On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 6:36 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 3/20/2015 3:43 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 9:25 AM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 20 March 2015 at 20:57, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> A fundamental difference in science is that peer reviewers are other >>> scientists, working on their own research. There are no professional >>> critics in science. >>> >>> That's true (I think). But there are plenty of commentators and so >> on, as well as science popularisers, and some scientists who are critical >> of others outside their areas of expertise. And some who are just critical >> of others full stop (Fred Hoyle was one I believe). >> > > True, but notice that art critics are not merely commentators. They more > or less decide which artists become financially successful, which will then > influence what you are likely to see at a museum of modern art or an > exhibition. In science, although it doesn't hurt to have good press, your > success is mostly determined by your colleagues. Peer-reviews and > citations. In sports it's perhaps even more meritocratic: the commentators > can say what they want, but a football player who converts a high > percentage of kicks into goals will be hired by a top team. > > I sense that Brent is perhaps suggesting that art is mostly bullshit. > > > Not that it's bullshit, but that it's social - at least "high art" is > social. > I agree. > Art critics don't generally work in the field of popular art, e.g. > popular music. "Popular" means the hoi polloi know what they like. > That is true, but I think it is also true that popular can also mean accessible. I know from personal experience that there is, for example, music that is hard to appreciate in the beginning. It poses a challenge. You can hate it at first, then gradually understand the language and grow to love it. The problem is that the world is awash with music that I will hate at first, so I need some recommendations. There is nothing wrong with only enjoying popular art, but one could also be missing on more rich experiences. So my claim is that art being social has a benign side to it. It's too subjective to treat in any other way. > So we mainly need art critics to tell us how we should appreciate > something new and NOT popular. But I do find it amusing when an art form > starts to draw critics who will "refine" it. But of course they don't > argee on what is to be refined. A few years ago there was an "artistic" > feud between a couple of L.A. DJs who had elevated themselves to critics of > hip-hop. > > I don't think there are science critics (except maybe theologians and > creationists). But investment advisors, the kind who write weekly > newsletters, are very close analogs of art critics. > Agreed. Telmo. > > Brent > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
