5 ms·

But it doesn't hold up the other way when you remove one piece. I'd wager most people would select a Michaelangelo replica even if they were directly told it wa

But it doesn't hold up the other way when you remove one piece. I'd wager most people would select a Michaelangelo replica even if they were directly told it was a replica than the dot on the canvas if told it was a replica of whatever artist made it.

watwut 5y ago
Select for what? Art students nowdays can create Michealengelo like art. Not just reproduction, but own pieces with same style. They are not admired nor anything like that. Also, I would not picked any of those for living room. Might pick dot for background screen. And this choice have nothing to do with actual value of either.
- lr4444lr 5y ago
  Art students, yes. But not the average guy off the street as compare to a single dot on a canvas.
  - watwut 5y ago
    Yes and? I honestly don't know what it is supposed to argue.
  - dagw 5y ago
    No one is arguing the Michelangelo wasn't a fantastic and talented craftsman, far more so than our made up modern artist. Everybody agrees that to do what he did takes decades of practice and schooling. But equally, that is not what made Michelangelo a great artist. There where dozens of extremely technically skilled painters that lived around the same time, none of whom most people have heard of. So if you want to argue for Michelangelo as a great artists, you cannot simply say "well he was very good at painting and made pretty pictures". Lots of people did that, so why is Michelangelo famous today and none of them.
dagw 5y ago
Select as what though, by what criteria and for what purpose? No one is arguing that the Michelangelo replica isn't a more beautiful object or representative of better craftsmanship. And anyway I feel that putting our unnamed theoretical artist up against one of the all time great artists in history is a bit unfair. Anything recognizable as a Michelangelo will automatically win just because he's Michelangelo. Probably more fair to put him up against a second-rate contemporary of Michelangelo that most people haven't heard of if you want to remove 'name recognition' from the equation.
- SilasX 5y ago
  > Anything recognizable as a Michelangelo will automatically win just because he's Michelangelo. It wins because it’s good work, not because it’s Michelangelo. A Michelangelo work will win even when the viewer doesn’t know it’s Michelangelo or even who that is. That the point: people will appreciate it without having to be told “oh this is the high-status guy, you’re supposed to like it”, “only the high-status people can see the emperor’s clothes”, etc.
  - long_time_gone 5y ago
    > A Michelangelo work will win even when the viewer doesn’t know it’s Michelangelo or even who that is. This seems like a big assumption. Is there a study that tests this idea?
    - SilasX 5y ago
      Why is it a big assumption that most people don't need to know "This is by Michelangelo and he is a high status artist" to enjoy the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel (or whatever else)? If you're going to demand copious evidence solely of the hypotheses you don't like, you're going to be locked into confirmation bias. But yes, there are easy tests you could do: get the ratios of "can't identify who made this" to "I like this" for visitors to Michaelangelo (or any still-displayed Renaissance artist, really) vs random high-status super-edgy modern.
dfxm12 5y ago
If this is true, I would bet it has more to do with metadata of the art rather than the art itself. Taste might not even enter the equation. The Michelangelo piece has many things going for it before you even get to the art itself: Painter's name value, importance to a Catholics (and probably other Christians, too), the original is a larger part of pop culture, the original is hung in a more iconic building, the importance of who commissioned it, people are more likely to have seen the Michelangelo in person and are likely to have a personal connection to it, etc. Ask someone, you can have a replica of a piece you've seen, maybe even in person, that has cultural importance to their religion and it is by {famous artist} or you can have a replica of a piece by {some other artist}. I'd guess they'd go with what they know, sight unseen.
- lr4444lr 5y ago
  Fair challenge. But go to a totally different culture where no one has heard of either of the two artists or at least produce a replica of a very obscure work from each of them and ask the unknowing, uneducated person would rather have hanging on their wall for their equally ignorant friends to come and see. I have a really tough time believing that even an African bushman living as a hunter gatherer would rather have an abstract paint spatter to a figured scene with complex light and composition. The difference in the skilled labor is compellingly hard to ignore.
  - dagw 5y ago
    uneducated person would rather have hanging on their wall for their equally ignorant friends to come and see. But now we are no longer talking about them as art, but as interior design and decoration.

