This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Currently, it is popular to hold that AI will soon be able to do everything. If this is the case, it trivially follows that it will be able to "bring back beauty" too - not to say that it would, but simply that it could do so, among many other things. Ignoring hypothetical scenarios of godhood however, I currently see no evidence that AI is advancing the cause of beauty in any meaningful way, and indeed I only see evidence that AI is contributing to its increasingly rapid erosion.
Your last sentence seems to indicate that you embrace the following distinction, common enough in popular discourse: on the one hand we have "the people", who are in touch with "true beauty" (either because they understand it intuitively, or maybe because true beauty just is whatever the people want, or however you want to explain it); and then on the other hand we have "the art community", who, for reasons unknown, have chosen to make a bunch of ugly crap that doesn't mean anything to anyone and has no worth.
I don't wish to defend the current art establishment tout court - they really do make a lot of crap that doesn't mean anything to anyone and has no worth. We agree on that much. But still, I think those high-falutin' art snobs do get some things right (it would be weird if they were so dysfunctional that they got everything exactly wrong). I want to take this opportunity to respond to (what I think is) your conception of beauty, and explain some of my reasons for dissenting from it, as someone who's coming from "the other side of the fence" so to speak.
What really first unlocked my thinking on issues like this is the idea of comparing work in the arts to academic work in other fields. You can imagine a physicist who thinks that classical mechanics is just like, the shit - and not even the parts of classical mechanics that are still the subject of active research like chaotic systems, but specifically stuff like Newton's original laws of motion. He just only wants to solve high school physics problems all day, maybe collect some observations that confirm your standard high school physics equations, and... that's it. And if anyone tells him that if he wants to stay relevant and get grant money, he really should consider working on contemporary problems in string theory or condensed matter, he just responds with "nah, you lost me with all that abstract modern stuff; I'm only into the real good stuff, the classical stuff".
Everyone would think that he was rather missing the point and that he wasn't living up to his proper function as a physicist. The proper job of a physicist is to discover and invent new things, not just repeat what's already been said. This is a reasonable standard to hold for most intellectual activity, and the "art cabal" simply thinks that it should hold for art as well. Yes, that's a very fine painting of a sunny landscape/a woman in a trad dress/Jesus being crucified/whatever, we all agree that it's quite nice, but it's not new. We already know how to paint things like that and make them "beautiful". It's well-trodden territory, it presents no conceptual challenges, it has no capacity to surprise or perplex. It was new at one point - it used to be crucial, cutting-edge work - but now it is no longer new, and there comes a point where you simply have to move on.
Venturing into what is new and unexplored in art will inevitably bring us into contact with all that belongs to the tragic dimension of life - loss, regret, ambiguity, disconcerting feelings of all sorts, in other words all that an untrained eye will initially consider to be "ugly". But such a circuitous route can in fact reveal to us new types of beauty that remained invisible at an earlier stage of development. One of my favorite examples of this sort of "finding of light in the darkness" has always been The Ambassadors by Holbein the Younger - I could have selected a really out-there example to really drive the point home, like say, pretty much anything by Jeff Koons, but The Ambassadors works well as an example because the painting has a foot in "both worlds". It's an immaculately executed work of traditional realism, but it also gestures towards something strange and unsettling.
The painting's claim to notoriety is the giant distorted skull floating in the middle of what is otherwise a physically ordinary scene, seemingly unexplained. I think it is crucial that we take the flat 2D representation of the painting at face value; of course the trick is that the skull is anamorphic, and that if you stand in front of the painting from the right angle then the skull will appear as a full 3D object and will no longer be distorted, but this is one case where looking at a photograph on Wikipedia is actually better than seeing the painting in a gallery. In my view, the distortion of the skull is crucial for the overall aesthetic effect of the painting. Innumerable questions immediately present themselves: who are these guys? Where are they? No seriously, why is that skull there? Why is it compressed and slanted? It looks like it's kind of floating a bit? Does it even exist on the same plane of reality as the rest of the scene? The more you think about it, the more claustrophobic you start to feel - and of course there must be no comforting answer that the skull is "just" an anamorphic illusion that the painter included as a memento mori for discerning observers; that would deflate the tension, and above all our goal is to preserve the tension.
This sort of experience comes close to describing for me, not only beauty as such, but the aesthetic experience as such - this dawning realization, as you puzzle more and more and your attention gets more and more diverted, of "...what is that?". This is the experience that "aesthetic adrenaline junkies" are always chasing after, this feeling that you just got your head rearranged by the work. What separates kitsch, decoration, finery, mere objects, from capital-A Art, is that the former tend towards producing a reaction of "ah, that's nice". Art, on the other hand, "cuts into you", as Todd McGowan succinctly put it, the same way that the skull cuts into Holbein's painting. It's not supposed to be all sunshine and roses. It's supposed to take something from you at the same time that it gives.
Anyway to answer your question the answer is "no", plebs using AI to fill up the world with pictures of epic viking dudes staring straight into the camera is as far removed from beauty as the worst atrocities of the modern MFA/gallery system.
Beauty and "sunshine and roses" are not the same thing. The Fall of Icarus is both extremely beautiful and eloquently says as much about the human condition as some existentialists could only do in a whole book.
