11 ms·

"As a person with personal interest in visual arts" With all due respects, isn't this an entirely meaningless saying? Everyone has an interest in aesthetics an

"As a person with personal interest in visual arts" With all due respects, isn't this an entirely meaningless saying? Everyone has an interest in aesthetics and visual appeal, and has a subjective opinion on what they find appealing. We are a social species so invariably people infect each other's opinion so we have trends and movements towards/from opinions, but everyone has equal legitimacy in their opinion on this. As to the CyberTrck it's worth noting that its design seems a restriction of material limitations rather than an intentional pursuit. As with the Delorean before, they started with the conclusion that they would use stainless steel and virtually every design decision was bound by that beginning.

keiferski 7y ago
> but everyone has equal legitimacy in their opinion on this. Why is everyone's opinion equal? When building a bridge, is the opinion of a civil engineer equal to that of a cook? No, clearly not - but we only recognize this because the effects of building faulty bridges are obvious and immediately noticeable, whereas the effects of cultural ignorance are far more subtle and wide-reaching. The fields of art and aesthetics have a long, complex history and have been studied and written upon by thousands of intelligent scholars, designers, artists, philosophers, and religious figures. Unfortunately, the default opinion among society today (which you yourself are echoing) is just a sort of ignorant relativism - everyone's opinion on art (and anything else that isn't 'practical') has the same value and the topic is fundamentally just a popularity contest. Worse yet, this opinion wasn't arrived at by carefully considering all the approaches to art and choosing subjectivity as the best option, which it may actually be (but that isn't my point.) Instead, it was arrived at by simple ignorance.
- murgindrag 7y ago
  It's not about practicality. A Formula 1 car or high-performance sailboat has no practical value, but I trust engineers far more than kindergartners about Formula 1 or yacht design. On the other hand, I've seen gifted kindergartners draw things which I thought were pretty good -- on par with some respected artists. It's about having real-world validation. Anyone can have an opinion about art and literature. If your opinion happens to mirror the opinions of English department academics -- just clever enough to be a new twist, but not so brilliant as to go outside of the culture -- you can get a position as a scholar, and keep writing papers within a mutual appreciation society of academics all thinking roughly the same thoughts. Eventually, the whole crew goes down one rabbithole or other. A group of thousands of self-supporting, mutually reaffirming "intelligent scholars, designers, artists, philosophers, and religious figures" doesn't make that opinion any more right or valid than my own. On the other hand, if an engineer can make the fastest sailboat, that's external real-world validation that they got something right. As a subtle point, I'll trust the opinion of filmmakers who receive public acclaim (external validation). I'll trust the opinion of filmmakers of niche artistic films a lot less. That is to say, I'll trust them about the technical aspects (what aperture means, or how to edit a video), but not about the artistic aspects: how you use film as a medium for communication, expression, and so on. A big part of communication and art is understanding the audience, and they haven't demonstrated they can do that, at least outside of their own clique.
  - keiferski 7y ago
    You do realize that the activity of art-making and the field of aesthetics (defined broadly as philosophical thought about art-making) are thousands of years old? And that just as there are arguments for certain political systems over others, there are arguments for certain ways of interpreting and valuing art over others? The idea that artistic value is only based on modern academics is really quite myopic.
    - claudiawerner 7y ago
      I'm curious as to what the argument actually is against the idea that it is perfectly reasonable to value Bach and JK Rowling's Harry Potter with the latter having more "value" than the former. What argument do aestheticians put forth to say that my judgement is incorrect, or worse, than that of the Bach scholar? It seems to me that the challenge for the "objective" theory of aesthetics is pretty much the same as the one for moral realism. Yes, the fact that people disagree about artistic value doesn't mean that artistic value is subjective - but I'm yet to be convinced that it's objective in any meaningful sense. In the end, though, you're right about disagreement over political systems (despite some attempts to do away with political relativism, e.g. Badiou) - but only because different people have different, mutually exclusive, visions of what society is and should be, and the methods to get there. The arguments you're talking about in politics only have any meaning once at least one set goal is agreed upon - e.g. human freedom. But I struggle to think of any such goal that the Bach scholar and the Harry Potter fan are going to agree on. I think there's a reason why even die-hard Adorno "fans" have given up trying to argue why jazz music is so bad. When someone can think up an argument to convince a Harry Potter fan that they should really judge Bach's music as more beautiful, pleasing, of higher artistic value etc. than Harry Potter, then I'm curious.
      - keiferski 7y ago
        Aestheticians don’t frame the question as “objective vs. subjective” so I wouldn’t use that as a goal or a starting point. There are various approaches and none is more “objective”, just as the X political philosophy is not more objective than Y political philosophy. They are constructed of arguments, evidence, worldviews, and other things that have nothing to do with arriving at some standard of “objectively better.” My criticism of the “ignorant relativist” is that he is uninformed on the reasoning of his position and of other positions, not that he thinks art is subjective.
- Isinlor 7y ago
  You take position of authority, criticize, but you are not educating. > The fields of art and aesthetics have a long, complex history and have been studied and written upon by thousands of intelligent scholars, designers, artists, philosophers, and religious figures. So, let me ask you, why should I care? I care about design e.g. "The Design of Everyday Things": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yY96hTb8WgI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yY96hTb8WgI But what is it about aesthetics that is not subjective?
