4 ms·

> 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 per

> 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 in art. The article is long, and I grew disheartened upon reading the above and stopped, so perhaps I missed a later redemption.

astazangasta 8y ago
>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.
- rdiddly 8y ago
  So in effect, you're saying all domains are like the art world.
  - astazangasta 8y ago
    Metaphysics are a problem created by the fact that your brain is smaller than the universe. It's hard to walk away from that.
- mcguire 8y ago
  E pur si muove.
  - astazangasta 8y ago
    If you are an empiricist worth your salt this (the fundamental lack of objectivity in human knowledge) is a vital piece of understanding. Being blind to the flaws of your instruments is a terrible way to do science. Also I find it ironic that this quote is probably apocryphal and yet is offered in defense of objectivity.
- dwaltrip 8y ago
  And now you are swinging too hard in the other direction. We can and do draw distinctions between narratives as we best we can. The unattainability of ultimate truth does not negate the partial truths we are able to grasp.
  - astazangasta 8y ago
    No, but it does negate their status as objective, and it gives us cause to be suspicious whenever people start trying to wear that particular crown. If anything this is the entire point of empiricism, that we're only able to produce approximate descriptions of reality that are valued for their utility rather than their approach to some gilded ur-state called "Truth". Keeping that in mind (what some people might call "skepticism") is what allows us to observe the distinctions between narratives in the first place.
- eeZah7Ux 8y ago
  HN is not famous for its deep philosophical thinking. People want to believe that the world simply quantitative and we are objective observers. Subvert the narrative and you get downvoted.
betulaq 8y ago
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 questioning art's value, just our ability to determine that value in real terms. I agree that the author's choice of words was probably kind of poor. But I interpreted the article to mean that as it becomes more difficult to determine inherent worth in an area, success becomes more and more dependent on social networking effects per se. If you need a hammer, it has a specific function, and you can quantify that function in various ways. But if you're talking about something where the value is unknown, either because no one knows the ultimate truth, or because it's based on subjective experience or something, you can't quantify it, so you go back to networks. This author has been making the rounds a bit in the last few years, and I think they've done research on these topics. Their argument is that network effects are very strong, and account for a lot of variability in outcomes that are popularly attributed to individuals (broadly defined).
- TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
  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.
- dwaltrip 8y ago
  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.
ivanhoe 8y ago
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.
- dwaltrip 8y ago
  There is signal in the noise, even if it is difficult to see or parse.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > AFAIK there's no way of objectively determining the value of anything. You can objectively determine how people subjectively value something, but value is always subjective.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
mcguire 8y ago
This article is directly relevant to the tech community. It's axiomatic that technical performance is very difficult to measure. It's also axiomatic that it's not what you know, but who.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

astazangasta 8y ago

>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.

rdiddly 8y ago
So in effect, you're saying all domains are like the art world.
- astazangasta 8y ago
  Metaphysics are a problem created by the fact that your brain is smaller than the universe. It's hard to walk away from that.
mcguire 8y ago
E pur si muove.
- astazangasta 8y ago
  If you are an empiricist worth your salt this (the fundamental lack of objectivity in human knowledge) is a vital piece of understanding. Being blind to the flaws of your instruments is a terrible way to do science. Also I find it ironic that this quote is probably apocryphal and yet is offered in defense of objectivity.
dwaltrip 8y ago
And now you are swinging too hard in the other direction. We can and do draw distinctions between narratives as we best we can. The unattainability of ultimate truth does not negate the partial truths we are able to grasp.
- astazangasta 8y ago
  No, but it does negate their status as objective, and it gives us cause to be suspicious whenever people start trying to wear that particular crown. If anything this is the entire point of empiricism, that we're only able to produce approximate descriptions of reality that are valued for their utility rather than their approach to some gilded ur-state called "Truth". Keeping that in mind (what some people might call "skepticism") is what allows us to observe the distinctions between narratives in the first place.
eeZah7Ux 8y ago
HN is not famous for its deep philosophical thinking. People want to believe that the world simply quantitative and we are objective observers. Subvert the narrative and you get downvoted.

betulaq 8y ago

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 questioning art's value, just our ability to determine that value in real terms. I agree that the author's choice of words was probably kind of poor. But I interpreted the article to mean that as it becomes more difficult to determine inherent worth in an area, success becomes more and more dependent on social networking effects per se. If you need a hammer, it has a specific function, and you can quantify that function in various ways. But if you're talking about something where the value is unknown, either because no one knows the ultimate truth, or because it's based on subjective experience or something, you can't quantify it, so you go back to networks. This author has been making the rounds a bit in the last few years, and I think they've done research on these topics. Their argument is that network effects are very strong, and account for a lot of variability in outcomes that are popularly attributed to individuals (broadly defined).

TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
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.
dwaltrip 8y ago
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.

ivanhoe 8y ago

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.

dwaltrip 8y ago
There is signal in the noise, even if it is difficult to see or parse.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> AFAIK there's no way of objectively determining the value of anything. You can objectively determine how people subjectively value something, but value is always subjective.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

mcguire 8y ago

This article is directly relevant to the tech community. It's axiomatic that technical performance is very difficult to measure. It's also axiomatic that it's not what you know, but who.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]