watwut 5y ago

Select for what? Art students nowdays can create Michealengelo like art. Not just reproduction, but own pieces with same style. They are not admired nor anything like that. Also, I would not picked any of those for living room. Might pick dot for background screen. And this choice have nothing to do with actual value of either.

lr4444lr 5y ago
Art students, yes. But not the average guy off the street as compare to a single dot on a canvas.
- watwut 5y ago
  Yes and? I honestly don't know what it is supposed to argue.
- dagw 5y ago
  No one is arguing the Michelangelo wasn't a fantastic and talented craftsman, far more so than our made up modern artist. Everybody agrees that to do what he did takes decades of practice and schooling. But equally, that is not what made Michelangelo a great artist. There where dozens of extremely technically skilled painters that lived around the same time, none of whom most people have heard of. So if you want to argue for Michelangelo as a great artists, you cannot simply say "well he was very good at painting and made pretty pictures". Lots of people did that, so why is Michelangelo famous today and none of them.

dagw 5y ago

Select as what though, by what criteria and for what purpose? No one is arguing that the Michelangelo replica isn't a more beautiful object or representative of better craftsmanship. And anyway I feel that putting our unnamed theoretical artist up against one of the all time great artists in history is a bit unfair. Anything recognizable as a Michelangelo will automatically win just because he's Michelangelo. Probably more fair to put him up against a second-rate contemporary of Michelangelo that most people haven't heard of if you want to remove 'name recognition' from the equation.

SilasX 5y ago
> Anything recognizable as a Michelangelo will automatically win just because he's Michelangelo. It wins because it’s good work, not because it’s Michelangelo. A Michelangelo work will win even when the viewer doesn’t know it’s Michelangelo or even who that is. That the point: people will appreciate it without having to be told “oh this is the high-status guy, you’re supposed to like it”, “only the high-status people can see the emperor’s clothes”, etc.
- long_time_gone 5y ago
  > A Michelangelo work will win even when the viewer doesn’t know it’s Michelangelo or even who that is. This seems like a big assumption. Is there a study that tests this idea?
  - SilasX 5y ago
    Why is it a big assumption that most people don't need to know "This is by Michelangelo and he is a high status artist" to enjoy the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel (or whatever else)? If you're going to demand copious evidence solely of the hypotheses you don't like, you're going to be locked into confirmation bias. But yes, there are easy tests you could do: get the ratios of "can't identify who made this" to "I like this" for visitors to Michaelangelo (or any still-displayed Renaissance artist, really) vs random high-status super-edgy modern.

dfxm12 5y ago

If this is true, I would bet it has more to do with metadata of the art rather than the art itself. Taste might not even enter the equation. The Michelangelo piece has many things going for it before you even get to the art itself: Painter's name value, importance to a Catholics (and probably other Christians, too), the original is a larger part of pop culture, the original is hung in a more iconic building, the importance of who commissioned it, people are more likely to have seen the Michelangelo in person and are likely to have a personal connection to it, etc. Ask someone, you can have a replica of a piece you've seen, maybe even in person, that has cultural importance to their religion and it is by {famous artist} or you can have a replica of a piece by {some other artist}. I'd guess they'd go with what they know, sight unseen.

lr4444lr 5y ago
Fair challenge. But go to a totally different culture where no one has heard of either of the two artists or at least produce a replica of a very obscure work from each of them and ask the unknowing, uneducated person would rather have hanging on their wall for their equally ignorant friends to come and see. I have a really tough time believing that even an African bushman living as a hunter gatherer would rather have an abstract paint spatter to a figured scene with complex light and composition. The difference in the skilled labor is compellingly hard to ignore.
- dagw 5y ago
  uneducated person would rather have hanging on their wall for their equally ignorant friends to come and see. But now we are no longer talking about them as art, but as interior design and decoration.