3 ms·
Many fields are shallow. But this really boils down to a distrust of intellectualism, and the idea that Joe Sixpack's off-the-shelf opinion is more valid than
by beat 7y ago
Many fields are shallow.
But this really boils down to a distrust of intellectualism, and the idea that Joe Sixpack's off-the-shelf opinion is more valid than the opinion of someone who actually studies the subject seriously - that the real student is merely an elitist snob who uses their study to lord over the cretins. Sigh.
- longerthoughts 7y agoI agree with you here but would just add that this line of thinking has limits. I am not a serious student of astrology but feel perfectly comfortable dismissing the validity of horoscopes and the authority of those who peddle them. The trouble is if you assume an entire field is garbage then you're assuming the authorities of that field are either dishonest or deluded and you dismiss anything they say as self-sustaining nonsense. When that's the case, how do you change somebody's mind?
- beat 7y agoAnd that's pretty much what all this "Pollock paintings are stupid" stuff gets to, right? That anyone who likes his work or claims to find special value in it is "dishonest or deluded". You can find quotes to that effect all over this post.
- missingrib 7y agoRight, but what the parent comment is arguing (I think) is that there actually are fields where you can say that people who find special value in it are dishonest or deluded (astrology). The challenge comes in distinguishing which are valid and which aren't. For the record, I like Pollock and find art history/criticism much more valuable than astrology. But, how would you explain that to someone who just sees it as paint smears?
- LudwigNagasena 7y agoArt has nothing to do with intellectualism. And many subfields of art, even that with experts contemplating brush strokes, are very anti-intellectual in their core.