3 ms·

>(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 under

>(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 ago
I 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 ago
  This 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.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

ethbro 7y ago

I 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 ago
This 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.