7 ms·

Robert Storr's criticism is pretty vacuous. Crying reductionism is so common as a criticism of scientific approaches from people in the humanities as to be almo

Robert Storr's criticism is pretty vacuous. Crying reductionism is so common as a criticism of scientific approaches from people in the humanities as to be almost an absurd cliché by now. Pity that he either couldn't come up with something more interesting to say or that the Times couldn't be bothered to quote him on something more substantive.

hnriot 14y ago
But how is he wrong?
- StefanKarpinski 14y ago
  Storr's flippant dismissal of Art.sy's taxonomy as "reductive" isn't even wrong – it's completely irrelevant. It's the same thing as complaining that Pandora's music genome is reductive. Obviously it's reductive. Applying a systematic taxonomy to music or art – or living creatures or languages or anything at all – clearly cannot capture the nuance and fullness of detail of the actual items to which the taxonomy applies (except my best friend's taxonomy of black metal, which I'm pretty sure has a subsubcategory for every song ever). But such systems aren't intended to do that. It's akin to complaining about the Library of Congress classification system because each book's classification doesn't fully specify its content. That's not the point of the system. It's a navigational and organizational aide, not a complete encoding. A real critique would address the site's success as a navigational and organizational aide. I suspect that Storr uses texts full of reproductions of art in his classes. Does he also complain that they are "reductive" because they are imperfect reproductions of the original artworks? I doubt it. I bet he does, however, select the texts that serve the purpose of helping students of art understand the intellectual and artistic landscape better than others. It's completely absurd to complain that a textbook fails to reproduce the experience of seeing an artwork in person. Of course it doesn't. It is, however, helpful to discuss how a text does and doesn't succeed in providing an understanding of the space of art which it covers.
  - andreasvc 14y ago
    While I like your comment I do wonder whether it may rest on a misunderstanding of the work 'reductive'. I believe it is being used in the philosophy of science sense wherein reality can be understood in terms of the workings of components. It stands in contrast with holism, for example Quine's semantic holism.
FreakLegion 14y ago
The classification of works of art is a far cry from, say, taxonomy in biology. I'd submit that there's nothing really scientific about it. But even if there were, let me just quote David Perkins summarizing Benedetto Croce (on literature, but the point is transferable): The individual quality or difference of a work of art is the special locus of its value. Since taxonomies are based on features texts share, they foreground what is least interesting about them.
- andreasvc 14y ago
  That's rather a lot of assumptions packed into a seemingly logical conclusion. I think it's perfectly possible for a text to be appreciated because of the way it executes a specific topic or genre, such that its quality is not something individual or different. Secondly I can imagine taxonomies which are not based on shared textual features, but on chronological, geographical, and genre features. Thirdly, I don't see why a shared feature would automatically be the "least interesting". What's interesting is rather subjective and context-dependent. If for example I had a particular interest in literature coming out of the first world war, this shared feature could be at the top of my list.
  - FreakLegion 14y ago
    It is indeed a lot of assumptions and also ignores, for example, the fact that those shared and least-interesting features are still, in many cases, what people like most about things, which would make it a good approach for a recommendation engine even though it's a bad approach for critical work. Musical and narrative genres are rife with this kind of 'subscription mentality'[1]: people who simply enjoy the genre and will like almost any entry into it. > Secondly I can imagine taxonomies which are not based on shared textual features, but on chronological, geographical, and genre features. Note that these aren't meant to be excluded by the quote, which is from a book that deals largely with the three things you mention. Il n'y a pas de hors-texte and all that. > Thirdly, I don't see why a shared feature would automatically be the "least interesting". What's interesting is rather subjective and context-dependent. If for example I had a particular interest in literature coming out of the first world war, this shared feature could be at the top of my list. No doubt, but the quote is specifically concerned with literary/artistic value. Historians or critics reading through a different lens will of course have different interests and see value in different things. Would you not agree, though, that a particular interest in literature coming out of the first world war is simply a filter for your data set, and that once you get down to specific works, it's how they differ or assert themselves against one another that is most interesting about them? 1. I just made that phrase up; someone may have come up with a better one already. But you know the type: the inveterate sci-fi fan, the fantasy aficionado, the lover of all things zombie. These people are less concerned with the quality of a particular work than with the genre trappings it exhibits.
_delirium 14y ago
As someone from the scientific side, I would say it's often at least somewhat accurate, and scientists really do frequently take embarrassingly reductive approaches when trying to dip their toes into digital-humanities work, without having read enough of the relevant background material. It's cliche as a criticism, sure. So is the accusation that a lot of humanities/theory work is too "fuzzy". But both criticisms are perceived as cliche precisely because the errors they point out are so common.
- andreasvc 14y ago
  Perhaps both arguments are true, but not a problem. If reduction gives results, then it's useful; similarly for being fuzzy.
snowmaker 14y ago
Given that the NYT was giving so much air time to a new company, they probably felt obligated to print a critical point of view as well in order to seem "balanced".

hnriot 14y ago

But how is he wrong?