  - keiferski 7y ago
    You should care because (presumably) you don't want to be an ignorant person (as in, lacking knowledge). If you don't see why being ignorant is undesirable, then I can't really help you. If you're genuinely interested in learning about aesthetics, then you'll have to do a lot of reading. As with pretty much any complex topic, there are no easy one-line answers. I recommend starting with the Wikipedia page, browsing some articles in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and then finding some books in areas that you find interesting. If you're a software engineer, for example, then I'd recommend Aesthetic Computing. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics - https://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=aesthetics https://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=aestheti... - https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/aesthetic-computing https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/aesthetic-computing
    - Isinlor 7y ago
      I'm sorry, but your argument can be applied to everything. > You should care because (presumably) you don't want to be an ignorant person (as in, lacking knowledge). Everybody is ignorant about approximately everything. People may find me ignorant because I don't follow some celebrities, sports etc. We need to choose what we educate ourselves on. To me, it seems like you are making a social proof argument. Other people care about it, so I should care about it too, because otherwise I may be labeled as ignorant. But at the same time, I doubt that this is the kind of argument you want to make. I assume you have some stronger reasons. I like the monologue of Feynman about Beauty: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRmbwczTC6E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRmbwczTC6E To me, aesthetics is more or less a curiosity. An aspect of our cognition, that is relevant only because it is a result of evolution, some kind of heuristics for dealing with the world. Would you agree with that kind of characterization?
- endorphone 7y ago
  "Why is everyone's opinion equal? When building a bridge, is the opinion of a civil engineer equal to that of a cook?" Engineering is objective. It is provable. It yields foundational precepts that, if you annihilated society and it grew again, would recur in the same form. Aesthetics/art has gone through countless cycles -- often completely contradictory states -- and at any one time you can find any number of adherents of virtually any belief. Looking at the disastrous CyberTruck, though, which subjectively almost everyone hates, and saying "I'm kind of into this stuff, so my opinion means more" is absurd. It is 100% subjective, and it is something that everyone has an equal opinion on. A design that was the result of the limitations of forming stainless steel and pretending like it is some heightened presentation is farce.
  - ctdonath 7y ago
    the disastrous CyberTruck, though, which subjectively almost everyone hates Your hate for it is subjective. Whether almost everyone shares your opinion is objective.
    - mcguire 7y ago
      The question here, though, is whether the hideous abomination is Brutalist or not. I'll buy the argument that it doesn't satisfy the definition.
- briandear 7y ago
  > the default opinion among society today (which you yourself are echoing) is just a sort of ignorant relativism - everyone's opinion on art (and anything else that isn't 'practical') has the same value and the topic is fundamentally just a popularity contest. Have you been to Art Basel or any of the other “important” art events where the “experts” go to opine? The $150k banana taped to the wall? There is an “artwork” in MOMA New York that is literally a giant white wall in which the “artist” shot a BB gun. [1] Much of modern art is a giant MLM scam in which some dealer convinces people that some junkie that dips his penis in paint and touches the tip to a canvas is somehow the next Basquiat. A banana sold at Basel this year for $150k. Then some “performance artist” ate the banana, but then the artist said that it’s ok to replace the banana. What the heck just happened? These are the people who’s opinions on art should be respected? I am a very minor league art collector and sloshing through the liquified excrement of an art show is both hilarious and disheartening: hilarious because people will actually spend $50k on used toilet tissue stapled to a wall if the dealer spins a good enough story, and it’s disheartening because there is some real talent out there that doesn’t have the benefit of professional carnaval barkers or flim-flam men to make them famous. Art absolutely is a popularity contest and always has been. [1] https://www.moma.org/collection/works/137436 https://www.moma.org/collection/works/137436
- mcguire 7y ago
  Absolutely! Modern industrial designers spend years in school learning to solve linear differential equations describing visual weight and balance, materials and emotional response.
coldtea 7y ago
>Everyone has an interest in aesthetics and visual appeal You'd be surprised. >and has a subjective opinion on what they find appealing That's true, but not all "subjective opinions" are equally informed, based on study, and refined/cultivated systematically. For most, their "subjective opinion" in aesthetic matters is as random as their favorite food. While "objective" things are clear cut (measurable, quantifiable, 100% not arguable), "subjective" is a scale from "uninformed random preference" (say, a person who likes "Dali" paintings because he's some some in websites and they look cool) to "scholarly expertise" (say, an art curator, that has studied Japanese woodblock for decades with masters of the art). >but everyone has equal legitimacy in their opinion on this In the modern world everyone has an equal right to offer their opinion. That's not the same as the different opinions being equally legitimate (e.g. equally worthy of attention, equally informed, equally productive, equally subtle, etc).
geomark 7y ago
Yeah, it's funny to argue over opinions about what is beautiful. It always annoyed me immensely and I never knew how to avoid it until I found a hero in Dan Gelbart when he talked about prototyping and how including adornments opens you up to arguing about if it is beautiful or not, but "If it is 100% functional, then it is beautiful."
endorphone 7y ago
Another post that strangely sees a flurry of downvotes long after the hype. Dropped from 3 to -3 in less than an hour, well over a day past when it was posted. I don't mean to imply I care about this -- the HN illuminati continually vote AGW denier nonsense to the top -- but it does fascinate me. Is this some sort of mod-bomb that dang drops?

