71–80 of 479 posts
Perhaps I'm under-informed here, but hasn't this all been covered by the philosophers who concentrate in Aesthetics? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics
This ignores the sociological aspects - having 'good taste' in something (art, sneakers, car modifications, tattoos) is a way of signalling membership of a group or distinction within that group. Even being interested in [classical] 'art' in the first place is a signifier of being in a certain strata of society. The way this essay is written seems anchored in one very particular social strata and the signifiers that…
Same for tattoos or car modifications. Yes, there's a lot of signaling within your social strata, but if you're in that strata it's valid to say that some tattoos are better than others.
Also it's okay not be in the loop. Not everyone has to have an opinion on why Leonardo Da Vinci is a better artist than Botticelli.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
might validly prefer some abstract dot on a white canvas No one prefers a random dot on a random piece of canvas. They prefer a very particular dot on a very particular canvas made by a very particular person at a very particular point in history. Remove any one one those and it loses all meaning and value. And even the most ardent fan of that work would never argue that that artist was a greater painter or even arti…
But it doesn't hold up the other way when you remove one piece. I'd wager most people would select a Michaelangelo replica even if they were directly told it was a replica than the dot on the canvas if told it was a replica of whatever artist made it.
And anyway I feel that putting our unnamed theoretical artist up against one of the all time great artists in history is a bit unfair. Anything recognizable as a Michelangelo will automatically win just because he's Michelangelo. Probably more fair to put him up against a second-rate contemporary of Michelangelo that most people haven't heard of if you want to remove 'name recognition' from the equation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it doesn't hold up the other way when you remove one piece. I'd wager most people would select a Michaelangelo replica even if they were directly told it was a replica than the dot on the canvas if told it was a replica of whatever artist made it.
Select as what though, by what criteria and for what purpose? No one is arguing that the Michelangelo replica isn't a more beautiful object or representative of better craftsmanship. And anyway I feel that putting our unnamed theoretical artist up against one of the all time great artists in history is a bit unfair. Anything recognizable as a Michelangelo will automatically win just because he's Michelangelo. Probabl…
It wins because it’s good work, not because it’s Michelangelo. A Michelangelo work will win even when the viewer doesn’t know it’s Michelangelo or even who that is.
That the point: people will appreciate it without having to be told “oh this is the high-status guy, you’re supposed to like it”, “only the high-status people can see the emperor’s clothes”, etc.
For once I agree with Paul Graham. I expect his post to be surprisingly unpopular with this crowd, as it sleights a core tenet of our postmodern age. Namely, he's arguing for a form of objective truth and of "the good". A statistical derivation of this good for sure (and qualitative as opposed to a Benthamist, quantitative utilitarianism), but a good nonetheless. But I applaud PG for taking this stance. Truth is not…
Which beliefs are objectively better?
I believe there can be answers here if one can clearly define what you are optimizing for.
That is the question on my mind these days.
nice to see the comment section is criticising PG for an extremely amateur take on sociology, aesthetics and art. I don't know why, but there's a fairly strong association between being in STEM and thinking that the humanities are easy and obvious and people study them just because they don't understand STEM. Thus we get blog posts like this, about how a reductio ad absurdum thought experiment is enough to resolve a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's really not that anyone prefers an abstract dot on a white canvas over the Sistine Chapel. It helps to think of art as a historical dialogue with other art, as well as an exploration of how our senses experience the world. Minimalist abstract art (Ad Reinhardt is one of the more famous practitioners) was pushing viewers to pay attentions to subtleties and small differences in our perceptions of color and shapes.…
Like is the wrong word. I think the closest appropriate idea is "appreciate". You probably should not "like" some of the best art at all, because it should have made you uncomfortable and think things you would rather not. Of course I say "some", because art has all kinds of different purposes or intents, and that is only the purpose of some art, not all art. So I think recognize, acknowledge, or appreciate are the k…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Select as what though, by what criteria and for what purpose? No one is arguing that the Michelangelo replica isn't a more beautiful object or representative of better craftsmanship. And anyway I feel that putting our unnamed theoretical artist up against one of the all time great artists in history is a bit unfair. Anything recognizable as a Michelangelo will automatically win just because he's Michelangelo. Probabl…
> Anything recognizable as a Michelangelo will automatically win just because he's Michelangelo. It wins because it’s good work, not because it’s Michelangelo. A Michelangelo work will win even when the viewer doesn’t know it’s Michelangelo or even who that is. That the point: people will appreciate it without having to be told “oh this is the high-status guy, you’re supposed to like it”, “only the high-status people…
This seems like a big assumption. Is there a study that tests this idea?
I don't get into these kinds of discussions with people anymore, because they're not socially palatable. I try to stay open minded too about perspectives that are not mine, and try to be objective about my own biases. But I can't shake the feeling that much as someone might validly prefer some abstract dot on a white canvas to the Sistine Chapel ceiling, who would more likely impress the fans of the other, that artis…
It's really not that anyone prefers an abstract dot on a white canvas over the Sistine Chapel. It helps to think of art as a historical dialogue with other art, as well as an exploration of how our senses experience the world. Minimalist abstract art (Ad Reinhardt is one of the more famous practitioners) was pushing viewers to pay attentions to subtleties and small differences in our perceptions of color and shapes.…
I think there’s this notion that art has to be technically sophisticated to be of value. But really, all art has to do is communicate something interesting or meaningful. If a white dot does this then who cares how it was made?
Finally, people make a big deal about the price of art. Well, artists (the ones I like anyway…) don’t have much to do with what a piece of art will sell for. Ultimately the piece of art is just some interesting exchange between artist and viewer, the price has nothing to do with any of this exchange.
I’m just a guy that walked into a museum and thought this guy has communicated something profound and beautiful. When someone come up and says “but that must’ve taken 5 minutes to make!!” they look like assholes.