It's also wrong to conflate style with demandingness. Someone who wants more beautiful art isn't necessarily asking for more laziness. Again, I point to Bruegel's best works, which works at multiple levels: you can enjoy them at the level of their beauty, but you can also study and think about their details for hours, especially if you are familiar with their historical and intellectual context.
More options
Context Copy link
Plenty of classic art is not all sunshine and roses. Off the top of my head, "Saturn devouring his son", the many depictions of the rape of the Sabines, various treatments of Aeneas fleeing Troy, etc.
Compare to your example of MJ and Bubbles which as far as I can tell is just kitsch upper class countersignaling as lower class.
"Saturn devouring his son" is precisely the kind of work that, were it painted today, OP would point to as an example of ugliness in contemporary art.
OP as in @functor
In my experience, those who decry "ugly" art often conflate depicting ugly topics with aesthetic ugliness. Or perhaps it is more that they assume that the only purpose of art is to be beautiful. And they certainly don't limit their complaints to literal trash hung on walls.
On a related note, in this very thread, someone described "most" of the work here as "dreadful." (Italics in original). So, there is a lot more to the hostility to art that is not "traditional" than merely thinking that literal trash is not art.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
deleted
I agree; novelty and beauty are different.
I'm alright with some level of cleverness and novelty (e.g. Escher's fun sometimes), but I recognize that it's not beauty. But Escher isn't pretending to create something beautiful, so much as something interesting. It's also possible to have both, to some extent, of course.
There are at least two differently behaving phenomena for why we do not see beauty everywhere, so far as I can tell. Interestingness being high status is one. Art galleries and architecture are both probably symptoms of this. (Well, in architecture physical and legal constraints might affect the building of buildings, but I would be very surprised to find that this did not play a role.) But there is at least one more case, exemplified by the simplified designs used by companies and other entities (like the apple logo). I'm less sure how to analyze this. In some cases it just needs to be simple for functional reasons (see street signs). In others, it seems more to be going for a particular aesthetic.
Whatever the differences are, I would be a little surprised if the newfound cheapness of detailed imagery did not increase its prevalence.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is an interesting perspective and I thank you for it. That said, to follow your academia comparison, there are academic physicists and there are engineers. A lot of what us plebs want are the kind of things we get from the engineers of art. And very few people want engineers to design inefficient and difficult to use appliances because they might have internals that are fascinating to other engineers. It would make a lot of people really resentful if they had to buy vacuum cleaners and dish washers from the 90s because modern engineers were obsessed with putting pointless voids in the new ones and held in contempt anyone who demanded functionality, which I think is actually what is analogous to beauty here. Novelty is also important and I think the beauty/functionality crowd underrates it but there is also something underserved.
If you go to your random local downtown art scene or art galleries in a resort town you can find lots of beautiful landscape paintings. It's not that the sort of technically proficient but not novel 'engineer' art isn't being done it's just not high status and not advanced by big time museums and institutions. Look at paintings in the 4-7k range in online marketplaces, there's lots of people still doing beautiful representational art.
A fair point, but I also think there are some other factors playing into the dynamic. Perhaps it's the belief that these different types of art have their places and more and more on the plebian to art snob spectrum the art snobs have been pushing their preferences onto the plebians. Like when governments pay huge fees for things like the $10 million MLK sculture. New art meant to be transgressive and sense shocking has it's place, but it often feels like we're the both the butt of the joke and footing the bill for it. Where is all the recent big stuff with mass appeal? The best I can think of is graffiti art type stuff which I enjoy around Chicago.
Was there a time in history when the art that was championed by elites was also popular with the masses? I genuinely don't know. Renaissance artists never had the chance for economic reasons. Picasso and Monet were successful in their time but were they successful among non-art snobs of their time? Was there some period where the mass public and the art establishment agreed or has the mass public just accepted the past judgement of art establishments from centuries ago because old things are classy.
I don't think the issue with the MLK sculpture is that it's meant to be transgressive or groundbreaking. It's Martin and Coretta embracing, it has a straightforward meaning. The artists just did a bad job of considering what their sculpture would look like from all angles and the people involved in the procurement process didn't push back. That one seems like more of an indictment of city purchasing processes than the art establishment.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
But the reason it's cringeworthy to pursue only classical physics problems is not just that they've already been done... but that physics is about achieving physical mastery over reality. We have clockwork and Newton effectively locked down, we have general relativity and now we try to shrink transistors (ignoring what the particle physics have been doing, spending lots of money on with few returns for the last few decades). Physics has the promise to provide energy, bombs, computing power, better rockets and so on. The grant money is for opening up new territory that has resources in it. In maths, there are also returns - cryptographic and algorithmic and so on.
Art doesn't provide returns like that. Art only has to inspire emotions in people. Novelty does not improve this, in and of itself. It's not as though we've locked down all the poems and are moving on to poems 2. There are plenty of poems left to be written, plenty of landscapes and storms to make paintings about.
