3 ms·

I could see that prize judges aren't _exactly_ correct on assessing meaning, but are they not even close? Like, their judgments are totally orthogonal to qualit

by 0thgen 4y ago

I could see that prize judges aren't _exactly_ correct on assessing meaning, but are they not even close? Like, their judgments are totally orthogonal to quality?

jakelazaroff 4y ago
What is quality? Is this “better” than a Rothko or a Mondrian or a Duchamp? We’re talking about art; it’s inherently subjective.
- 0thgen 4y ago
  I'm operating under the assumption that there is some construct of quality out there than can predict which art pieces will be deemed "better" than others. I just don't have a good description of what it is.
soneca 4y ago
I think they are orthogonal to value. As for quality, you have to define quality by any specific dimension; that's what the judge is judging. They define what quality is for them and then judge based on it. If that quality generates value for a person depends on what weight that dimension that was used as quality metric matters or affects the viewer. If you have a clear perspective of what quality dimension a judge is analyzing and it matches your own attribution of value, then I say, in this case, the judgment is a good proxy of value for you. But this is in individual cases, not as a statement of the intrinsic value of said piece of art in general. I am using this writing to think, so it is not a formed thesis on art value and quality. But that's my perception of the world.
- 0thgen 4y ago
  Fair enough, and I think your description that quality depends on an individual's own weighted dimensions of interest is spot on. But I'd also append what you said with: human individuals probably share a lot the same dimensions of interest (and probably close to the same weights). Plus, those dimensions/weights would probably become more refined as you gain experience evaluating+generating art. If there is such a thing as "quality", the key question would be whether professional art critics and experienced artists are any better at finding it.
  - soneca 4y ago
    It gets more tricky because, sometimes, the value of art comes precisely for negating what is commonly perceived as good quality for the majority of human individuals. And, after seeing that art, even the individual that used to give a lot of value for certain dimension of quality, realizes the value in a piece of art negating it.

by 0thgen 4y ago

I could see that prize judges aren't _exactly_ correct on assessing meaning, but are they not even close? Like, their judgments are totally orthogonal to quality?

jakelazaroff 4y ago

What is quality? Is this “better” than a Rothko or a Mondrian or a Duchamp? We’re talking about art; it’s inherently subjective.

0thgen 4y ago
I'm operating under the assumption that there is some construct of quality out there than can predict which art pieces will be deemed "better" than others. I just don't have a good description of what it is.

soneca 4y ago

I think they are orthogonal to value. As for quality, you have to define quality by any specific dimension; that's what the judge is judging. They define what quality is for them and then judge based on it. If that quality generates value for a person depends on what weight that dimension that was used as quality metric matters or affects the viewer. If you have a clear perspective of what quality dimension a judge is analyzing and it matches your own attribution of value, then I say, in this case, the judgment is a good proxy of value for you. But this is in individual cases, not as a statement of the intrinsic value of said piece of art in general. I am using this writing to think, so it is not a formed thesis on art value and quality. But that's my perception of the world.

0thgen 4y ago
Fair enough, and I think your description that quality depends on an individual's own weighted dimensions of interest is spot on. But I'd also append what you said with: human individuals probably share a lot the same dimensions of interest (and probably close to the same weights). Plus, those dimensions/weights would probably become more refined as you gain experience evaluating+generating art. If there is such a thing as "quality", the key question would be whether professional art critics and experienced artists are any better at finding it.
- soneca 4y ago
  It gets more tricky because, sometimes, the value of art comes precisely for negating what is commonly perceived as good quality for the majority of human individuals. And, after seeing that art, even the individual that used to give a lot of value for certain dimension of quality, realizes the value in a piece of art negating it.