3 ms·

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

by 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.
    - long_time_gone 5y ago
      I never demanded "copius evidence" I asked a clarifying question. If you are going to make specific claims, people might ask for evidence of those claims. It's not confirmation bias to ask for supporting details, quite the opposite. > 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)? This is an entirely different statement than your original comment. Of course, you don't need to know Michelangelo to "enjoy" the Sistine Chapel, nobody argued otherwise. Your claim was that, "A Michelangelo work will win even if the viewer doesn't know it's Michelangelo or even who that is." This implies a measure of comparison to something or someone else, which is far different than enjoying a single piece of art. Surely, there are people who prefer Bertoldo di Giovanni [1] to Michelangelo. [1] https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-little-known-sculptor-taught-michelangelo-studied-donatello https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-little-known-s...
      - SilasX 5y ago
        >I never demanded "copius evidence" I asked a clarifying question. If you are going to make specific claims, people might ask for evidence of those claims. It's not confirmation bias to ask for supporting details, quite the opposite. It is when you don't ask for the same evidence of the opposite, original assertion, and when the test you demand/clarify-the-existence-of is a strangely narrow test that no one would have reason to do in the first place because the core problem is that no one is subjecting the more modern art to that kind of rigor to begin with! (Which would obviate the whole debate.[1]) So yes, when you come in and single out my response as needing a very specific test before you'll consider it plausible, aren't being epistemically fair. >Of course, you don't need to know Michelangelo to "enjoy" the Sistine Chapel, nobody argued otherwise. Are we looking at the same thread? From earlier in this same thread: >>Anything recognizable as a Michelangelo will automatically win just because he's Michelangelo. The assertion is that the knowledge of Michelangelo and his association with that work is artificially raising the viewer's appreciation of it. My contrary claim was that it's appreciated as good work, more so than the garbage you see in modern art museums, because it's good, not because the average viewer cares about Michelangelo specifically, which dagw was saying that the later art does (apparently) require (knowledge of the artist and other "context"). >Your claim was that, "A Michelangelo work will win even if the viewer doesn't know it's Michelangelo or even who that is." This implies a measure of comparison to something or someone else, which is far different than enjoying a single piece of art. It implies exactly what it meant in the original comment and thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29227817 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29227817 That is, a comparison against the later super-edgey modern art. [1] Except maybe the time that troll passed off a monkey's art as prestigious, which made the duped critics double down and say, "well ... maybe that monkey has artistic talent!"

by dagw 5y ago

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.
  - long_time_gone 5y ago
    I never demanded "copius evidence" I asked a clarifying question. If you are going to make specific claims, people might ask for evidence of those claims. It's not confirmation bias to ask for supporting details, quite the opposite. > 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)? This is an entirely different statement than your original comment. Of course, you don't need to know Michelangelo to "enjoy" the Sistine Chapel, nobody argued otherwise. Your claim was that, "A Michelangelo work will win even if the viewer doesn't know it's Michelangelo or even who that is." This implies a measure of comparison to something or someone else, which is far different than enjoying a single piece of art. Surely, there are people who prefer Bertoldo di Giovanni [1] to Michelangelo. [1] https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-little-known-sculptor-taught-michelangelo-studied-donatello https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-little-known-s...
    - SilasX 5y ago
      >I never demanded "copius evidence" I asked a clarifying question. If you are going to make specific claims, people might ask for evidence of those claims. It's not confirmation bias to ask for supporting details, quite the opposite. It is when you don't ask for the same evidence of the opposite, original assertion, and when the test you demand/clarify-the-existence-of is a strangely narrow test that no one would have reason to do in the first place because the core problem is that no one is subjecting the more modern art to that kind of rigor to begin with! (Which would obviate the whole debate.[1]) So yes, when you come in and single out my response as needing a very specific test before you'll consider it plausible, aren't being epistemically fair. >Of course, you don't need to know Michelangelo to "enjoy" the Sistine Chapel, nobody argued otherwise. Are we looking at the same thread? From earlier in this same thread: >>Anything recognizable as a Michelangelo will automatically win just because he's Michelangelo. The assertion is that the knowledge of Michelangelo and his association with that work is artificially raising the viewer's appreciation of it. My contrary claim was that it's appreciated as good work, more so than the garbage you see in modern art museums, because it's good, not because the average viewer cares about Michelangelo specifically, which dagw was saying that the later art does (apparently) require (knowledge of the artist and other "context"). >Your claim was that, "A Michelangelo work will win even if the viewer doesn't know it's Michelangelo or even who that is." This implies a measure of comparison to something or someone else, which is far different than enjoying a single piece of art. It implies exactly what it meant in the original comment and thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29227817 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29227817 That is, a comparison against the later super-edgey modern art. [1] Except maybe the time that troll passed off a monkey's art as prestigious, which made the duped critics double down and say, "well ... maybe that monkey has artistic talent!"