Indeed physics has been mired in an excessive search for novelty for some time now. String theory has not produced any returns. It might be mathematically interesting and novel but it's not powering anything new. It provides employment to physicists and allows for many papers to be written. But it doesn't achieve the fundamental goal of physics. Likewise, putting three basketballs in a tank or making a stainless steel balloon dog is not art.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2b/Three_Ball_Total_Equilibrium_Tank_by_Jeff_Koons%2C_Tate_Liverpool.jpg/440px-Three_Ball_Total_Equilibrium_Tank_by_Jeff_Koons%2C_Tate_Liverpool.jpg
http://www.jeffkoons.com/artwork/celebration/balloon-dog-0
Art must do more than confuse people. The Sydney Modern art gallery's $344 million expansion is a glorified convention centre - lots of empty space, little 'art' and almost no art. It's a place for people who want to look sophisticated to organize functions.
Is that true?
If we could inspire the same emotions by taking the relevant pills, would art be redundant?
Really the premise is a bit self-defeating. If art is meant to inspire emotion, it's meant to make you think. Something that sticks around in your head and makes you think will generate much more complex and long-lasting emotion than a simple aesthetic achievement.
Not only that, but there are important things much more important than emotion which art aspires to capture. Who cares about a moment of appreciation when you could induce a character change in someone and alter the course of their life? That is, I think, the true purpose of art--to change us--and other claimed purposes such as "to make us feel something" or "to make us think" are just gesturing towards smaller, less ambitious versions of its true purpose.
When I listen to a classical symphony, it doesn’t inspire change or really any ideation in me at all. It’s a pure aesthetic experience, designed to manipulate my emotions and make me feel enjoyment and awe. There’s no intellectual content there, no lasting alteration in my patterns of conscious thought, no epistemic or philosophical updates on offer. Do you believe that this makes classical music “not art”? Or is it art that is failing at its one true purpose? Did Beethoven just not understand that he was supposed to be changing people’s minds, rather than simply making something beautiful for them?
I don't accept the premise that any experience is incapable of producing change. Any awe you feel while listening to music will inescapably color your behavior throughout the day to some extent, and possibly make you see things in a slightly different light.
This is of course not limited to art, but I think the value of things in general is based on how they affect and change us. If art were purely aesthetic experience, with no lasting changes to attitude, perspective, philosophy, mood, etc. then I would find it valueless, yes. Luckily such an experience is impossible. Everything we do and experience changes us to some extent, or else it's no better than wireheading and should be discounted entirely.
Every year on my birthday, I eat a delicious piece of salted caramel cheesecake, as a treat. It’s pure sugar and fat, an indulgence of atavistic hungers programmed in me by evolution. It’s orgasmically delicious in the moment, but also terrible for me, which is why I do it once a year. Is there intellectual content in my consumption of the cheesecake? Does it “produce a change in me”? Is the cheesecake art? It is a physical artifact produced by hand by a human being, with the intention of generating an emotional/aesthetic experience in the consumer. Like a classical symphony, it produces a transitory, evanescent sense of elation in me. (Thank God Beethoven’s 9th Symphony doesn’t put 1,300 calories of pure junk food into my body every time I listen to it.)
I used to draw a distinction between “art” and “entertainment”, using an exclusive definition of art the way you are now. Over time, though, I accepted that the distinction is illusory, and that there is nothing wrong with consuming content that is designed purely to excite me aesthetically and to cater to my current preferences, rather than to alter them.
I suppose I'm trying to remove the distinction from art and entertainment from the other direction--by saying that all entertainment is art, rather than that all art is entertainment. Would you eat the cheesecake if you knew that afterwards you'd forget eating it? I think even for the very most carnal pleasures (besides drugs) most of the enjoyment we get from them is still from the meaning we derive from them.
That said, at this point "art" doesn't really seem to be what I'm talking about, so I agree with your point to an extent. I don't know if I could truly define what art is, but I can say that it's not just to make us feel something and then that's the end of it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Would art be redundant if we could inspire the same changes by popping pills?
It's a strange hypothetical. Good art causes you to reflect and compare/contrast your own thoughts and experiences to the art. The pill would have to have some sort of intellectual effect in addition to its weak calming effect (or whatever emotional effect it is that art has on you). I'd go so far as to say the only way for it to inspire the same change would be for it to be the same thing. So yes, if we could hallucinate art by popping pills, maybe there would be less need for physical art.
Ah, I see. So the changes induced by art (when carrying out its true purpose) have an intrinsic intellectual element, tied to the item of art itself? Seems quite plausible to me, though I'm no expert on the topic.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes.
The Experience Machine is a dumb philosophical quandry IMO. If reality and illusion are identical from the observer's perspective, what's the difference? What is valuable about a painting? The structure of its molecules? The pattern of light it produces? That's nothing without an observer to see it. Surely it must be the product of the thoughts and emotions that it inspires in those who view it. If you can remove the light and the molecules but keep the thoughts and emotions, then nothing of value is lost.
People's preferences are usually asymmetric over the two.
But if they can't tell the difference, then what is the meaning of the preference? If illusion can't be disproven then it differs from reality in name only.
I don't know what you mean by that phrase.
Why not also in fact? There's nothing mysterious about the notion of someone being trapped in an illusory state.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link