5 ms·

It only assumes production skill is correlated it doesn’t require a perfect correspondence. I’d argue it is hard to have a meaningful concept of production skil

by TimPC 5y ago

It only assumes production skill is correlated it doesn’t require a perfect correspondence. I’d argue it is hard to have a meaningful concept of production skill that is either independent of or anticorrelated to taste. Yes production skill alone does not make the piece of art. But if it contributes in any way shape or form that’s enough to establish there is such thing as taste.

guerrilla 5y ago
> It only assumes production skill is correlated it doesn’t require a perfect correspondence This is fair. As for the rest, I don't think you made your argument and I think a massive amount of emperical evidence contradicts that. Pop music, mass produced movies, memes, etc. It's all low effort shit and people love it more than anything else and avoid high-skilled art like the plague. We have a ton of statistics on this. If you try to claim they just don't have taste then you'd just be question begging at that point. There's really no value in this entire discussion anyway. All it does is serve to reinforce elitism and all you get out of it in the end is being able to say that you're better at liking stuff than other people are liking stuff, which is pretty much kindergarten nonsense.
- TimPC 5y ago
  I’m not making an argument about what taste is or which tastes are correct. I’m merely interested in establishing taste exists and the “all works are equally good” school of thought is wrong. We could have a stronger argument separately about a stronger assertion at which point your pop music claims might be relevant but that isn’t the conversation I was attempting to have.
- circlefavshape 5y ago
  > Pop music ... it's all low effort shit What? You clearly know very little about how pop music is produced. If you think the stuff people like Lady Gaga and Dua Lipa (and their teams of writers and producers) put out is low-effort then you're just another clueless snob
  - guerrilla 5y ago
    For every two of those, there are thousands of counterexamples.
    - borski 5y ago
      But those 'thousands of counterexamples' do not tend to have lasting success; fleeting success is fairly clearly popularity-driven. Lasting success takes producing works that appeal to good taste. Both Lady Gaga and Dua Lipa are great examples of artists that have produced works with lasting success. I would put Lil Nas X, 2Pac, Eminem in that category too, as another example from 'not pop.' T-Pain, less so. :)
    - aidenn0 5y ago
      I'd like to invoke Sturgeon's law[1] here. Basically it's not useful to claim that the overwhelming majority of pop-music is "low-effort shit" because that's true of nearly all genres. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law
      - guerrilla 5y ago
        Fine, that would just add support to my original point.

by TimPC 5y ago

guerrilla 5y ago

> It only assumes production skill is correlated it doesn’t require a perfect correspondence This is fair. As for the rest, I don't think you made your argument and I think a massive amount of emperical evidence contradicts that. Pop music, mass produced movies, memes, etc. It's all low effort shit and people love it more than anything else and avoid high-skilled art like the plague. We have a ton of statistics on this. If you try to claim they just don't have taste then you'd just be question begging at that point. There's really no value in this entire discussion anyway. All it does is serve to reinforce elitism and all you get out of it in the end is being able to say that you're better at liking stuff than other people are liking stuff, which is pretty much kindergarten nonsense.

TimPC 5y ago
I’m not making an argument about what taste is or which tastes are correct. I’m merely interested in establishing taste exists and the “all works are equally good” school of thought is wrong. We could have a stronger argument separately about a stronger assertion at which point your pop music claims might be relevant but that isn’t the conversation I was attempting to have.
circlefavshape 5y ago
> Pop music ... it's all low effort shit What? You clearly know very little about how pop music is produced. If you think the stuff people like Lady Gaga and Dua Lipa (and their teams of writers and producers) put out is low-effort then you're just another clueless snob
- guerrilla 5y ago
  For every two of those, there are thousands of counterexamples.
  - borski 5y ago
    But those 'thousands of counterexamples' do not tend to have lasting success; fleeting success is fairly clearly popularity-driven. Lasting success takes producing works that appeal to good taste. Both Lady Gaga and Dua Lipa are great examples of artists that have produced works with lasting success. I would put Lil Nas X, 2Pac, Eminem in that category too, as another example from 'not pop.' T-Pain, less so. :)
  - aidenn0 5y ago
    I'd like to invoke Sturgeon's law[1] here. Basically it's not useful to claim that the overwhelming majority of pop-music is "low-effort shit" because that's true of nearly all genres. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law
    - guerrilla 5y ago
      Fine, that would just add support to my original point.