Originally posted by Palynka
It's still the source that counts. In this case whether he knows what YOU like or not. It's dumbfounding that you cannot see that your post entails that the evaluation of at is as subjective as I'm defending it it. And I'm not talking about simply 'taste' here.
I don't deny that my opinion matters to what I pursue, or that other people's opinions matters
to what they pursue. I've not denied that anywhere. All of I've said is that 50% of people,
by definition, are below average and thus have below average tastes, and like below average
things. Do you dispute this?
Think of this example. Which tastes better, feces or chocolate? Now, you can be absurd and say,
'Well, chocolate tastes better to me but the sense of taste is a subjective thing,' or 'There
might be some alien on some other planet that evolved eating poop and finding chocolate poisonous,'
or a million other things. And you would be totally right.
And it would be totally irrelevant. We are humans. We have a pretty universal sense of taste.
So, we can say chocolate is better than feces with a high degree of confidence. We can say
similar things about other things we experience with our senses: our sense of who is and is
not beautiful, for example, based on certain symmetries and proportions which we inherited
through evolution. Will some people be immune to this? Sure. But who cares about the
back end of the bell curve? Who wants to study that? I'm interested, inasmuch as I can
appreciate it, in the front end of the bell curve.
Now, I'm going to confess something here: I don't like food very much. I think I have a
compromised sense of smell and consequently taste. As a result, I'm pretty sure I'm on the
back end of the bell curve when it comes to culinary judgments. I can't even begin to tell
the difference between cuisine and fine foods; I bet I can't tell the difference between Red
Lobster and a high-end seafood restaurant. Many people tell me it's a really sad thing not to
have a well-developed sense of taste. I'm sure it's true. As a result, I fully admit that I am
in no position to judge what constitutes good and bad cuisine.
To illustrate how absurd your aesthetic position is, a blind man's judgment on photography is
no worse than Ansel Adams. Again, if that makes me elitist, then I'll take that over absurdity.
Ah, a cultural fascist. And what exactly 'ought' to be there and who exactly decides this?
The stuff that ought to be there is the stuff that's good and not the stuff that's crap. Go back
to my very first post, since you obviously find repeating something to be a sign of intellectual
weakness. In short, I don't think Vistesd second poem should be in a book of great poetry
in a curriculum for english majors. I'm dumbfounded that this seems 'fascist' to you.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioI don't deny that my opinion matters to what I pursue, or that other people's opinions matters to what they pursue. I've not denied that anywhere. All of I've said is that 50% of people, by definition, are below average and thus have below average tastes, and like below average things. Do you dispute this?
Originally posted by Palynka
[b]It's still the source that counts. In this case whether he knows what YOU like or not. It's dumbfounding that you cannot see that your post entails that the evaluation of at is as subjective as I'm defending it it. And I'm not talking about simply 'taste' here.
I don't deny that my opinion matters to what I purs ...[text shortened]... I'm dumbfounded that this seems 'fascist' to you.
Nemesio[/b]
Of course I dispute that. First of all, the key issue is if such an ordering of tastes makes sense. Secondly, aggregation of tastes (something you need to calculate an average) can only lead to popularity measurement, which is something you're denying.
To illustrate how absurd your aesthetic position is, a blind man's judgment on photography is no worse than Ansel Adams. Again, if that makes me elitist, then I'll take that over absurdity.
It's pretty obvious my view doesn't entail that. How can one even judge a photograph if he hasn't seen it?
The stuff that ought to be there is the stuff that's good and not the stuff that's crap.
Misdirection. Who and how does one decide what's good?
In short, I don't think Vistesd second poem should be in a book of great poetry in a curriculum for english majors.
I presume you meant his first. Such curricula are chosen on popularity. Popularity within a specific group, but popularity nonetheless. I have nothing against this, I just would like people to recognize it for what it is.
Originally posted by Palynka
Of course I dispute that. First of all, the key issue is if such an ordering of tastes makes sense. Secondly, aggregation of tastes (something you need to calculate an average) can only lead to popularity measurement, which is something you're denying.
You dispute that 50% of people are below the median?!? So the playing field is totally level;
there is no good or bad, just opinion? I guess feces really is as good tasting as chocolate, then.
It's pretty obvious my view doesn't entail that. How can one even judge a photograph if he hasn't seen it?
Your view doesn't entail having to see anything in order to judge it because there is no judgment,
just opinion. Consequently, my opinion on a piece of art I haven't seen is equally valid as a
person who has studied the work carefully.
