4 ms·
> The same way a 13-year old pop music fan doesn't have the same refinement as a 20-year old music fan, who has studied the genres, their history, interplay, wh
by ethbro 7y ago
> The same way a 13-year old pop music fan doesn't have the same refinement as a 20-year old music fan, who has studied the genres, their history, interplay, who did what, techniques, cultural impact, etc, and even less than a 30 year old music critic.
There are two pressures at play here, that get commingled in actuality.
(1) No one (in Western culture) likes to admit to ignorance. Ergo, they will always project rejection of an idea of which they are ignorant onto any alternate, available rationale. (E.g. "I don't like Bach because..." rather than "I don't understand music theory enough to appreciate what Bach's doing.")
(2) Academic or isolated artists fundamentally under-recognize the fact that their audience approaches the piece with varying levels of knowledge. Consequently, there is often a communication problem. (E.g. I compose an excellent poem in Navajo, then bemoan the fact that Europeans don't understand my work)
Of these, I think (1) is a frequent but less interesting distraction. (2) is the more fascinating to me.
Because it doesn't argue for subjectivity... but rather self-reflective objectivity. In that "To the person I am, with my training and knowledge, this is what the piece is."
Which is why I find popular arts so fascinating (e.g. auto styling, music, film). They seem to encourage artist-engineers, in that their practitioners are simultaneously trained in the medium, but also willfully optimizing for the environment as-is, not for themselves. And that's a skill I can respect.
I imagine Taylor Swift frequently has an idea and rejects / simplifies it, in light of what would resonate with her fans.
- claudiawerner 7y ago>(E.g. "I don't like Bach because..." rather than "I don't understand music theory enough to appreciate what Bach's doing.") It's very possible for me to understand and appreciate what Bach is doing and still not think that this is sufficient qualification for ascribing more artistic value than Harry Potter. As an amateur programmer, I can appreciate all the work that goes into an operating system, but I don't assign more artistic value or appreciation to it than Bach, even if, by whatever measure, the techniques required to make an OS are more intricate. Similarly, I could never get into Iannis xenakis' works - but I do appreciate the work put into it, and I understand how and why he's done it.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- ethbro 7y agoI would argue that preference is more rarely the driver of high art evaluation than ignorance. Which doesn't seem that bold of a claim. It's somewhat like saying "Environmentalists don't like nuclear power because most are not trained nuclear engineers." It is a fact that there are few nuclear engineers (or even adjacent physicists). Yet how often do you hear "Nuclear power scares me because I don't understand it"?
- claudiawerner 7y agoThis comes back to having shared goals; presumably the environmentalist and the nuclear engineer have the shared goal of human/environmental safety, so evaluation within that context is possible, but because the Harry Potter fan and the Bach scholar don't have shared ideas about what makes good art, each standard of what makes good art is just as good as another. The Bach scholar doesn't seem to have any reasoning behind the assertion that Bach's use of high techniques and synthesis of ideas means that his art is more valuable. On the other hand, because the nuclear engineer and the environmentalist agree on some desired state of the world, the environmentalist, lest he remain ignorant as to what is best for human/environmental safety, should listen. In short: the Harry Potter fan and the Bach scholar don't have a shared idea about the best way to judge art. The environmentalist and the nuclear engineer do have a shared idea of maximizing human/environmental safety. The environmentalist has no reason to listen to the nuclear engineer if the engineer's reason for nuclear power is something like "I like to see the number of reactions go up on the computer screen", because looking at numbers on a screen isn't a shared goal between the two parties.