keiferski 7y ago

> but everyone has equal legitimacy in their opinion on this. Why is everyone's opinion equal? When building a bridge, is the opinion of a civil engineer equal to that of a cook? No, clearly not - but we only recognize this because the effects of building faulty bridges are obvious and immediately noticeable, whereas the effects of cultural ignorance are far more subtle and wide-reaching. The fields of art and aesthetics have a long, complex history and have been studied and written upon by thousands of intelligent scholars, designers, artists, philosophers, and religious figures. Unfortunately, the default opinion among society today (which you yourself are echoing) is just a sort of ignorant relativism - everyone's opinion on art (and anything else that isn't 'practical') has the same value and the topic is fundamentally just a popularity contest. Worse yet, this opinion wasn't arrived at by carefully considering all the approaches to art and choosing subjectivity as the best option, which it may actually be (but that isn't my point.) Instead, it was arrived at by simple ignorance.

murgindrag 7y ago
It's not about practicality. A Formula 1 car or high-performance sailboat has no practical value, but I trust engineers far more than kindergartners about Formula 1 or yacht design. On the other hand, I've seen gifted kindergartners draw things which I thought were pretty good -- on par with some respected artists. It's about having real-world validation. Anyone can have an opinion about art and literature. If your opinion happens to mirror the opinions of English department academics -- just clever enough to be a new twist, but not so brilliant as to go outside of the culture -- you can get a position as a scholar, and keep writing papers within a mutual appreciation society of academics all thinking roughly the same thoughts. Eventually, the whole crew goes down one rabbithole or other. A group of thousands of self-supporting, mutually reaffirming "intelligent scholars, designers, artists, philosophers, and religious figures" doesn't make that opinion any more right or valid than my own. On the other hand, if an engineer can make the fastest sailboat, that's external real-world validation that they got something right. As a subtle point, I'll trust the opinion of filmmakers who receive public acclaim (external validation). I'll trust the opinion of filmmakers of niche artistic films a lot less. That is to say, I'll trust them about the technical aspects (what aperture means, or how to edit a video), but not about the artistic aspects: how you use film as a medium for communication, expression, and so on. A big part of communication and art is understanding the audience, and they haven't demonstrated they can do that, at least outside of their own clique.
- keiferski 7y ago
  You do realize that the activity of art-making and the field of aesthetics (defined broadly as philosophical thought about art-making) are thousands of years old? And that just as there are arguments for certain political systems over others, there are arguments for certain ways of interpreting and valuing art over others? The idea that artistic value is only based on modern academics is really quite myopic.
  - claudiawerner 7y ago
    I'm curious as to what the argument actually is against the idea that it is perfectly reasonable to value Bach and JK Rowling's Harry Potter with the latter having more "value" than the former. What argument do aestheticians put forth to say that my judgement is incorrect, or worse, than that of the Bach scholar? It seems to me that the challenge for the "objective" theory of aesthetics is pretty much the same as the one for moral realism. Yes, the fact that people disagree about artistic value doesn't mean that artistic value is subjective - but I'm yet to be convinced that it's objective in any meaningful sense. In the end, though, you're right about disagreement over political systems (despite some attempts to do away with political relativism, e.g. Badiou) - but only because different people have different, mutually exclusive, visions of what society is and should be, and the methods to get there. The arguments you're talking about in politics only have any meaning once at least one set goal is agreed upon - e.g. human freedom. But I struggle to think of any such goal that the Bach scholar and the Harry Potter fan are going to agree on. I think there's a reason why even die-hard Adorno "fans" have given up trying to argue why jazz music is so bad. When someone can think up an argument to convince a Harry Potter fan that they should really judge Bach's music as more beautiful, pleasing, of higher artistic value etc. than Harry Potter, then I'm curious.
    - keiferski 7y ago
      Aestheticians don’t frame the question as “objective vs. subjective” so I wouldn’t use that as a goal or a starting point. There are various approaches and none is more “objective”, just as the X political philosophy is not more objective than Y political philosophy. They are constructed of arguments, evidence, worldviews, and other things that have nothing to do with arriving at some standard of “objectively better.” My criticism of the “ignorant relativist” is that he is uninformed on the reasoning of his position and of other positions, not that he thinks art is subjective.
Isinlor 7y ago