Misdirection. Who and how does one decide what's good?
Take the people who are above the average you deny exists and have them explain (not proclaim)
why a piece of art is or is not good or bad, successful or unsuccessful or whatever. Yes, there
will be variance in that, but, just like any bell curve, certain works will stand out, and certain
ones will not. Of course, the people who are above the average will vary from field to field.
You see, this model entails a certain humility, a virtue which is not a strong point of people:
it requires that someone admit that they might not have the resources to evaluate something
meaningfully. It requires that someone admit that they might not be all that good at something.
It requires that someone admit that, perhaps, they like things of inferior quality, and what does
this say about them? Most importantly, it requires someone to admit that someone else
other than themselves might know better what is and is not good.
People want validation: if I like it, it's good. That's why I hear the eulogies I do.
Such curricula are chosen on popularity. Popularity within a specific group, but popularity nonetheless. I have nothing against this, I just would like people to recognize it for what it is.
No. If curricula were chosen on popularity alone, then they would nothing like they look today.
But, as you said, the decisions are made by a specific group. But on popularity? No. They
are made by the group of experts based on, not popularity, but on the criteria they, in their
expertise, evaluate as good or bad.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioYou dispute that 50% of people are below the median?!? So the playing field is totally level;
Originally posted by Palynka
[b]Of course I dispute that. First of all, the key issue is if such an ordering of tastes makes sense. Secondly, aggregation of tastes (something you need to calculate an average) can only lead to popularity measurement, which is something you're denying.
You dispute that 50% of people are below the median?!? So t ...[text shortened]... ity, but on the criteria they, in their
expertise, evaluate as good or bad.
Nemesio[/b]
there is no good or bad, just opinion? I guess feces really is as good tasting as chocolate, then.
I repeat: My point is that there isn't an objective distribution for which you can calculate mean, median, variance, kurtosis, skewness or whatever else you want to calculate.
Your view doesn't entail having to see anything in order to judge it because there is no judgment, just opinion.
Semantics.
The judgement validity to others is conditional on the individual expressing it, but its still needs to have validity to the individual itself. This is a misunderstanding. Just because something is a matter of opinion, doesn't mean it is completely meaningless to others. It is simply non-separable from the source.
Take the people who are above the average you deny exists and have them explain (not proclaim)
why a piece of art is or is not good or bad, successful or unsuccessful or whatever.
Circular reasoning.
To calculate an average (so that you can pick the people above it) you need to already have evaluated what's good and what's bad.
You see, this model entails a certain humility, a virtue which is not a strong point of people: (...) Most importantly, it requires someone to admit that someone else other than themselves might know better what is and is not good.
Were you see humility, I see submission. Nevertheless, the virtues or vices embedded in a model are irrelevant to its truth or accuracy.
They are made by the group of experts based on, not popularity, but on the criteria they, in their expertise, evaluate as good or bad.
The whole point is that those criteria are an aggregation of the current 'experts' tastes.
This is why so many artists were unrecognized when they did something different, yet years after their deaths were hailed as great artists. Did their work change? No. Objectively, there was absolutely no change in anything produced by them. What did change then? Simply, as society changed, so did the tastes (or more accurately, the popularity of tastes and therefore of certain criteria) of the so called 'experts'.
Originally posted by PalynkaI'm not asking whether I can calculate an 'objective' median. Like I said, an alien who sees
I repeat: My point is that there isn't an objective distribution for which you can calculate mean, median, variance, kurtosis, skewness or whatever else you want to calculate.
with insect eyes in spectra outside of our own will obviously be unable render judgment on human
art. I'm saying, given the human species, do you believe that there is no variance in artistic
capacity?
If you don't, then you are committed to the idea that there is no such thing as beauty, something
which science has already proven exists on a primal level (through proportion and symmetry).
Nemesio
Originally posted by Palynka
The judgement validity to others is conditional on the individual expressing it, but its still needs to have validity to the individual itself. This is a misunderstanding. Just because something is a matter of opinion, doesn't mean it is completely meaningless to others. It is simply non-separable from the source.
So if a man born completely colorblind renders a judgment on this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:seurat-La_Parade_detail.jpg
His opinion is of equal weight to a person with normal sight?
That is, there is no opinion that might constitute a more-informed opinion?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioHis opinion might even be of more weight...for other colourblind people.
Originally posted by Palynka
[b]The judgement validity to others is conditional on the individual expressing it, but its still needs to have validity to the individual itself. This is a misunderstanding. Just because something is a matter of opinion, doesn't mean it is completely meaningless to others. It is simply non-separable from the source. ...[text shortened]... ight?
