5 ms·

“I wonder whether you think this essay is "great" mostly because you agree with it?” An odd question but yes I think it’s great, as I explained in post, mostly

“I wonder whether you think this essay is "great" mostly because you agree with it?” An odd question but yes I think it’s great, as I explained in post, mostly because I agree with it. Not sure if you’re asking a real question or making a rhetorical point about thinking people are crass for believing in taste, in beauty. Assuming it is a real question, part of the reason I think it’s a great essay, as I allude to be in my post, is the brevity and succinctness of it. Paul is sort of known for that— being able to put forth provocative ideas in a concise and compelling way. I’m sincerely sorry, saddened in a way, that you find art crass. You are not alone. It’s threatening to many people I’ve observed. For me, it’s one of the most important of human achievements, and worthy of celebration and contemplation. To fully appreciate it implies comparing artists and artwork and thinking deeply about what makes some art better, special. No human is excluded from this most human of activities, except for those who exclude themselves. I would urge you, don’t be one of those. Engage with art critically, and enjoy the many rewards it brings. The question of aesthetics has captivated the greatest thinkers for very good reasons. It is to be fully human, to appreciate life. Don’t deny yourself that.

cwmoore 5y ago
To disabuse you of an apparent misunderstanding, I do not at all find art to be crass. I enjoy it immensely and it enriches every aspect of my life, even elevating the ordinary. The judgement of merit by a non-artist of an artist's work is the part I found to be crass and rather a shadow of the social benefits of taste than good taste itself. A friend once asked me for a drawing of mine to hang on his wall. I offered the choice between two, one a portrait with some geometric figures and the other a pair of skulls. The latter he told me was "not to his taste", and the former he hung up in his entryway. Some things belong some places and not others, and an absolute hierarchy of taste is only the temporary a side-effect of an absolute hierarchy of power. Judge not, lest ye be in turn.
- newbamboo 5y ago
  Your point, that some art is better, is exactly the point Paul was making. A point I agree with. So I’m not sure what you find crass? Is it non-artists forming their own independent judgements about art? I’m sincerely interested in what your disagreement is.
  - cwmoore 5y ago
    Summarizing my comments with the conclusion that "some art is better" and you, Paul, or anyone else can reliably judge which it is, does not come anywhere close to my meaning. I have to conclude that we are not in disagreement, because we are not even communicating.
    - newbamboo 5y ago
      Sorry if I didn’t grasp your point. I am trying to. Maybe a simple set of questions would help: You don’t feel some art is better or special? Or you don’t feel a person can discern between art that is better or worse, even in the most extreme cases? Or is it something else? If you yourself are an artist, or own art, then surely you find some works better than others? Museums make these decisions about what to own. Do you believe one can judge some museums better or worse?
      - deviantfero 5y ago
        > Maybe a simple set of questions would help: You don’t feel some art is better or special? Or you don’t feel a person can discern between art that is better or worse, even in the most extreme cases? Or is it something else? Yes, but that is the point I think, subjectivity. You also feel that way for different reasons, and who's to judge which of us is objectively right?
        newbamboo 5y ago
        “who's to judge which of us is objectively right?” History, hiring committees, the general public, artists assessment of their own work, artists assessments of other peoples work, common sense, to name a few. Obviously I have come to my own conclusion on the matter. My interest is in why others can’t see what to me seems self evident. I too used to not understand, to think it’s all subjective, that there is no there there. But I hadn’t thought about it deeply enough. It seems some are confused because of books they’ve read or ideas put forth by thinkers they’ve found persuasive. I guess I would need to read all of those the same books to understand their position, but what’s the point if I know they are wrong? When alchemy was a thing I might need to read enormously to understand the full scope of the beliefs of those practitioners. A waste of time frankly. I like to engage who have less invested in their own mistaken conclusion about art, because many people are like me or Paul, ready to be turned around if prompted to really think about it more deeply. Those people may find, as I have, that art becomes much more meaningful and enriching when you believe there’s something to it. To believe it’s all subjective is a great insult to the professionals and artists who devote themselves to it. It robs the person who possessed those beliefs of the opportunity to fully appreciate art. I know this from personal experience. I’ll leave it at that. A long way of saying I agreed with the essay.
WA 5y ago
Assume all art was generated randomly by algorithms, but the observers are not aware of it. Would the same thoughts and conclusions about taste and art emerge in this world?

cwmoore 5y ago

To disabuse you of an apparent misunderstanding, I do not at all find art to be crass. I enjoy it immensely and it enriches every aspect of my life, even elevating the ordinary. The judgement of merit by a non-artist of an artist's work is the part I found to be crass and rather a shadow of the social benefits of taste than good taste itself. A friend once asked me for a drawing of mine to hang on his wall. I offered the choice between two, one a portrait with some geometric figures and the other a pair of skulls. The latter he told me was "not to his taste", and the former he hung up in his entryway. Some things belong some places and not others, and an absolute hierarchy of taste is only the temporary a side-effect of an absolute hierarchy of power. Judge not, lest ye be in turn.

newbamboo 5y ago
Your point, that some art is better, is exactly the point Paul was making. A point I agree with. So I’m not sure what you find crass? Is it non-artists forming their own independent judgements about art? I’m sincerely interested in what your disagreement is.
- cwmoore 5y ago
  Summarizing my comments with the conclusion that "some art is better" and you, Paul, or anyone else can reliably judge which it is, does not come anywhere close to my meaning. I have to conclude that we are not in disagreement, because we are not even communicating.
  - newbamboo 5y ago
    Sorry if I didn’t grasp your point. I am trying to. Maybe a simple set of questions would help: You don’t feel some art is better or special? Or you don’t feel a person can discern between art that is better or worse, even in the most extreme cases? Or is it something else? If you yourself are an artist, or own art, then surely you find some works better than others? Museums make these decisions about what to own. Do you believe one can judge some museums better or worse?
    - deviantfero 5y ago
      > Maybe a simple set of questions would help: You don’t feel some art is better or special? Or you don’t feel a person can discern between art that is better or worse, even in the most extreme cases? Or is it something else? Yes, but that is the point I think, subjectivity. You also feel that way for different reasons, and who's to judge which of us is objectively right?
      - newbamboo 5y ago
        “who's to judge which of us is objectively right?” History, hiring committees, the general public, artists assessment of their own work, artists assessments of other peoples work, common sense, to name a few. Obviously I have come to my own conclusion on the matter. My interest is in why others can’t see what to me seems self evident. I too used to not understand, to think it’s all subjective, that there is no there there. But I hadn’t thought about it deeply enough. It seems some are confused because of books they’ve read or ideas put forth by thinkers they’ve found persuasive. I guess I would need to read all of those the same books to understand their position, but what’s the point if I know they are wrong? When alchemy was a thing I might need to read enormously to understand the full scope of the beliefs of those practitioners. A waste of time frankly. I like to engage who have less invested in their own mistaken conclusion about art, because many people are like me or Paul, ready to be turned around if prompted to really think about it more deeply. Those people may find, as I have, that art becomes much more meaningful and enriching when you believe there’s something to it. To believe it’s all subjective is a great insult to the professionals and artists who devote themselves to it. It robs the person who possessed those beliefs of the opportunity to fully appreciate art. I know this from personal experience. I’ll leave it at that. A long way of saying I agreed with the essay.

WA 5y ago

Assume all art was generated randomly by algorithms, but the observers are not aware of it. Would the same thoughts and conclusions about taste and art emerge in this world?