UTC

phoe-krk wrote: post #17

nindalf wrote: post #8

Not sure how the author decides what is ordinary and what is transcendent. According to him, there is nothing special about folks creating podcasts, but there is something special about a singer-songwriter. He does not say why. Take https://www.patreon.com/sonicether who earns $50k a month creating shaders for Minecraft. That sounds mundane until you realise that he's probably enabling tens of thousands of people to…

> Not sure how the author decides what is ordinary and what is transcendent. This. Why should I allow anyone to define what kinds of art should I find transcendent and, worse, which kinds of art are non-transcendent ? This article is weird and full of stereotypes; it's written from the point as if art was easily and objectively classifiable. No, art is not classifiable like that, and something that one man calls ever…

Those who are aspirational in their appreciation of art do tend to gravitate towards the same shit. The first time you're exposed to a cliche it could very well be mind blowing, but after getting through a wide enough body of work you start recognize the common patterns and eventually get sick of the cliches and you appreciate the stuff out there that actually broke ground, and moved the needle a bit.

I've only heard the 'art is subjective' defense from people with uncultivated tastes. Myself, I don't know much about chemistry, and something I don't do is wander into conversations with chemists and expect my unfounded opinion to be anything other than a nuisance to them. When it comes to art, for some reason, people who haven't done their homework nonetheless expect their opinion to matter.

Re: A list of the top recipients on Patreon shows an obsession with the ordinary

#97

Post by Intermernet » Mon, Sep 02, 2019, 1:19 PM UTC

baud147258 wrote: post #82

Intermernet wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most religions purport to explain both, and science has little interest in the former, as it has traditionally been impossible to come up with falsifiable experiments as to "why do we exist". This is, like your comment, taking strict definitions for both "why" and "how". "why" we exist can have answers ranging from "we're the current latest bunch of mutants resulting from this whole evolution thing" all the way to "a…

> "why" we exist can have answers ranging from "we're the current latest bunch of mutants resulting from this whole evolution thing" all the way to "as self-realized, intelligent beings, we inevitably ask this question, and asking this question is the only predictable outcome of being intelligent and self-realized." To this range of answers, I'd add "because God created us (because of reasons outside the scope of thi…

> To this range of answers, I'd add "because God created us (because of reasons outside the scope of this answer)"

Yes, but which god, and why does this explanation get any greater credence than Douglas Adams' writing "the Jatravartid people of Viltvodle VI believe that the entire Universe was in fact sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure. The Jatravartids, who live in perpetual fear of the time they call The Coming of The Great White Handkerchief, are small blue creatures with more than fifty arms each, who are therefore unique in being the only race in history to have invented the aerosol deodorant before the wheel."

The religions of the world disagree with each other on the "why", and none of them seem to be interested in demonstrating the veracity of their theory. This is why science generally ignores the "why". No-one has come up with a reasonable way to show, one way or another, which theory may be truer (or more aptly, falser) than any other, and therefore the question currently has no meaningful answer. If this changes, it will show that all, some, one, or none of the current religions are correct, but thousands of years of discussion haven't produced anything close to solving this problem, and this discussion has been going on since before Akhenaten.

Re: A list of the top recipients on Patreon shows an obsession with the ordinary

#98

Post by phoe-krk » Mon, Sep 02, 2019, 1:21 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #95

phoe-krk wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not sure how the author decides what is ordinary and what is transcendent. This. Why should I allow anyone to define what kinds of art should I find transcendent and, worse, which kinds of art are non-transcendent ? This article is weird and full of stereotypes; it's written from the point as if art was easily and objectively classifiable. No, art is not classifiable like that, and something that one man calls ever…

> This. Why should I allow anyone to define what kinds of art should I find transcendent and, worse, which kinds of art are non-transcendent? Because else you're in an endless loop, where you define what you like by what you like. It is (or, perhaps, it has been) generally understood, that being schooled into things, learning about them, their history, aesthetic rivalries and ideas abotu them, and appreciating the cu…

You misunderstood my question. I asked, "Why should I allow anyone to define what kinds of art should I find transcendent and, worse, which kinds of art are non-transcendent?", with a stress on the "I".

I find it worthwhile to listen to people who describe what touches them and what they are indifferent to. However, the tone of the article describes the "mundane" and the "extraordinary" from an objectivesque point of view, which I personally find silly due to the fact that art is an inherently subjective experience.

Re: A list of the top recipients on Patreon shows an obsession with the ordinary

#99

Post by adrianN » Mon, Sep 02, 2019, 1:28 PM UTC

baud147258 wrote: post #62

adrianN wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can credibly be a theist and believe in science, but it's a lot harder to really believe in one of the big religions and also believe in science.

Why? I'm a believing Catholic and believe in science too.

Because you it's really hard to believe in the miracles Jesus performed while also believing that physics is a worthwhile endeavor. Either the universe follows laws that we can discover, or you can turn water into wine. I realize that the catholic church does the necessary mental contortions to believe both, but to me miracles and science are contradictory.

Re: A list of the top recipients on Patreon shows an obsession with the ordinary

#100

Post by coldtea » Mon, Sep 02, 2019, 1:32 PM UTC

phoe-krk wrote: post #98

coldtea wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This. Why should I allow anyone to define what kinds of art should I find transcendent and, worse, which kinds of art are non-transcendent? Because else you're in an endless loop, where you define what you like by what you like. It is (or, perhaps, it has been) generally understood, that being schooled into things, learning about them, their history, aesthetic rivalries and ideas abotu them, and appreciating the cu…

You misunderstood my question. I asked, "Why should I allow anyone to define what kinds of art should I find transcendent and, worse, which kinds of art are non-transcendent?", with a stress on the " I ". I find it worthwhile to listen to people who describe what touches them and what they are indifferent to. However, the tone of the article describes the "mundane" and the "extraordinary" from an objectivesque point…

>However, the tone of the article describes the "mundane" and the "extraordinary" from an objectivesque point of view, which I personally find silly due to the fact that art is an inherently subjective experience.

I don't think that's settled. For that matter, I don't think that's true.