StefanKarpinski 14y ago
Storr's flippant dismissal of Art.sy's taxonomy as "reductive" isn't even wrong – it's completely irrelevant. It's the same thing as complaining that Pandora's music genome is reductive. Obviously it's reductive. Applying a systematic taxonomy to music or art – or living creatures or languages or anything at all – clearly cannot capture the nuance and fullness of detail of the actual items to which the taxonomy applies (except my best friend's taxonomy of black metal, which I'm pretty sure has a subsubcategory for every song ever). But such systems aren't intended to do that. It's akin to complaining about the Library of Congress classification system because each book's classification doesn't fully specify its content. That's not the point of the system. It's a navigational and organizational aide, not a complete encoding. A real critique would address the site's success as a navigational and organizational aide. I suspect that Storr uses texts full of reproductions of art in his classes. Does he also complain that they are "reductive" because they are imperfect reproductions of the original artworks? I doubt it. I bet he does, however, select the texts that serve the purpose of helping students of art understand the intellectual and artistic landscape better than others. It's completely absurd to complain that a textbook fails to reproduce the experience of seeing an artwork in person. Of course it doesn't. It is, however, helpful to discuss how a text does and doesn't succeed in providing an understanding of the space of art which it covers.
- andreasvc 14y ago
  While I like your comment I do wonder whether it may rest on a misunderstanding of the work 'reductive'. I believe it is being used in the philosophy of science sense wherein reality can be understood in terms of the workings of components. It stands in contrast with holism, for example Quine's semantic holism.

FreakLegion 14y ago

The classification of works of art is a far cry from, say, taxonomy in biology. I'd submit that there's nothing really scientific about it. But even if there were, let me just quote David Perkins summarizing Benedetto Croce (on literature, but the point is transferable): The individual quality or difference of a work of art is the special locus of its value. Since taxonomies are based on features texts share, they foreground what is least interesting about them.

andreasvc 14y ago
That's rather a lot of assumptions packed into a seemingly logical conclusion. I think it's perfectly possible for a text to be appreciated because of the way it executes a specific topic or genre, such that its quality is not something individual or different. Secondly I can imagine taxonomies which are not based on shared textual features, but on chronological, geographical, and genre features. Thirdly, I don't see why a shared feature would automatically be the "least interesting". What's interesting is rather subjective and context-dependent. If for example I had a particular interest in literature coming out of the first world war, this shared feature could be at the top of my list.
- FreakLegion 14y ago
  It is indeed a lot of assumptions and also ignores, for example, the fact that those shared and least-interesting features are still, in many cases, what people like most about things, which would make it a good approach for a recommendation engine even though it's a bad approach for critical work. Musical and narrative genres are rife with this kind of 'subscription mentality'[1]: people who simply enjoy the genre and will like almost any entry into it. > Secondly I can imagine taxonomies which are not based on shared textual features, but on chronological, geographical, and genre features. Note that these aren't meant to be excluded by the quote, which is from a book that deals largely with the three things you mention. Il n'y a pas de hors-texte and all that. > Thirdly, I don't see why a shared feature would automatically be the "least interesting". What's interesting is rather subjective and context-dependent. If for example I had a particular interest in literature coming out of the first world war, this shared feature could be at the top of my list. No doubt, but the quote is specifically concerned with literary/artistic value. Historians or critics reading through a different lens will of course have different interests and see value in different things. Would you not agree, though, that a particular interest in literature coming out of the first world war is simply a filter for your data set, and that once you get down to specific works, it's how they differ or assert themselves against one another that is most interesting about them? 1. I just made that phrase up; someone may have come up with a better one already. But you know the type: the inveterate sci-fi fan, the fantasy aficionado, the lover of all things zombie. These people are less concerned with the quality of a particular work than with the genre trappings it exhibits.

_delirium 14y ago

As someone from the scientific side, I would say it's often at least somewhat accurate, and scientists really do frequently take embarrassingly reductive approaches when trying to dip their toes into digital-humanities work, without having read enough of the relevant background material. It's cliche as a criticism, sure. So is the accusation that a lot of humanities/theory work is too "fuzzy". But both criticisms are perceived as cliche precisely because the errors they point out are so common.

andreasvc 14y ago
Perhaps both arguments are true, but not a problem. If reduction gives results, then it's useful; similarly for being fuzzy.

snowmaker 14y ago

Given that the NYT was giving so much air time to a new company, they probably felt obligated to print a critical point of view as well in order to seem "balanced".