3 ms·

> The whims of some Art Director who happens to prefer one thing over another? I'd prefer this. It's the way it's been done for years, and it's usually referre

by Veen 10y ago

> The whims of some Art Director who happens to prefer one thing over another? I'd prefer this. It's the way it's been done for years, and it's usually referred to as curation: people who know what they are talking about making decisions about what's best.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
ThomPete 10y ago
But who then should curate the curators :) There is nothing to the concept of "knowing what you are talking about" when selecting who to fund and who not IMO. You might be lucky you have someone with great intuition and bi-partisan approach to what they select but you might as well be unlucky that they don't. "knowing what you are talking about" does not help you select what piece of art should be promoted over another because there really isn't any piece of art that should be promoted over another. I.e. there are no objective criteria. So applying quantitive measures is as perfectly useful as relying on individuals and it applies transparency to the process especially when combined which I believe is is the aim of it. There is another discussion all together about whether the public should be funding art but thats a whole other issue IMO.
- Veen 10y ago
  > But who then should curate the curators :) If I wanted to push my argument further, I'd say the ultimate answer is the same: people who know what they are talking about. You're right that there is no real objective measure of the quality of art. Which leaves a choice: throw up your hands and say everything and nothing is of value, or do what sounds terrible to most people: trust that a cultural elite is capable of making sound choices about what is valuable and what isn't by virtue of their understanding of the tradition and community standards. If there is no external and universal value, there can still be an internal value that grows from a culture, education, strong institutions, a living and evolving tradition[0], careful thought, and understanding — the people who have that are a cultural elite. It's an elitist, subjective, and probably conservative approach riddled with biases and problems, but it's better than the two alternatives: the market decides, or (which appears to be the case in the article) some market researchers decide. [0]: By tradition I mean: "an argument extended through time in which certain fundamental agreements are defined and redefined in terms of both internal and external debates." It's Alasdair MacIntyre's definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alasdair_MacIntyre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alasdair_MacIntyre
- hackuser 10y ago
  > There is nothing to the concept of "knowing what you are talking about" when selecting who to fund and who not IMO. I disagree. For example, clearly the head of the Museum of Modern Art in NY would make better decisions than I would about who to fund, because they know what they are talking about. That knowledge and its application aren't perfect, but they do add necessary value.
  - ThomPete 10y ago
    How do you know they would make better decisions? By all means, if you can figure this out there is a nobel laurate waiting for you.
jdietrich 10y ago
>it's usually referred to as curation It's also referred to as cronyism and discrimination. Allowing a decision-maker to employ purely subjective criteria is wide open to abuse. Without objective standards, that behaviour is impossible to challenge.
- fsloth 10y ago
  The problem is that most metrics are quite arbitrary when applied to art. If the objective standard gives equally nonsense numbers for all parties does it provide any added value over cronyism? The latter is obviously unfair, but the former is not necessarily fair but rather arbitrary. Financially art is anyway driven by fads and fashions - it's not science nor is it objectively measurable from any other point except market value.
  - jdietrich 10y ago
    Taken to the nth degree, the meaningless objective evaluation would just be a random number generator - entirely arbitrary, but entirely fair. There's a wholly legitimate argument that arts funding by lottery is better for society than nepotism and cronyism.

by Veen 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

ThomPete 10y ago

But who then should curate the curators :) There is nothing to the concept of "knowing what you are talking about" when selecting who to fund and who not IMO. You might be lucky you have someone with great intuition and bi-partisan approach to what they select but you might as well be unlucky that they don't. "knowing what you are talking about" does not help you select what piece of art should be promoted over another because there really isn't any piece of art that should be promoted over another. I.e. there are no objective criteria. So applying quantitive measures is as perfectly useful as relying on individuals and it applies transparency to the process especially when combined which I believe is is the aim of it. There is another discussion all together about whether the public should be funding art but thats a whole other issue IMO.

Veen 10y ago
> But who then should curate the curators :) If I wanted to push my argument further, I'd say the ultimate answer is the same: people who know what they are talking about. You're right that there is no real objective measure of the quality of art. Which leaves a choice: throw up your hands and say everything and nothing is of value, or do what sounds terrible to most people: trust that a cultural elite is capable of making sound choices about what is valuable and what isn't by virtue of their understanding of the tradition and community standards. If there is no external and universal value, there can still be an internal value that grows from a culture, education, strong institutions, a living and evolving tradition[0], careful thought, and understanding — the people who have that are a cultural elite. It's an elitist, subjective, and probably conservative approach riddled with biases and problems, but it's better than the two alternatives: the market decides, or (which appears to be the case in the article) some market researchers decide. [0]: By tradition I mean: "an argument extended through time in which certain fundamental agreements are defined and redefined in terms of both internal and external debates." It's Alasdair MacIntyre's definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alasdair_MacIntyre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alasdair_MacIntyre
hackuser 10y ago
> There is nothing to the concept of "knowing what you are talking about" when selecting who to fund and who not IMO. I disagree. For example, clearly the head of the Museum of Modern Art in NY would make better decisions than I would about who to fund, because they know what they are talking about. That knowledge and its application aren't perfect, but they do add necessary value.
- ThomPete 10y ago
  How do you know they would make better decisions? By all means, if you can figure this out there is a nobel laurate waiting for you.

jdietrich 10y ago

>it's usually referred to as curation It's also referred to as cronyism and discrimination. Allowing a decision-maker to employ purely subjective criteria is wide open to abuse. Without objective standards, that behaviour is impossible to challenge.

fsloth 10y ago
The problem is that most metrics are quite arbitrary when applied to art. If the objective standard gives equally nonsense numbers for all parties does it provide any added value over cronyism? The latter is obviously unfair, but the former is not necessarily fair but rather arbitrary. Financially art is anyway driven by fads and fashions - it's not science nor is it objectively measurable from any other point except market value.
- jdietrich 10y ago
  Taken to the nth degree, the meaningless objective evaluation would just be a random number generator - entirely arbitrary, but entirely fair. There's a wholly legitimate argument that arts funding by lottery is better for society than nepotism and cronyism.