You take position of authority, criticize, but you are not educating. > The fields of art and aesthetics have a long, complex history and have been studied and written upon by thousands of intelligent scholars, designers, artists, philosophers, and religious figures. So, let me ask you, why should I care? I care about design e.g. "The Design of Everyday Things": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yY96hTb8WgI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yY96hTb8WgI But what is it about aesthetics that is not subjective?
- keiferski 7y ago
  You should care because (presumably) you don't want to be an ignorant person (as in, lacking knowledge). If you don't see why being ignorant is undesirable, then I can't really help you. If you're genuinely interested in learning about aesthetics, then you'll have to do a lot of reading. As with pretty much any complex topic, there are no easy one-line answers. I recommend starting with the Wikipedia page, browsing some articles in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and then finding some books in areas that you find interesting. If you're a software engineer, for example, then I'd recommend Aesthetic Computing. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics - https://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=aesthetics https://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=aestheti... - https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/aesthetic-computing https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/aesthetic-computing
  - Isinlor 7y ago
    I'm sorry, but your argument can be applied to everything. > You should care because (presumably) you don't want to be an ignorant person (as in, lacking knowledge). Everybody is ignorant about approximately everything. People may find me ignorant because I don't follow some celebrities, sports etc. We need to choose what we educate ourselves on. To me, it seems like you are making a social proof argument. Other people care about it, so I should care about it too, because otherwise I may be labeled as ignorant. But at the same time, I doubt that this is the kind of argument you want to make. I assume you have some stronger reasons. I like the monologue of Feynman about Beauty: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRmbwczTC6E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRmbwczTC6E To me, aesthetics is more or less a curiosity. An aspect of our cognition, that is relevant only because it is a result of evolution, some kind of heuristics for dealing with the world. Would you agree with that kind of characterization?
endorphone 7y ago
"Why is everyone's opinion equal? When building a bridge, is the opinion of a civil engineer equal to that of a cook?" Engineering is objective. It is provable. It yields foundational precepts that, if you annihilated society and it grew again, would recur in the same form. Aesthetics/art has gone through countless cycles -- often completely contradictory states -- and at any one time you can find any number of adherents of virtually any belief. Looking at the disastrous CyberTruck, though, which subjectively almost everyone hates, and saying "I'm kind of into this stuff, so my opinion means more" is absurd. It is 100% subjective, and it is something that everyone has an equal opinion on. A design that was the result of the limitations of forming stainless steel and pretending like it is some heightened presentation is farce.
- ctdonath 7y ago
  the disastrous CyberTruck, though, which subjectively almost everyone hates Your hate for it is subjective. Whether almost everyone shares your opinion is objective.
  - mcguire 7y ago
    The question here, though, is whether the hideous abomination is Brutalist or not. I'll buy the argument that it doesn't satisfy the definition.
briandear 7y ago
> the default opinion among society today (which you yourself are echoing) is just a sort of ignorant relativism - everyone's opinion on art (and anything else that isn't 'practical') has the same value and the topic is fundamentally just a popularity contest. Have you been to Art Basel or any of the other “important” art events where the “experts” go to opine? The $150k banana taped to the wall? There is an “artwork” in MOMA New York that is literally a giant white wall in which the “artist” shot a BB gun. [1] Much of modern art is a giant MLM scam in which some dealer convinces people that some junkie that dips his penis in paint and touches the tip to a canvas is somehow the next Basquiat. A banana sold at Basel this year for $150k. Then some “performance artist” ate the banana, but then the artist said that it’s ok to replace the banana. What the heck just happened? These are the people who’s opinions on art should be respected? I am a very minor league art collector and sloshing through the liquified excrement of an art show is both hilarious and disheartening: hilarious because people will actually spend $50k on used toilet tissue stapled to a wall if the dealer spins a good enough story, and it’s disheartening because there is some real talent out there that doesn’t have the benefit of professional carnaval barkers or flim-flam men to make them famous. Art absolutely is a popularity contest and always has been. [1] https://www.moma.org/collection/works/137436 https://www.moma.org/collection/works/137436
mcguire 7y ago
Absolutely! Modern industrial designers spend years in school learning to solve linear differential equations describing visual weight and balance, materials and emotional response.