That is, there is no opinion that might constitute a more-informed opinion?
Nemesio[/b]
His opinion is of equal weight to a person with normal sight?
Not equal. Equality presupposes objective measurement. His opinion has a different weight for different people.
Originally posted by NemesioDo you know that this 'proofs' of beauty are simply statistical aggregations of preferences and therefore (gasp,horror) based almost solely on popularity?
I'm not asking whether I can calculate an 'objective' median. Like I said, an alien who sees
with insect eyes in spectra outside of our own will obviously be unable render judgment on human
art. I'm saying, given the human species, do you believe that there is no variance in artistic
capacity?
If you don't, then you are committed to the idea that the ...[text shortened]... e has already proven exists on a primal level (through proportion and symmetry).
Nemesio
Originally posted by PalynkaUnless you think infants are sufficiently socialized as to have developed opinions, then you have
Do you know that this 'proofs' of beauty are simply statistical aggregations of preferences and therefore (gasp,horror) based almost solely on popularity?
to confess that these statistical aggregations are an a priori human disposition.
In any event, here is the implication of your absurd position. I believe that one of the two following
performances is better. You merely opine that one is more to your liking, and that this is
merely a product of popularity.
Nemesio
Edit: Another implication of your position: If you study and practice really hard, you don't
actually get better. You only get a different viewpoint by which to have an opinion.
Originally posted by PalynkaWell, there you go. I say that a colorblind person has an inferior ability to judge any art to a
Not equal. Equality presupposes objective measurement. His opinion has a different weight for different people.
person with 'colorsightedness,' all other factors being equal. Just like I think a paraplegic has an
inferior running ability to a person with the full use of his limbs. Just like I think a tonedeaf person
has an inferior ability to sing and so on. I mean, you have to consider 'run' and 'sing' as 'subjective
terms' in order to argue with that.
This 'everyone's opinion is valid' mentality is just a weird extension of political correctness.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioThe second one is better. In the first one, the fool didn't even bother to put on a pair of shoes for his worldwide audience.
In any event, here is the implication of your absurd position. I believe that one of the two following
performances is better. You merely opine that one is more to your liking, and that this is
merely a product of popularity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BR0RoLTBMxY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNWJAs4iBQ4
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioClearly you lack the necessary grounding and discipline to appreciate the pleasurable uses of feces. From the popular appeal of the 'Cleveland steamer' to the rigorous philosophy of the Marquis de Sade, feces has something for everyone. However, given your zeal for learning and unquestioned commitment, I'm sure you could develop a taste for it -- unless, as with atonal music, you just don't get it?
Which tastes better, feces or chocolate?
But seriously. Comparing feces and chocolate is a category mistake (I'll be sure to use 'feces & chocolate' instead of 'apples & oranges' from now on!). Nobody really considers feces to be food. If you want to isolate taste as sole criterion, well, you obviously picked feces for the 'shock value'. You could just have well have asked whether chocolate tastes better than socks (ignoring for now why anyone should eat socks ).
Which art is more worthy of being taught at schools -- kabuki theatre, Arabic calligraphy, or traditional Swedish felting? Within each genre, it is surely possible to distinguish superior performances from inferior, but is it possible to rank these three different art forms hierarchically?
Originally posted by NemesioDon't be ridiculous. Are you implying that children don't have individual tastes?
Unless you think infants are sufficiently socialized as to have developed opinions, then you have
to confess that these statistical aggregations are an a priori human disposition.
In any event, here is the implication of your absurd position. I believe that one of the two following
performances is better. You merely opine that one is mo ...[text shortened]... ou don't
actually get better. You only get a different viewpoint by which to have an opinion.
Also, if you affirm such statistical aggregations are an a priori human disposition, then you are equating popularity of personal tastes with 'good' or 'bad'. Thus, according to you, Britney Spears is 'better' than Chopin. If any position is 'absurd' here, then it's yours because of its glaring inconsistencies.
I believe that one of the two following performances is better. You merely opine that one is more to your liking, and that this is merely a product of popularity.
That's not the issue here. The performances are comparable because they are interpreting the same composition, which has a defined standard. That's different from comparing two different types of compositions.
If you study and practice really hard, you don't
actually get better. You only get a different viewpoint by which to have an opinion.
Wrong again. You get better according to the standard that you've chosen. But that choice of standard is a personal one.