3 ms·

That's a list of "Best-sellers initially rejected", though. Not quite the same as quality initially unrecognized. Some of them could still be books of low quali

That's a list of "Best-sellers initially rejected", though. Not quite the same as quality initially unrecognized. Some of them could still be books of low quality, that happen to be popular.

WalterBright 12y ago
Nobody has found a reliable metric to determine the quality of art, not even close, other than what others are freely willing to pay for it.
- logicchains 12y ago
  You might be surprised how many people there are who would consider the quality of art to be inversely proportional to what others are freely willing to pay for it. Particularly those in the business of making art that few are interested in paying for.
  - WalterBright 12y ago
    Not at all. I've also run into people who put on stage productions who are disappointed if people actually go to see them, feeling that means they "sold out". While they're entitled to their opinions, I suspect that this is just a rationalization for being terrible artists :-) It's like people who take pride in not knowing anything about technology.
- afterburner 12y ago
  "not even close" Really? Because while Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes are far from perfect, they are quite useful in pointing out movies that have more rather than less quality.
  - WalterBright 12y ago
    Those are aggregated peoples' opinions, which are subjective. I was thinking of objective metrics.
    - afterburner 12y ago
      "what other people are willing to pay" is also "aggregated peoples' opinions"
      - WalterBright 12y ago
        You've never met people whose stated opinion did not match their behavior? I find that rather normal.
        afterburner 12y ago
        "Nobody has found a reliable metric to determine the quality of art, not even close, other than what others are freely willing to pay for it." "You've never met people whose stated opinion did not match their behavior? I find that rather normal." Are you retracting the freely paying method as a way to determine quality then? You're claiming then that there's no way at all to determine quality?
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  Sure they have -- your response to the art. Its a perfectly reliable metric to determine the quality of art, since "quality of art" isn't an objective quantity but instead a subjective quality, and so is exactly what each viewer finds it to be.

That's a list of "Best-sellers initially rejected", though. Not quite the same as quality initially unrecognized. Some of them could still be books of low quality, that happen to be popular.

WalterBright 12y ago

Nobody has found a reliable metric to determine the quality of art, not even close, other than what others are freely willing to pay for it.

logicchains 12y ago
You might be surprised how many people there are who would consider the quality of art to be inversely proportional to what others are freely willing to pay for it. Particularly those in the business of making art that few are interested in paying for.
- WalterBright 12y ago
  Not at all. I've also run into people who put on stage productions who are disappointed if people actually go to see them, feeling that means they "sold out". While they're entitled to their opinions, I suspect that this is just a rationalization for being terrible artists :-) It's like people who take pride in not knowing anything about technology.
afterburner 12y ago
"not even close" Really? Because while Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes are far from perfect, they are quite useful in pointing out movies that have more rather than less quality.
- WalterBright 12y ago
  Those are aggregated peoples' opinions, which are subjective. I was thinking of objective metrics.
  - afterburner 12y ago
    "what other people are willing to pay" is also "aggregated peoples' opinions"
    - WalterBright 12y ago
      You've never met people whose stated opinion did not match their behavior? I find that rather normal.
      - afterburner 12y ago
        "Nobody has found a reliable metric to determine the quality of art, not even close, other than what others are freely willing to pay for it." "You've never met people whose stated opinion did not match their behavior? I find that rather normal." Are you retracting the freely paying method as a way to determine quality then? You're claiming then that there's no way at all to determine quality?
dragonwriter 12y ago
Sure they have -- your response to the art. Its a perfectly reliable metric to determine the quality of art, since "quality of art" isn't an objective quantity but instead a subjective quality, and so is exactly what each viewer finds it to be.