7 ms·

I 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 dismissin

I 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 ago
And 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 ago
  Right, 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?