coldtea 7y ago

>Everyone has an interest in aesthetics and visual appeal You'd be surprised. >and has a subjective opinion on what they find appealing That's true, but not all "subjective opinions" are equally informed, based on study, and refined/cultivated systematically. For most, their "subjective opinion" in aesthetic matters is as random as their favorite food. While "objective" things are clear cut (measurable, quantifiable, 100% not arguable), "subjective" is a scale from "uninformed random preference" (say, a person who likes "Dali" paintings because he's some some in websites and they look cool) to "scholarly expertise" (say, an art curator, that has studied Japanese woodblock for decades with masters of the art). >but everyone has equal legitimacy in their opinion on this In the modern world everyone has an equal right to offer their opinion. That's not the same as the different opinions being equally legitimate (e.g. equally worthy of attention, equally informed, equally productive, equally subtle, etc).

geomark 7y ago

Yeah, it's funny to argue over opinions about what is beautiful. It always annoyed me immensely and I never knew how to avoid it until I found a hero in Dan Gelbart when he talked about prototyping and how including adornments opens you up to arguing about if it is beautiful or not, but "If it is 100% functional, then it is beautiful."

endorphone 7y ago

Another post that strangely sees a flurry of downvotes long after the hype. Dropped from 3 to -3 in less than an hour, well over a day past when it was posted. I don't mean to imply I care about this -- the HN illuminati continually vote AGW denier nonsense to the top -- but it does fascinate me. Is this some sort of mod-bomb that dang drops?